Human Resources Case Study

Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: “Now and Around the Corner”, pages 119–143. Copyright © 2019 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 119

CHAPTER 6

WEARABLES IN THE WORKPLACE

An Analysis of Ethical Issues

James S. Bowman and Jonathan P. West

Wearables are mini-computers and sensors near, on, or in the body (e.g., smart phones, watches, implants), enabling mobility, connectivity, and applications that can encourage or compromise engagement and collaboration (Vaze, 2014).1 Many of these devices offer anytime-anywhere access and have the ability to record, track, interpret, report, and store a wide array of behavioral, medical, and cog- nitive data. The expanding use of wearables is attributed to technical advances in data analytics, micro-electro-mechanical systems, robotics, biometrics, neu- roscience, nanotechnology, and integrated optics (Ajunwa, Crawford, & Schultz, 2017).2

One in five people in the United States own a personal wearable and one in ten use it on a daily basis (Ubiq Team, 2015). With fitness devices leading the way, over ten percent of American organizations issue them, and eight percent are con-

1 “Consumers want to lump smart phones into the wearable category,” because they are already “wear- ing” them everywhere (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2014, p. 6).

2 Selected portions of this chapter are adapted from West & Bowman, 2016a; 2016b)

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 . I n f o r m a t i o n A g e P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS AN: 2006258 ; Ronald R. Sims.; Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: 'Now and Around the Corner' Account: s4264928.main.eds

120 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

sidering adoption (Brin, 2016). Employers can now outfit employees with body- worn instruments that measure brain activity, document moods and movements, and analyze voice, facial expressions, and posture. The objective is to optimize performance and productivity in personnel and organizations by integrating smart technology with work. Some three-fourths of workers around the world say they are willing to try wearable tools if they help them do their jobs (Kronos, Inc., 2014). By 2018, two million employees worldwide likely will be required to wear such equipment as a condition of employment (Gartner, Inc., 2015; Manokha, 2017).

While products like Google Glass and Apple Watch are not yet widely adopted, as the technology evolves high performance, light-weight wearables may impact daily life like personal computers did near the end of the last century. The global market for the technology is projected to balloon to $70 billion by 2025 (Aubrey, 2016). The research firm Tractica estimates that more than 75 million smart in- struments will be deployed in the workplace by 2020 (Bell, 2016). Many of these devices were originally cobbled together from mobile phone parts not designed as wearables, but rapid miniaturization, extended battery life, growing sophistica- tion, and falling costs suggest that they could become the next multi-billion unit and transformational market (Hsieh, Komisar, Jazayeri, &Yeh, 2016).

Fort, Raymond, and Shackelford (2016, p. 146) capture the promise and pros- pects of the “wearable revolution” in America:

Seventy-nine percent of [organization] adopters agree that wearables are or will be strategic to their company’s future success. Seventy-six percent report improve- ments in business performance … And early adopters such as construction, man- ufacturing, energy, oilfield services, and medical industries have now developed short, yet supportable, improvement in efficiency with fewer job-related mistakes.

The advent of this technology suggests the need to shift from what such smart- wear can do to the effects that may accompany its proliferation. With nearly every aspect of work now quantifiable, the issue is not whether wearable engineering will expand, but rather how it will affect employer-employee dynamics in all workplaces regardless of economic sector.

The purpose of this study, then, is to address the question, “What are the ethi- cal issues that need attention when wearable technology is used in public, private, and non-profit organizations? Body-worn computer devices will be common at work, transforming the way daily operations are conducted. Value conflicts will develop as managers seek to capitalize on these new technologies for efficiency gains while raising cost-effectiveness, fairness, privacy, security and integrity problems. How will values be managed and balanced against each other? Al- though professional publications and practitioner magazines discuss smartware and sometimes the ethical cautions associated with it, curiously these concerns have not yet surfaced in the academic literature.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 121

This scholarly oversight is addressed by considering how smartware will af- fect organizations. The background section reviews the ubiquity of the attire and its accoutrements. The core of the inquiry examines arguments for and against these tools, using classical philosophical and modern behavioral approaches to ethics. Although the goal is primarily descriptive and analytical, the conclusion discusses guidelines and future use of this innovation at work and lessons for hu- man resource professionals.

BACKGROUND

Organizations have long sought ways to maximize employee efficiency, most fa- mously in Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s time-motion studies a century ago. Facili- tated by wearable devices, present-day efficiency initiatives go beyond classical studies to directly scrutinize individual physiological heart and brain functions that underlie behavior. The focus has changed from analyzing the job by breaking down its components to studying the individual to improve efficiency (Ajunwa et al., 2017). Wearables provide data that were not previously easy to gather, as the technology can (a) surveil physical and environmental changes, (b) process information, perform calculations, assign tasks, give instructions, and (c) identify training needs (Gale, 2016). In so doing, organizations can monitor, track and un- derstand employee activities, speeding access to information, interpreting policy, and allowing hands-free use of data.

The industry believes that there could be 130 million wearable devices on wrists, heads, and bodies at home and the office worldwide by 2018, an adoption rate comparable to tablet computers (Clancy, 2014). IDTECHEX found the global market to be worth more than $30 billion in 2016, reaching over $150 billion by 2026 (Hayward, Chansin, & Zervos, 2016). The overall consensus of market research is that the technology will continue to develop, permeate the workplace, and change the way work is done. Public sector adoption is expected to be slower than the private sphere due to costs, but analysts agree that it is a matter of when, not if (Infiniti, 2015).

Although still in a nascent stage, engineering advances have combined to produce a remarkable differentiation in digitally enabled clothing and accesso- ries: backpacks, anklets, shoes, badges, caps, hoods, lanyards, gloves, jewelry, patches, glasses, contact lenses, “hearables,” medallions, tattoos, implants, and skin-grown electronics. Scientists are developing brain chips that may improve cognitive tasks, including intelligence and memory. The expanding presence of these instruments is driven by: the promise of data-driven efficiencies (to reduce waste), the power of convenience (to make tasks easier), and the “selfie culture” desire to be connected and entertained (to belong and socialize in new ways).

The data provided by wearables, and the algorithms that drive them, are a critical component of the Internet of Things—the infrastructure of the Informa- tion Society. It connects “everything”: anything with an on-off switch that can be connected will be connected (people-people, people-things, and things-things) by

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

122 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

getting them on to one network. Network connectivity automatically collects and exchanges data and generates insights into the use and explanation of data (Inter- national Institute for Analytics, 2015). Everything and everyone will become a node on the network with increasing fusion and crossover between wearables and the Internet of Things. According to one projection, a trillion networked devices will be hooked up worldwide by 2028 (Corsello, 2013).

Internet of Things encompasses not only smart wearables, but also smart en- terprises and smart government (Perera, Liu, & Jayawardena, 2015). At the indi- vidual level, smart devices will merge seamlessly into daily life as activity track- ers, for example, record pulse, connect to medical records, alert medical staff, and identify the nearest health care facility. At the organizational level, among the many applications, employers can promote healthy lifestyles and leverage the data to negotiate insurance premiums as well as gather environmental data to op- timize office energy consumption. At the municipal level, Barcelona is “the most wired city in the world” as the application of digital principles has improved wa- ter management, street lighting, parking, and public transportation.3 Smart cities promise enhancements in disaster response, sustainability, security, education, ad- ministrative efficiency, and convenience. A firefighter outfitted with smart glasses, for instance, can listen to instructions, see the floorplan of a burning building, and call for support as she looks for residents.

Yet, greater processing power, diminishing costs, and robust post-9/11 legal authorities permit the wholesale acquisition of largely unprotected data. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has proposed limitations on the types and use of information that can be collected from personnel with wearables (Ubiq Team, 2016). Indeed, implementation of this new technology is not immune to discrimination, privacy, security, data storage, self-incrimination, and harassment issues and allegations. Since many concerns arising from wear- ables are not clearly addressed in existing legislation, EEOC regulations may of- fer needed job-related guidelines on how programs can be compliant with relevant health and labor relations legislation.4

However, the asymmetrical relationship between employers and employees, exemplified by the at-will employment doctrine, generally means that an employ- er’s legitimate management interests are accorded paramount importance over employee rights (self-identifying reference removed). American employment contracts, in fact, often require agreement with administrative practices, includ-

3 Smart cities are also underdevelopment in South Korea, China, and the United States and will inte- grate wearable devices into the environment embedded with sensors (Taylor, 2014).

4 This body of law includes the: Americans with Disabilities Act (generally forbids inquiries about health), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits asking about genetic information), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (establishes standards to protect personal health information), National Labor Relations Act (permits employees to discuss terms of employment, in- cluding personal data collection and surveillance which could chill free speech), and Stored Commu- nication Act (creates Fourth Amendment-like privacy protection for digital communications stored on the internet) and their state and local analogues.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 123

ing the waiver of legal protections (Ajunwa et al., 2017). Further, organizations may need to update their communication, confidentiality, and dress code policies to clearly state that wearables are employer-issued, and their use is expected.

The growth of smartwear, in summary, potentially will have a widespread ef- fect by 2025 in reducing inefficiencies in the movement of goods, people and information; improving decisions as data overtakes intuition; and avoiding errors in planning and assumptions (J.P. Rangaswami in Anderson, 2014). In fact, the remarkable nature of smartwear has received attention in trade magazines, the business press, nonprofit and consulting firm reports, blogs, newspapers, and law reviews. Yet it has garnered very little coverage in scholarly policy and manage- ment journals, and even less consideration has been devoted to emerging ethical questions.5 It is prudent, therefore, to examine conflicting claims because ethical ramifications are often overlooked or subsumed into other topic areas. Wearables and the Internet of Things hold possibilities that were science fiction a generation ago. Management models and the nature of the work may profoundly change, resulting in a wearable utopia, dystopia, or something in between. Given that technology often out paces policy, it is critical that stakeholders confront difficult questions, avoid hurried judgements, and employ reliable decision-making pro- cesses when adopting wearables at work.

METHODOLOGY

A variety of decision-making strategies could illuminate whether or not wearable deployment is ethical, but two are particularly helpful because their comprehen- sive scope reduces the chances of an incomplete assessment: the ethics triad and behavioral ethics (Table 6.1).

The ethics triad or triangle (Svara, 2014) recognizes the complementarity and interdependence of the imperatives in three schools of thought based on: results of an action (consequentialism or teleology), pertinent rules (duty ethics or deontol- ogy), and personal integrity or character (virtue ethics).

When considering results the question is, “Which policy produces the greatest good for the greatest number?” (e.g., “Would I want my decision to be in the news- papers tomorrow?”). In contemplating rules, the issue is, “Would I want everyone else to make the same decision that I did?” (e.g., do no harm). From the virtue ethics vantage point, one might ask, “What would a person of integrity do?” (e.g., seek the “golden mean” between the extremes of excess and deficiency). This inclusive, yet succinct, tool can provide a defensible evaluation by teasing out the underlying logic by which decisions are justified (for further discussion, see self-identifying

5 Although employee surveillance and privacy issues are long-standing research topics (see, e.g., self-identifying reference removed), wearables—with the partial exception of police body-worn cameras—have not been explored in academic periodicals. The “pre-wearable” technology surveil- lance literature (most of the references below published prior to 2013) was consulted when it shed light on smartwear.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

124 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

reference removed). However, an overreaching application of a single perspective, at the expense of the others, holds considerable dangers—expediency (results-based ethics), rigid rule application (rule-based ethics), and self-justification (virtue-based ethics). In light of the shortcomings of the individual perspectives, it is evident that this eclectic, amalgamated technique can be helpful.

Nonetheless the philosophical method has been criticized for its failure to link moral theorizing and ethical action (Gazzaniga, 2008). This suggests that other factors—unconscious biases, moral emotions, unintentional blindness—are likely

TABLE 6.1. Philosophical and Behavioral Methodologies: Complementary Ap- proaches

(A) The philosophical approach recognizes three schools of thought based on:

Consideration of results, rules, and virtues, this “ethics triad” can enable a balanced, defensible decision (Svara, 2015).

Consequentialism or Teleology Expected results of an action

Duty Ethics or Deontology Application of moral rules

Virtue Ethics Personal character

Employing “Ockham’s Razor”* to cut to the essence of an argument, three queries can be posed:

Which decision produces the greatest good for the greatest numbers?

Would I want everyone else to come to the same conclusion that I did?

Does the decision improve my character and that of my community?

An over emphasis on one school of thought, at the expense of the others, risks:

Expediency Rigid rule application

Self-justification

*Use the simplest possible explanation of a problem, and only make it more complex when absolutely necessary. Adding qualifications, explanations may make a position less elegant, less convincing—and less correct.

(B) Behavioral ethicists believe that to improve policy-making, psychological tendencies leading to unethical decisions should be taken into account. To explain human actions, insights like the following are germane:

(1) Bounded rationality Human rationality is constrained by the situation and cognitive limitations

(2) Decision framing The manner in which a situation is defined can affect the outcome

(3) Confirmation bias Gathering information that conforms to pre-existing beliefs without objectively evaluating all evidence

(4) Herd behavior In cases of uncertainty, people tend to follow the crowd and/or experts because they seem know more

(5)Action bias The felt pressure to do something

(6) Unconscious incompetence Lack of awareness about one’s own ignorance

(7) Overconfidence Over-estimating the ability to make sound decisions

(8) Ethical fading Visceral responses (e.g., denial) or situational factors (e.g., incrementalism) become dominant

(9) Naïve idealism The belief that one’s own view reflects reality and is shared by others

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 125

to influence conduct (Shao, Aquino, & Freedman, 2008) as shown in Table 6.1 (panel B). Behavioral ethicists believe that to improve policy-making, psycho- logical tendencies leading to unethical decisions should be taken into account. Subliminal cognitive tendencies, feelings, intuition, and perceptions are at least as important in affecting conduct as logic, reason, and calculation.

Thus, for example, bounded rationality and decision framing—as well as ac- tion bias, herd behavior, and ethical fading—can lead to unintentional minimiza- tion of genuine moral concerns. Similarly, naïve idealism (like confirmation and over confidence biases) could mean a failure to involve important stakeholders in policymaking and implementation decisions. Behavioral ethics ideas are not nec- essarily new, but what is new is the growing evidence that behavior is less under conscious control than previously believed.

The heroic assumptions of the philosophical approach–that individuals are uni- versally rational, possess full information, and have the willpower to use it–often do not hold in real life. For Bazerman and Tenbrunsel (2011), the goal is to be pre- pared for the unconscious psychological forces that routinely impact decisions. In short, while the philosophical approach focuses on what constitutes a balanced, ethical decision, behavioral ethics helps predict and explain why a decision may be deficient. It does not replace traditional methods, but supplements them to better describe how choices are made. The philosophical and behavioral ethics analyses may not produce definitive answers; they do, however, provide direction by probing the reasoning used to explain conduct. Individual ethical theories may lead to different assessments, but these differences must be assessed, not passed over. Not necessarily good or bad, wearables can be problematic.

The nascent wearables era makes it difficult—and crucial—to scrutinize the promise and problems of this technology. To take into account contending inter- ests, body-worn computers will be investigated using the classical philosophical perspective, followed by a behavioral ethics analysis. The study, which intended to provide equal space to competing claims, reflects the nature of the literature: much of it is promotional with limited discussion of risks. Accordingly, possible advantages are counterbalanced here by an examination of drawbacks. Given space limitations, the authors attempt to use Ockham’s Razor to cut to the essence of arguments: use the simplest possible explanation of a problem, and only make it more complex when absolutely necessary, as adding qualifications may make a position less elegant, less convincing, and less correct.

FINDINGS

Technology is often seen as neutral, but each technology has embedded values, and the decision to deploy it is to adopt those values (cf., Verbeek, 2011). Data- generating wearables can be regarded either as a justifiable, impartial practice serving the interests of all or an oppressive technique catering to the interests of some at the expense of others. The discussion here weighs the ethical issues in the use of these devices.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

126 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

The focus is on general arguments and generic management concepts that can be applied to particular national circumstances to test their relevance in diverse types of organizations. It refrains from examining either the highly technical as- pects of wearables or precise policy provisions. Case-specific details—the host institution and the environmental context within which the technology operates— are important, but fundamental principles are at least as compelling. As will be seen, the inquiry is necessarily speculative and anticipatory, because little empiri- cal work is available. While affirmative and negative contentions raise significant concerns, few are conclusive.

RESULTS-BASED ANALYSIS

In consequentialism, the best policy results in “the greatest good for the greatest number.” What is right is that which creates the largest amount of human happi- ness with the least harm. This utilitarian approach is helpful in seeking the com- mon good. As a key indicator of this criterion, the advantages and disadvantages of wearables are examined on the grounds of cost-effectiveness—i.e., the time, effort, and money to achieve the greater good is clearly worth it.

In Support of Wearables. Advocates contend that these devices, by tran- scending the practical restraints of earlier technology and enhancing cost-effec- tiveness, facilitate maximization of resources. Cheaper, smaller, with greater data capacity and allowing continuous operation, their use in the workplace increases productivity (Frankel, 2016; Newman, 2015; Wilson, 2013). Administrators, in a data-driven approach to managing people, will have dashboards to monitor and track performance indicators that, in turn, can be predicted and incentivized.

Wearables also aid in promoting efficiency by collecting consistent, moment- to-moment personal information (e.g., alerting personnel to hazardous conditions or a dangerously high heart rate) and enabling Big Data analytics (e.g., sending drivers safety warnings or recommending rest breaks). As noted, the technology can document activity, enable access to real-time information, serve as a training tool, improve data accuracy, streamline procedures, furnish on-going performance feedback, and provide improved service. Manual processes such as logging in and completing reports could be simplified; a census taker, for instance, could send data directly to a central data base.

Assuming a healthy workforce is a productive workforce, organizational ef- fectiveness also can be achieved by offering smartwear as part of a wellness program: employees are given fitness devices as an incentive to participate and to receive reduced health insurance premiums (Lavalliere, Burstein, Arezes, & Coughlin., 2016). Overall and if early experiences hold, knowing that they are being monitored, personnel will act in a more productive manner. An effectively performing workforce believes it is contributing to the common good. When judi- ciously implemented, wearables foster cost-effectiveness.

In Opposition. The very features that attract managers to smart technology concern skeptics, as the positive uses can distract attention from the dangers they

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 127

pose. It should be evident, opponents argue, that this technology is more than merely one more innovation. Wearable attire and applications have the capacity to record, store, analyze, and report more personal data than any other workplace device.6

Ethical risks associated with these body-worn computers that impact cost- effectiveness include: (a) manipulation, (b) utility, (c) security, (d) tracking, and (e) data quality (Fort, Raymond, & Schackelford, 2015, p. 21; Sunstein, 2015, p. 25). Concerning manipulation, consider the employer who extracts data from a wearable device that shows an employee with a serious disease, and then finds a pretext to terminate them to avoid an insurance liability. Another risk may occur under the Americans with Disability Act if fitness data identify “less active” em- ployees who are then denied promotions based on such reports.

The utility of wearables to enhance performance, second, are not as problem- free as proponents suggest. Tools like Google Glass allow the real world to be overlaid with data enabling multi-tasking. Yet, the volume, velocity, and variety of information supplied can be overwhelming, producing “data fatigue.” The gog- gles can be distracting when displaying information (e.g., e-mail, web searches), diverting attention and diminishing work quality, as employees become disen- gaged from actual work and concentrate on material appearing on the lens (Haber- man, 2013). Indeed, it is well-established when two relatively complex tasks are done at the same time, performance deteriorates substantially (Norman, 2013).

Additionally, incentivizing behavior by offering extrinsic financial rewards of- ten backfires when internal motivation is crowded out at the expense of the public interest (Drevitch, 2017).7 Rutkin (2014) concludes that there is little research to show that employees with wearable tech actually are more productive. This may help explain why people are generally uncomfortable with others knowing their productivity (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2014, p. 41). Further, organizational lia- bility can be created when devices like smart glasses allow individuals to covertly make video and audio recordings.

Third, as the technology races ahead of security measures, data hacking, as well as breaches from human error, have plagued public, private and nonprofit organizations (Identity Theft Resource Center, 2015). Given widespread system vulnerabilities, security researcher Rob Graham states that security is “laughably bad” (Porup, 2016), a problem that could clearly undermine confidence in the employer. Fourth, tracking worker movements can be stressful; even though ag- gregated data may be anonymized, employee trust can be put at risk. Relatedly,

6 It is not unreasonable, in light of the 2013 National Security Agency expose, to suggest that employ- ers might take undue advantage of these new tools.

7 When the Boston fire department reacted to an increase in sick leave on Mondays and Fridays, it imposed a limit of 15 sick leave days. Over the next year, the total number of days taken more than doubled—i.e., when the department treated the firefighter as a self-interested economic man, they responded accordingly. Both the department’s and employees’ sense of duty was crowded out, as the new policy implied that workers were not professionally motivated (Drevitch, 2017).

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

128 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

there are difficulties of gaining real performance benefits from anonymized data sets (Gray, 2015).

A final dimension of cost-effectiveness is wearable-derived productivity data can be mistake-prone and invalid. Fibit, for instance, states that it “does not rep- resent, warrant or guarantee that its trackers can deliver the accuracy…of medical devices” (Chauriye, 2016, p. 501). Even with sound information, imperfect prox- ies are typically used when performance cannot be measured directly. Because current sensor technology is “notoriously unreliable” (Senemar, 2015), deciding how information will be interpreted to justify personnel actions could give rise to charges of discrimination and lawsuits. In addition, smartwear can easily be taken off, worn by others, or used to falsify data. In a time of dissemination of inaccurate information, that dismisses or confuses facts with “alternative facts,” it is critical that measures be in place to safeguard data. When records, in short, are misused, a work environment can be created that damages morale and performance. A single- minded emphasis on quantitative measurements, then, can erode personal dignity and high quality work, give rise to feelings of mistrust and resentment, and foster a divisive mentality in the workplace (Blakemore, 2005).

From a results-oriented perspective, in sum, what is ethically correct is the consequences of an action on the greatest good. Dependency asymmetry between institutions and individuals can suggest that smart technology is cost-effective. It, however, can be problematic due to potential: data-gaming, performance, re- cording, security, tracking, and data error or misuse concerns. Paternalistic and manipulative use of wearables, as well as the technology’s vulnerability, can en- danger the ethical rights of the workforce (Michael, 2014).

Yet, an over-emphasis on any single part of the ethics triad may produce an inadequate decision. Advocates might think that the greatest benefit is found, but perhaps the decision is simply expedient. Opponents, in seeking the most good, may be susceptible to opportunistic, self-serving behavior. In the discussion of the effects of smartwear both sides rely on prediction, the accuracy of which is a well-known weakness in human behavior. In light of these concerns, attention now shifts to the second school of thought.

PRINCIPLE-BASED ANALYSIS

In principle-based decision-making certain actions are inherently right (e.g., promise keeping) or wrong (e.g., inflicting harm), irrespective of predicted con- sequences. This approach is useful because officials are expected to follow the principles found in the Constitution, court cases, laws and regulations, and or- ganizational codes and policies. In deciding what rule to apply, the person asks, “Would I want everyone else to do what I did?” (stated differently, “what is good for one is good for all”). In examining competing positions, the emphasis here is on fairness and privacy.

In Support. Advocates hope to foster fair treatment of individuals, and avoid capricious actions; public and private institutions have responsibility to use tech-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 129

nology appropriately by gathering and using accurate, consistent, and impartial personal information. Properly implemented, wearables promise sound policies and objective administration, thereby fostering procedural and distributive justice and promoting social welfare. Adherence to best practice policies (e.g., transpar- ency, consent, notice) can mitigate objections so that what is good for one is good for all should naturally develop.

Regarding privacy, during the last decade video monitoring of daily life has become the “new normal.” It follows, wearables can be seen as just one more manifestation of the use of technology for the social well-being. Federal agen- cies are required by the 2002 E-Government Act to prepare privacy impact as- sessments before authorizing programs that collect data; these statements must stipulate the purpose for, use of, and access to the information gathered. Further, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) provides some limits on electronic communications (self-identifying reference removed). While ad- ministrators have wide discretion in deploying wearables, awareness of ECPA provisions, consultation with IT professionals, and employee agreement is pru- dent. Nonetheless, to the extent that the technology includes increased security or safety at the expense of privacy, many may find the trade-off acceptable (Pricewa- terhouseCoopers, 2014). Collection of personal data, moreover, can have a deter- rent effect—if someone has nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear.

Finally, the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution (unreasonable search and seizure) includes a reasonable expectation of privacy for public servants and may furnish a benchmark for private sector decision making. State constitutions often contain privacy protections, but determinations regarding whether an indi- vidual’s rights have been violated depend on an expectation of privacy that does not diminish the employer property rights. Employers may have a valid interest in collecting information on employees, but should be sure that it is an impartial management practice (Abril, Levin, & Del Riego, 2012; self-identifying reference removed). The upshot is that privacy can be safeguarded by law-abiding behavior and by the constitution. Generally, the use of new technologies has been seen as extension of traditional management prerogatives.

In Opposition. Data gathering often over-reaches, and when this occurs it is neither fair nor necessary. Over 80 per cent of citizens indicate concern that wear- ables, by making them more visible and vulnerable, invade their privacy (Price- waterhouseCoopers, 2014, p. 31). Adding to this apprehension is that there are reduced expectations for privacy on the job: employee work spaces, as well as electronic devices owned by the employer, can be searched without permission.

Organizations, in fact, may condition employment upon workers acquiescing to such restrictions. It is arguable whether valid consent exists under these asymmetri- cal, coercive conditions. Indeed, at least in America, standard notice-and-consent provisions in employment contracts serve as a seal of approval for surveillance (Ajunwa et al., 2017, p. 42). As Ball and Margulis (2011, p. 115) point out, consent is “rarely, if ever, freely given [as it] serves to perpetrate existing inequities and

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

130 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

creates new ones.” Use of wearable data under these circumstances violates both the categorical imperative (“what is good for one is good for all”) and the “golden rule” (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). Employers would be reluctant, for example, to accept employee tracking of their behaviors.

Further, few individuals operating behind the Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” would, a priori, approve of tracking (Rawls, 2005). Not only is there a concern for creating panoptic effects (e.g., not knowing when one is watched, resulting in acting as if always being watched), but who monitors the monitors? Management, critics believe, regards employee monitoring to be their prerogative (Michael, 2014): whether it should be introduced is seldom up for debate (Sarpong & Rees, 2014). Detrimental effects occur when data are used to intimidate and punish; it can also take the form of voyeurism, identifying whistleblowers, and creating pre- tenses to investigate workers (Ciochetti 2011). Body-worn computer applications may promote a climate of distrust, and can violate human rights by harming the quality of life, demeaning the individual, and treating people like property. Resis- tance could be anticipated if the use of smartwear impacts the employer-employee relationship by giving more power to institutions. The failure of many organiza- tions to have their IT policies manage the effect of wearables only exacerbates the situation (Influx of Wearable Technology in the Workplace, 2015).

In addition, smart technology holds potential to usurp individual privacy: if a device is employer-issued, is used for job-related purposes, and notice is provid- ed, then the employee has little expectation of privacy.8 The privacy issues above (technical capacity, the “nothing-to-hide” argument, and Fourth Amendment pro- tections), therefore, warrant further discussion. First, although in some respects wearables represent just another step in technological progress, they magnify the risk to privacy due to the very personal nature of the information collected. Ball and her colleagues (2016) express caution that “harvesting” data from employees raises problematic ethical questions given .”..the expansion of big data into public interest settings such as energy consumption, education and health” (p. 62). For example, these authors cite organizations that gather individuals’ Fitbit-derived health information, and then sell it to health care providers for marketing pur- poses. Other third parties (e.g., an insurance agent, loan officer, criminal prosecu- tor, or potential employer) could be interested in such material as well. Extract- ing, analyzing, and sharing records may help institutions to maximize returns and minimize risks (see Smith, 2016), while compromising individual privacy.

Second, the nothing-to-hide concern is misplaced; the issue is not about what people want to conceal, but about the power of institutions. Even if an individual has done nothing wrong, organizations can cause harm. The unequal relation- ship between business or government and employees, for instance, is exacerbat- ed when critical components of privacy—the command persons have over their

8 The increasing use of bringing your own device (BYOD) to the job does not necessarily create an expectation of worker privacy, because the organization’s “policy can define the scope of any expec- tation” (Mehta, 2014, p. 633).

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 131

confidential information and their control over the access others have to it—are subsumed by the organization (Knapp & Soylu, 2013). The nothing-to-hide argu- ment, it should be evident, can justify nearly any level of intrusion.

Some organizations sensitive to legal and privacy concerns have taken ac- tion. To illustrate, USAA insurance company prohibits employees from wearing Google Glass fearing that the device might compromise privacy by secretly re- cording video or audio of people near them at work (Olson, 2015). The problem is not simply about secrecy, but also “accumulation” (compiling and interpreting small bits of data) and “exclusion” (being barred from learning how information is used) (Solove, 2011). Stated differently, are the right kinds of data collected for the right reasons—and how is that known? Some polls suggest that respondents support wearables or are remarkably unconcerned about the impact of the devices. Yet these same surveys find that employees may doubt that benefits outweigh the risks to privacy (e.g., PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2014). For instance, the deterrent effect on illegal behavior claimed by advocates of police body cameras may be less likely than the chilling effect on lawful activity.

Personal privacy, additionally, does more than protect information: it “is so inte- gral to our identity and autonomy that it (is) a social good fundamental to our soci- ety” (Martin & Freeman, 2003, p. 357). Privacy is not only an individual right, but also a political and social good: the presumption of freedom from being constantly watched and the ability to create one’s persona in an authentic manner. Vital to the functioning of democracy, critics believe that omnipresent technologies are a weap- on to control and spy on people (Lee, 2007). Intrusions on privacy, especially when publicized, can compromise personal autonomy, freedom, identity, and/or place a person in a false light. The National Security Agency’s routine and indiscriminate collection of information on millions of people demonstrates the risks involved.

Furthermore, sources of individual privacy—the Fourth Amendment, com- mon law, statutory law—provide limited rights (Knapp & Soylu, 2013), as there is no comprehensive federal privacy law. A Congressional Research Service ex- amination of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence—which regulates how, when, and where government may conduct searches and seizures—reveals that it may provide very little protection against wearable abuse (Thompson, 2013). The US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on wearables and privacy, and there are few rel- evant case law precedents. For now, it will be difficult to find a reasonable expec- tation of privacy. Indeed, authorities have begun deploying smartwear for routine operations. It should be noted that pervasive use of the technology also impacts First Amendment freedoms, especially free speech and assembly. As for state leg- islation, lawmakers have attempted to regulate the general use of technology (e.g., employee notice and consent) under privacy legislation (e.g., mini-ECPAs).9

9 Provisions vary by state, but include employee notice and consent, prohibitions in areas where em- ployees remove their clothing, prohibitions on employer adverse actions for employee off-duty ac- tivities, restrictions on information-gathering about people’s non job-related communications, and prohibitions on organizations embedding radio frequency identification chips in workers.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

132 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

To summarize, advocates recognize an ethical duty to run well-managed or- ganizations in the name of social fairness and personal privacy; Kantians seek to treat individuals as ends, not means to some supposed good. Without clear rules, skeptics fear that employers will exercise too much power. However, if wearable policy is a product of labor-management relations necessity and the result of open, participatory, informed decisions, then such concerns may be overcome. The ob- ligation is to ensure fairness and protect privacy; broad, deep personal data col- lection can create unnecessary harm. Yet relying exclusively on principle-based analysis could provide inadequate guidance and induce rigidity.

VIRTUE-BASED ANALYSIS

In virtue ethics, answers to the question of “What to do?” have little to do with results or rules and everything to do with the kind of person one is. Character, then, offers a third perspective when assessing the advisability of body-worn computer devices. It asks, “What would a person of integrity decide?” and “Does a proposed policy improve individual and community character?” This philosophy is compel- ling because it is a personal approach to ethics—i.e., decisions are not so much informed by consequences and duties, but by the quality of one’s moral fiber.

While no definitive list of virtues exists (the theory avoids formulaic think- ing and emphasizes moral identity instead), a virtue is an excellence or trait. It is found between the extremes of excess and deficiency, Aristotle’s “golden mean” (e.g., friendliness is the mean between grouchiness and promiscuity). In every situation, the person will determine the mean—neither excessive nor deficient— based on reason and experience appropriate to the circumstance. A pre-eminent virtue—integrity (a product or synthesis of virtues such as honesty, moderation, justice, and the prudence to recognize ethical challenges and respond)—is inte- gral to moral nobility.

In Support. What constitutes good practice includes regard for personal in- tegrity. In their discussion of surveillance, Iedema and Rhodes (2010) suggest that it makes for better employees as they may become more accountable and disciplined. Respect for the moral agency of a person can also serve to mitigate the asymmetry in employer-employee relations. In fact, when coupled with trans- parency and responsibility, employees are regarded more as partners in manage- ment than as subjects; if so wearable attire can promote honesty, moderation, and prudence. Intrusive programs, however, are difficult to justify.

In Opposition. Absolute power can corrupt absolutely: it heightens the prob- ability that corruption will occur, and that the individual and the public inter- est will be compromised (self-identifying reference removed). Ethics requires a sound policy, but even when accomplished, Rosenberg (2005) argues that action contrary to policy often prevails because executives are reluctant to empower their workforce. If wearables are deployed in a command-and-control manner, it indicates that leaders believe that the employees lack integrity to perform their duties, an approach not likely to contribute to human flourishing.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 133

Moreover, when subjected to observation, Palm (2009, p. 55) believes that in- dividuals fail to act in concert with their true selves and at the expense of personal integrity. Rather than behave in accordance with their values and convictions, they engage in adaptive behaviors such as a “manufactured” self, anticipatory conformity and self-subordination, unworthy of ethical treatment (Brown, 2000; Rosenberg 2005, pp. 142, 148). Individual behavior becomes rationalized and people are objectified, manipulated and devalued, denying them not only voice, but also the necessity to regard them as moral agents.

Further, the asymmetrical advantage of centralized power offers temptations and alters the relationship between employers and employees. The seeming sci- ence fiction nature of wearable technology—especially when enabled by secret algorithms—gives employers a potent, invasive tool to entice them to do things that otherwise they could not or would not do. When this happens, wearables are prone to improper use of discretion at the expense of personal integrity and well- being of the community.

From a virtue ethics perspective, in brief, integrity focuses on supporting indi- vidual and collective character. Responsible policymakers will ensure that wear- able programs have measures to avoid and correct abusive practices. Yet, virtue theory’s strength—subjective judgments inferred from personal character—is also its shortcoming: if advocates and opponents of smartwear perceive they are right, they can be convinced that what they do is good.

BEHAVIORAL ETHICS EFFECTS ON DECISION-MAKING

While rational decision making models like the ethics triad are valuable, behav- ioral ethics identifies significant shortcomings. It aims to make traditional ratio- nal models more practical by adding insights from psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. Based on the actual behaviors, decision makers are not expected to have perfect information and to act rationally; they are expected to be influenced by intellectual limitations and non-economic, emotional factors, both conscious and unconscious. Accordingly, decisions are characterized by cognitive illusions as they are frequently error-prone and biased as a consequence of seemingly ir- relevant or unknown factors.

In light of the unrealistic assumptions about rationality found in philosophi- cal decision models, they cannot adequately describe, explain, or predict how humans behave. People prefer to believe that they are like judges, conscientiously deliberating over the issues and arriving at reasoned conclusions after examining all the evidence; instead, they are more like lawyers, looking for anything that might help make their case. Rationality is very much bounded by the situation and human cognition. Individuals do not have complete information; even if they did, they have less-than-perfect capacity for information processing to reach an optimal solution. Bounded ethicality, stated differently, may result in an otherwise ethical policy maker making questionable decisions whether in support of, or op- position to, smart technology.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

134 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

In a world of bounded rationality, choices are embedded in psyches and social norms, and behavioral tendencies matter (Table 6.1). It is not surprising, then, that judgements may be flawed. Thus, the definition of the situation (decision framing) may be affected by:

• What other organizations are doing (herd behavior), • The desire to take action (action bias), • Unacknowledged bias in collection of evidence to coincide with pre-exist-

ing views (confirmation bias), • Unjustified conviction in their talent for good decisions (over-confidence

and unconscious incompetence), • Emotional responses, denial, and rationalizations (ethical fading), and • Beliefs that others share their views (naïve idealism).

As Elder Shafir observes, “People do not respond to objective experience; rather, stimuli are mentally construed, interpreted, and understood or misunderstood” and “Things that ought not to matter…often do, and things that ought to matter often fail to have an impact” (cited in self-identifying reference removed). When it is known why personnel make mistakes, steps can be taken to minimize them (Prentice, 2015, p. 84). Poor decisions may be made the result of an unawareness of significant psy- chological, organizational, and social influences that affect behavior.

Behavioral ethics introduces considerations like those noted above that can provide insight into decision making and offer an alternative view of the indi- vidual as a moral agent. Understanding bounded ethicality is crucial: if unethical behavior occurs unintentionally, then encouraging right conduct must not merely focus on the dishonesty of dishonest people, but also on the dishonesty of honest people. Such awareness does not mean that mistakes will always be avoided, but it should reduce their probability.

Wearables supporters may use motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and action desire to profit from commercialization, and their focus on technical ad- vances tends to down play drawbacks. Bennett (2011), for instance, argues that anytime a tool exists that makes management easier (e.g., body cameras), police will do more of it. Decision framing, as well as ethical fading, can cause unin- tentional minimization of moral objections. Indeed, ethicality bias exacerbates these tendencies: people predict that they will make an ethical decision, but when faced with a dilemma, they make an unethical decision—yet they still think of themselves as being honorable and just. “Their own blind spots prevent them from meeting their own ethical standards” (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011, p. 22). Claims that they are not affected by bias may be sincere, even as self-serving decisions are made.

It may be that an initial introduction of smartwear raises few objections, but as usage spreads more legal and ethical concerns will emerge. Naïve idealism and over confidence biases can mean the failure to involve employees in designing the policy, developing guidelines for its use, and keeping personnel informed. While

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 135

such predispositions challenge the functioning of moral conscience, wearables may also assist in ethical decision making. Thus, for example, smart glasses can nudge officials to consult the organization’s code of ethics and use a decision ma- trix to identify alternative behaviors (Fort et al., 2016, p. 152). Overall, although the rational approach embodied in the ethics triad suggests a link between sound ethical reasoning and upright conduct, behavioral ethics provides a caution to de- cision makers, maintaining that interpersonal relations and situational forces are crucial in understanding moral judgments.

DISCUSSION

Responsible decision makers, by definition, are obligated to develop virtues, re- spect rules, examine results, and heed behavioral insights. Doing so, nevertheless, cannot produce a final, perfect decision. Instead, an attempt to reconcile con- flicting values highlights a key function of policy making: generating alternative viewpoints, systematically evaluating them, and crafting a considered judgment that accounts for behavioral constraints. The result of such an analysis would be to apply, using contingency theory, the findings to specific organizational circum- stances as the optimal strategy is dependent upon the situation.

The approach used here, thus, enables the management of ethical ambiguity and provides help in making the inevitable compromises. An integrated strategy that includes both philosophical rationalism and behavioral realism can facili- tate achievement of that goal. The prescriptions found in the former and the de- scriptions of conduct in the latter contain contending arguments for and against wearables. Taken separately, a single position may appear ethical at some points and unethical at others. The approach, accordingly, offers choices, not formula; it informs, but does not eliminate, the need for judgment.

Looking at each part of the triad in sequence (Table 6.2), what then is the greatest good for the greatest number? As indicated, it may be realized when cost- effectiveness is enhanced to serve both institutions and individuals. This implies that the use of wearables, initiated for legitimate reasons, produces the promised results, and is not arbitrary or invasive. While courts tend to defer to manage- ment, neither the organization nor the individual has absolute rights. The right to manage can be a seductive rationale for finding the greatest good, exceeding what is reasonable at the expense of important rights; if so, the technology can be counterproductive.

The second component of the triad, principle-based ethics, focuses on what is good for one is good for all. Carefully designed, data gathering by body-worn computer tools promises fair and impartial administration of employer-employee relations, thus mitigating objections. Opponents, however, believe that this func- tion often overreaches; genuine consent is seldom given thereby violating the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative, creating unnecessary harm, and plac- ing privacy at-risk. Because few officials would agree to be monitored, the burden of proof falls on those who would watch others.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

136 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

TABLE 6.2. Arguments For and Against Wearables Using the Ethic Triad

Smartwear Advocates Smartwear Opponents

Question: What is the greatest good for the greatest number?

Cost-effectiveness: Maximizes resources and minimizes loss, thereby enhancing cost efficiencies; wearables are cheaper, smaller with greater capacity, thereby transcending political restraints of earlier technology; promotes efficiency by collecting real-time personal information and enabling Big Data Analytics; advances organizational effectiveness by offering smartware as part of a wellness program; to promote a healthy productive workforce.

Allows individuals to covertly make video and audio recordings; organizational vulnerability to data hacking could undermine confidence; tools like Google Glass enable multi-tasking, but can distract from actual work; rewards crowd out internal motivation at the expense of public interest; tracking worker movements can be stressful and risk loss of trust; wearable-derived data can be mistake-prone and invalid; detrimental effects occur when data are used to intimidate and punish workers.

Question: Would I want everyone to make the same decision that I did?

Principles Fairness: Properly implemented, wearables promise sound policies and objective administration, thereby fostering procedural and distributive justice and promoting social welfare; following best practices and mitigate objections so that what is good for one is good for all should naturally develop

Data gathering often over-reaches, which is neither fair nor necessary; asymmetric power of employers vis-à-vis employees can create conditions where workers consent to restrictions on privacy is not freely given; use of wearable data violates both the categorical imperative and the golden rule as employers would be reluctant to accept tracking of their behaviors.

Privacy: Federal agencies are required to prepare privacy impact statements stipulating the purpose for, and use of the information gathered; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act provides some limits on electronic communication; when technology includes increased security or safety at the expense of the privacy, many may fine the trade-off acceptable; the Fourth Amendment includes an expectation of privacy for public servants; collection of data can have a deterrent effect—if someone has nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear

Wearables magnify the risk to privacy due to the personal nature of the information collected; extracting, analyzing, and sharing records violate individual privacy; the nothing-to-hide contention can justify nearly any invasion of privacy; instructions can compromise personal autonomy, freedom, identity and/or place a person in a false light; sources of individual privacy—the Fourth Amendment, common law, statutory law—provide only limited rights.

Question: Does the decision improve my character and that of the community?

Virtue Integrity: Data-driven smartwear makes for better employees as the may become more accountable and disciplined; when coupled with transparency and responsibility, they are regarded more as partners in management than as subjects—if so, wearable attire can promote honesty, moderation, and prudence.

Integrity: If wearables are deployed in a command-and-control manner, it indicates that the employees lack integrity to perform their duties, an approach not likely to contribute to human flourishing; when subjected to observation, individual fail to act in concert with their true selves and at the expense of personal integrity.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 137

Finally, virtue ethics seeks individual excellence and collective well-being. Wearables proponents argue that the data generated can reinforce the autonomy of individuals by emphasizing personal empowerment and the imperative to bet- ter one’s self. Alternatively, the technology can erode these same characteristics according to critics. In the end, virtue ethics demands a thoughtful decision—nei- ther excessive nor deficient—based on the situation and experience; the choice to use wearables must enrich the quality of the individual and the community. Yet virtue theory’s strength—subjective judgments derived from personal character— is also its limitation: if supporters and opponents of smartwear believe they are laudable, they are likely to regard what they do as praiseworthy.

The drawbacks of each component of the ethics triad (results: prediction mis- takes; principles: rule rigidity; virtue: self-righteousness) highlight the significant biases and errors revealed by behavioral ethics. In ethical fading, for instance, employers using wearable-derived data to monitor employee union organizing in the workplace and then singling out the organizers for adverse personnel action on the pretense of poor work performance. For employees, detailed, complex codes of conduct can be rationalized, having the opposite effect—any wrongdoing not covered is acceptable (Prentice, 2015, p. 81).

By anticipating such forces and deliberately considering their influence, of- ficials may ensure that they do not override personal integrity, the categorical imperative, and the greatest good. The prescriptions of the philosophical decision- making model and the descriptions of conduct in the behavioral model, when seen as complementary approaches, furnish a more complete understanding of social dynamics. Both ask decision-makers to think about thinking: the first emphasizes intentional judgments and the second focuses on cognitive illusions and uncon- scious biases in a decision context. Policies that incorporate a synthesis of these two models should enhance the quality of decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a tendency to overestimate dramatic change in the short run and underestimate it in the long run, the transformative potential of the wearable in- dustry suggests a new frontier in workplace dynamics. Accordingly, its promises and perils warrant inspection in the name of the greatest good, duty and character, particularly when tempered by behavioral ethics insights. This is especially true, as noted above, given the lack of comprehensive wearable policies in many gov- ernment, business, and nonprofit organizations. What, then, are some guidelines for effective use? The summary below offers 10 Lessons for Human Resource Professionals).

10 Take-Away Excerpts and Lessons for Human Resource Professionals 1. Miniature wearable devices, seamlessly integrated into daily work routines,

are likely to be mainstreamed in the next decade.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

138 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

2. Wearables provide data that were not previously easy to gather, as the tech- nology can (a) surveil physical and environmental changes, (b) process infor- mation, perform calculations, assign tasks, give instructions, and (c) identify training needs.

3. Data-generating wearables can be regarded either as a justifiable, impartial practice serving the interests of all or an oppressive technique catering to the interests of some at the expense of others.

4. Given that technology often out paces policy, it is critical that stakeholders confront difficult questions, avoid hurried judgments, and employ reliable de- cision-making processes when adopting wearables at work.

5. Value conflicts will develop as managers seek to capitalize on these new tech- nologies for efficiency gains while raising cost-effectiveness, fairness, privacy, security and integrity problems.

6. Smart technology is cost-effective. It, however, can be problematic due to po- tential: data-gaming, performance, recording, security, tracking, and data error or misuse concerns.

7. If wearable policy is a product of labor-management relations necessity and the result of open, participatory, informed decisions, then such concerns may be overcome.

8. Wearable technology can empower people by augmenting their capacities, but without meaningful rules it can also menace individual rights.

9. Organizations may need to update their communication, confidentiality, and dress code policies to clearly state that wearables are employer-issued and their use is expected.

10. A model policy would contain principles for device deployment, data collec- tion and retention, and reporting.

It is challenging to make recommendations without knowing what types of body-worn computer devices will be used and the kinds of policies that will sur- vive legal review. Generally, policies should avoid adding to unequal employ- er-employee power relations. An imbalance exists because employees have few rights, at least in the US, “law currently provides feeble protections” and offers “a meager right to privacy” (Abril et al., 2012, pp. 95, 121). Wearables, it follows, should be evaluated for mutual institutional-individual advantage. Relying solely on the goodwill of employers is not sufficient.

As discussed here, the unique utility of smartwear can be in the public interest, while simultaneously creating ethical risks. As the analysis of competing ethical arguments above showed, wearable technology can empower people by augment- ing their capacities, but without meaningful rules it can also menace individual rights. Accordingly, decision-makers could consider these guidelines to gauge their suitability to their situation:

• Ethical impact statements for proposed policies (Finn & Wright, 2012), • Policy transparency and accountability legislation, • An independent body to assess the effect of wearables on privacy,

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 139

• Limitations on what data is collected and why, how data is processed, and how long it is stored (Desai & von der Embse, 2008);

• Restrictions on the kinds of technologies on smartwear platforms, • Further development of an “ethical governor” enabling wearable technol-

ogy to do the right thing (Arkin, 2009); and • A digital bill of rights (Hundt, 2014).10

A model policy, then, would contain principles for device deployment, data col- lection and retention, and reporting in the name of the greater good, what is good for one is good for all, and virtuous character. It would include what information is tracked, how it is stored, who has access to it, and how it is used (including that these quantitative data are not the sole basis for personnel decisions). Answers to such questions would be addressed by a pilot program, based on a model policy, and will vary by economic sector, organization, and position. In short, organiza- tions need a clear strategy that accounts for its purpose, how the purpose will be accomplished, and the expected outcome of the policy.

At the public policy level, Clarke and Moses (2014) argue that many of the cri- teria for an effective regulatory regime—clarity of purpose, transparency, stake- holder participation, parsimony and enforceability—are currently absent. What is needed is robust regulation and oversight to allay concerns that deployment of wearables is based on expediency instead of cost-effectiveness, fairness and privacy, and integrity.

Miniature wearable devices, seamlessly integrated into daily work routines, are likely to be mainstreamed in the next decade. The considerable potential of this technology suggests that decisions to implement smartwear should be consid- ered broadly in terms of how they impact a wide variety of organizational prac- tices in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. The ethics triad-behavioral ethics discussion here examined important contentions surrounding the benefits and drawbacks of body-worn computers. The analysis may be helpful when man- agers apply them to specific circumstances to make informed judgments about the use of wearable technology.

REFERENCES

Abril, P., Avner, L., & Del Riego, A. (2012). Blurred boundaries: Social media privacy and the twenty-first century employee. American Business Law Journal, 49(1), 63–124.

Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2017). Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review, 105(3), forthcoming.

Anderson, J. (2014, May 14). The internet of things will thrive by 2025. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.perinteent. org/2014/05/14/internet-of-things/

10 These proposals are adapted from the authors’ earlier work (West & Bowman, 2016a,b; West, Bow- man, & Gertz, 2015).

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

140 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

Arkin, R.C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Aubrey, S. (2016). How wearable technology and smartwatches will change the workplace. News.com.au. February 24. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/technology/ gadgets/wearables/how-wearable-technology-and-smartwatches-will-change-the- workplace/news-story/01ed2f07153e86fe7a379fca271f4e29

Ball, K. S., & Margulis, S. T. (2011). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in call cen- tres: A framework for investigation. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 26, 113–126.

Ball, K., Di Domenico, M. L., & Nunan, D. (2016). Big data surveillance and the body- subject. Body & Society, 22(2), 58–81. http://bod.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/ 02/03/1357034X15624973

Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrensel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bell, L (2016, March 16). Working wearables: What’s in it for the employees? Wearable. . Retrieved from http://www.wareable.com/wearable-tech/working-with-wear- ables-8796

Bennett, B. (2011, December 10). Police employ predator drone spy planes on home front. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/ nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211.

Blakemore, M. (2005). Surveillance in the workplace—An overview of issues of privacy, monitoring, and ethics. Stop The Cyborgs. Retrieved from http://www.mindfully. org/Technology/2005/Surveillance-Workplace-Blakemore1sep05.htm

Brin, D. (2016, February 16). As wearables become more popular, What is HR’s responsi- bility? Human Resource Management Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.shrm. org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/as-wearables-become-more- popular,-what-is-hr%E2%80%99s-responsibility.aspx

Brown, W.S. (2000). Ontological security, existential anxiety, and workplace privacy, Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1), 61–65.

Chauriye, N. (2016). Wearable devices as admissible evidence: Technology is killing our opportunity to lie. Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology, 24(2), 495– 528.

Ciocchetti, C.A. (2011). The eavesdropping employer: A twenty-first century framework for employee monitoring. American Business Law Journal, 48, 285–369.

Clancy, H. (2014). Will the workplace lead wearable technology adoption? Fortune Maga- zine. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/10/29/will-the-workplace-lead-wear- able-technology-adoption/?iid=sr-link1

Clarke, R., & Moses, L.B. (2014). The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on public safety. Computer Law and Security Review, 30, 263–285.

Corsello, J. (2013). What the Internet of Things will bring to the workplace. Wired. Re- trieved from http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/11/what-the-internet-of-things- will-bring-to-the-workplace

Desai, M., & von der Embse, T. J. (2008). Managing electronic information: An ethics perspective. Information Management and Computer Security, 16, 20–27.

Drevitch, G. (2017). The mystery of motivation. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https:// www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201701/the-mystery-motivation

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 141

Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law and Security Review, 28, 184–94.

Frankel, S. (2016). Employers are using workplace wearables to find out how happy and productive we are. Quartz. Retrieved from http://qz.com/754989/employers-are- using-workplace-wearables-to-find-out-how-happy-and-productive-we-are/

Fort, T. L., Raymond, A. H., & Shackelford, S. J. (2016). Angel on your shoulder: Prompt- ing employees to do the right thing through the use of wearables. Northwestern University Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 14, 140–170.

Gale, S. (2016, August).. Internet of things could be the next talent management thing. Workforce, 10.

Gartner, Inc. (2015). Gartner reveals top predictions for IT organizations and users for 2016 and beyond. Press Release. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/news- room/id/3143718

Gazzaniga, M.S. (2008). Human: The science behind what makes us unique. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Gray, R. (2015). Wearable technology for health and wellbeing. HR Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/how-to-use-wearable-technolo- gy-for-health-and-wellbeing

Haberman, M. (2013). The impact of wearable technologies on HR. Blogging4Jobs. Re- trieved from http://www.blogging4jobs.com/hr/the-impact-of-wearable-technolo- gies-on-hr/#5wHVmIrOzSscpHyY.97

Hayward, J., Chansin, G., & Zervos, H. (2016). Wearable technology 2016–2026. IDTe- chEx. Retrieved from http://www.idtechex.com/research/reports/wearable-technol- ogy-2016-2026-000483.asp

Hodson, T. J., Englander, F., & Englander, V. (1999). Ethical, legal and economic aspects of employer monitoring of employee electronic mail. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 99–108.

Hsieh, W., Komisar, R. , Jazayeri, R., & Yeh, P. (2016, March 29.). The future of wear- able technology is bright, here are some reasons why. Blog. Retrieved from http:// www.kpcb.com/blog/the-future-of-wearable-technology-is-bright-here-are-some- reasons-why

Hundt, R. (2014). Saving privacy. Boston Review. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/ forum/reed-hundt-saving-privacy

Iedema, R., & Rhodes, C. (2010). The undecided space of ethics in organizational surveil- lance. Organizational Studies, 31(2), 199–217.

Infiniti. (2015, May 11). Wearable technology promises greater efficiency in cities, indus- try, and life. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/ brand-connect/wp/tag/infiniti/

Influx of Wearable Technology in the Workplace. (2015, October 15). Business Wire. Re- trieved from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151007005173/en/Influx- Wearable-Technology-Workplace-Security-Support-Bandwidth

International Institute for Analytics. (2015). The Internet of Things: Opportunities and ap- plications across industries. Portland, OR: Enterprise Research Service.

Identity Theft Resource Center. (2015). Identity theft resource center breach report hits near record high in 2015. ITRC. Retrieved from http://www.idtheftcenter.org/ITRC- Surveys-Studies/2015 databreaches.html

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

142 • JAMES S. BOWMAN & JONATHAN P. WEST

Knapp, K. R., & Soylu, A. (2013). Technology: The good, the bad, and the ugly: How technology is affecting employee privacy, work life balance, and workplace rela- tionships. Mustang Journal of Management and Marketing, 2, 69–81.

Kronos, Inc. (2014, October 27). Survey indicate workers around the world are poised to embrace wearable technology. Kronos. Retrieved from http://www.kronos.com/pr/ kronos-survey-indicates-workers-around-the-world-are-poised-to-embrace-wear- able-technology

Lavalliere, M., Burstein, A., Arezes, P., & Coughlin, J. (2016). Tackling the challenges of an aging workforce with the use of wearable technologies and the quantified self. DYNA, 83(197), 38–43.

Lee, J. (2007, April 28). There is big brother: Workplace control and workforce surveil- lance. Paper presented at the Labor’s Voices 2007 Conference, New York, NY. Re- trieved from http://www.laborfest.net/2007/Korean%20hi-tech%20doc.htm

Manokha, I. (2017, January 3). Why the rise of wearable technology to monitor employees is worrying. The Conversation, Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-the- rise-of-wearable-tech-to-monitor-employees-is-worrying-70719

Martin, K., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Some problems with employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 353–361.

Mehta, A. (2014). ‘Bring your own glass’: The privacy implications of Google Glass in the workplace. John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law, 30(3), 607–638.

Michael, K. (2014). Redefining surveillance: Implications for privacy, security, trust, and law. Issues, 109, 36–39.

Newman, D. (2015). Improving productivity by better utilizing wearables. Converge. Re- trieved from http://converge.xyz/improving-productivity-by-better-utilizing-wear- ables/

Norman, D. (2013). The paradox of wearable technologies. MIT Technology Review. Re- trieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/517346/the-paradox-of-wear- able-technologies/

Olson, P. (2015, June 1). More bosses expected to track their staff through wearables in the next five years. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyol- son/2015/06/01/wearables-employee-tracking/#5bbdcbf3eec9

Palm, E. (2009). Securing privacy at work: The importance of contextualized consent. Eth- ics of Information Technology, 11, 233–41.

Perera, C., Liu, C. H., & Jayawardena, S. (2015). The emerging Internet of Things market- place of an industrial perspective: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 3(4), 585–598.

Porup, J. M. (2016, March 20). The Internet of Things is a surveillance nightmare. The Kernel. Retrieved from http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/staff-editori- als/16196/internet-of-things-surveillance-nightmare/

Prentice, R. A. (2015). Behavioral ethics: Can it help lawyers (and others) be their best selves? Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 29(1), 36–85.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014). The wearable future. New York, NY: Author. Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice: Original Edition. Boston: Belknap Press. Rosenberg, R. S. (2005). The technological assault on ethics in the modern workplace. In J.

W. Budd & J. G. Scoville (Eds.), The ethics of human resources and industrial rela- tions (pp. 141–172). Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Wearables in the Workplace • 143

Rutkin, A. (2014, October 15). Wearable tech lets boss track your work, rest, and play. New Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429913- 000-wearable-tech-lets-boss-track-your-work-rest-and-play/

Sarpong, S., & Rees, D. (2014). Assessing the effects of “Big Brother” in a workplace: The case of WAST. European Management Journal, 32(2), 216–222.

Senemar, A K. (2015, July 13). Wearables in court: How your electronic data becomes evidence. Sherbit Blog. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wearables- court-how-your-electronic-data-becomes-evidence-senemar

Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business research. Business Ethics Quar- terly, 18(4), 513–540.

Smith, G. J. D. (2016). Surveillance, data and embodiment: On the work of being watched. Body & Society, 22(2), 108–139.

Solove, D.J. (2011). Why privacy matters even if you have “nothing to hide.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 57, B11–B13.

Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Nudging and choice architecture: Ethical considerations. Harvard John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business Discussion Paper 809. Re- trieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17915544/Sunstein_809. pdf?sequence=1

Svara, J. H. (2014). Who are the keepers of the code? Articulating and upholding ethical standards in the field of public administration. Public Administration Review, 74, 561–569.

Taylor, D. (2014, March 31). Wearable tech: The surveillance grid of the future. Old Think- er News. Retrieved from http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2014/03/30/wearable- tech-the-surveillance-grid-of-the-future/

Thompson, R. M., II. (2013). Drones in domestic surveillance operations: Fourth amend- ment implications and legislative responses. Report no. R42701. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/ R42701.pdf [accessed November 17, 2015].

Ubiq Team. (2015). 3 Considerations when implementing wearable tech in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.goubiq.com/3-considerations-when-implementing- wearable-tech-in-the-workplace/

Vaze, R. (2014). Wearable technology: Feeding our underlying curiosity to know, to be aware. Slideshare. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/RohiniVaze/wearable- technology-report

Verbeek, P.P. (2011). Moralizing technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. West, J., & Bowman, J. (2016a). The domestic use of drones: An ethical analysis of surveil-

lance issues. Public Administration Review 76(4), 649–659. West, J., & Bowman, J. (2016b). Electronic surveillance at work: An ethical analysis. Ad-

ministration & Society 48(5), 628–651. West, J., Bowman, J., & Gertz, S. (2015). Electronic surveillance in the workplace: Legal,

ethical and management issues. In R. Sims & W. Sauser (Eds.), Legal and regula- tory issues in human resource management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub- lishing, 285–315.

Wilson, H. J. (2013). Wearables in the workplace. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/09/wearables-in-the-workplace

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 5:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use