Counting sleep: Ambiguity, aspirational control and the politics of digital self-tracking at work

Abstract

Existing perspectives on normative and aspirational control have undertheorised how digital technologies such as digital self-tracking might alter what kinds of control is possible in the workplace. This article remedies this lack by studying the affordances of digital self-tracking in the workplace. Empirically, we draw on a case study of digital sleeptracking in relation to a well-being initiative in a private energy company, Encorp. Our analysis reveals how digital self-tracking affords body visibility and remote management but also creates affordance opacity and an ambiguous space of autonomy and control. We theorise how digital self-tracking in the workplace both enables new forms of aspirational control, and creates ambiguity and new limits to control. We conclude by discussing challenges and opportunities for future research on digital self-tracking in the workplace.

Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda

“…Elmholdt et al (2021) study the introduction of a sleep tracker program in a Scandinavian energy corporation. Their study focuses on how the sleep trackers program challenges management and employees in unexpected ways.…”

“…Hensmans (2021), Elmholdt and colleagues (2021) and Grigore and colleagues (2021) study different phenomena related to the digitalization of organizations. Yet, notably, unitedly they all point toward the fact that subject and object roles are not fixed in the context of digitalization.…”

“…In certain circumstances, subjects of digitalization, that is those seeking to profit from digitalization, may finally be the victims of this transformation process, or, at least, may not profit from the digitalization as expected. As the studies by Hensmans (2021) and Elmholdt and colleagues (2021) suggest, the victims of digitalization can even be the organizations and managers that decided on the introduction and diffusion of digital technologies in the first place. In other circumstances, as outlined by Grigore and her colleagues (2021), actors ought to shape the digitalization process in ways that social harms are minimized, may act in ways that direct responsibility away from themselves, but also their organizations.…”

Responsible Management-as-Practice: Mobilizing a Posthumanist Approach

“…To give an example of what we mean with sociomateriality, we point to the pervasiveness of algorithmic technologies. Elmholdt et al (2020) studied what happens when a company launches a wellbeing initiative targeting their employees' sleep habits via digital self-tracking. The initiative was motivated by the belief that private and work lives have become inseparable, and well-rested employees are both healthier and perform better.…”

Algocracia: Uma análise crítica sobre a gestão mediada por algoritmos

“…In organizational studies, the relevance and emergence of understanding the topic are seen in full theoretical reflections and recent literature reviews that address algorithmically mediated management and its potential impacts (Kellogg et al, 2020;Trittin-Ulbrich et al, 2020;Brevini & Pasquale, 2020). Among the consequences discussed, studies related to algorithms and organizations reveal the possibility that data management interferes in various aspects of organizational dynamics, such as the formation and relationships of social groups in the organizational environment (Vaast, 2020;Lage & Rodrigues, 2020), fantasies of digitization in the workplace (Hensmans, 2020), loss of privacy (Anteby & Chan, 2018;Rosenblat & Stark, 2016;Woodcock, 2020); algorithmic control of work Curchod et al, 2019;Faraj et al, 2018), and workers' habits (Elmholdt et al, 2020) such as algo activity or workers' activism movements (Kellogg et al, 2020;Mercea & Yilmaz, 2018;Petriglieri et al, 2019;Mercea & Yilmaz, 2018;Etter & Albu, 2020;Birch, 2020;Petriglieri et al, 2019).…”