Hannah Klautke and Hee Sun Park
ratings than high control, t (114) = 10.44, p < .001, η
2
= .49. The analysis showed that the level-1
intercept (i.e., individuals’ legitimacy ratings averaged across the three control types) varied
significantly across individuals, variance = 1.02, χ
2
(114) = 314.18, p < .001, indicating the need for
level-2 predictors to explain the variance in the level-1 intercept. The level-1 slope (i.e., individual
changes in legitimacy ratings from low control to high) had a significant amount of variance across
individuals, variance = 0.33, χ
2
(114) = 223.36, p < .001, indicating that the extent to which legitimacy
rating decreased from low control to high was greater for some individuals than for others.
As shown in Table 2, individual health orientation variables (level-2 predictors) were included in
the analysis to explain between-individual variance in the individual average legitimacy ratings (i.e.,
the variance in the level-1 intercept) and also in the extent to which legitimacy ratings changed from
low control to high (i.e., the variance in the level-1 slope). Including these level-2 predictors explained
11.65% of the variance in the level-1 intercept and 11.90% of the variance in the level-1 slope. Among
the predictors, only nutrition orientation was a significant and positive predictor of the level-1 intercept,
whereas fitness, anti-smoking, and wellness orientations were not significant. This finding indicated
that as individuals had higher nutrition orientations, their average legitimacy ratings across the three
types of control were higher. Among the predictors, only nutrition orientation was a significant and
negative predictor of the level-1 slope. This finding indicated that the higher individuals' nutrition
orientations, the more negative the slope became; individuals with higher nutrition orientations showed
greater decrease in their legitimacy ratings from low control to high. To put it differently, the decrease
in perceived legitimacy from low control to high was less pronounced among those with lower
nutrition orientations.
5 DISCUSSION
This study addressed how future employees would feel about different levels of workplace health
control in smoking, employee fitness, and health risk assessments. As employers are increasing to
regulate these three main areas of health, the economic benefits of corporate health initiatives will need
to show real improvements in individuals’ health and fitness, and, at the same time, should be
considered as a valuable service by employees. Otherwise, concerns can be raised about a gradual
undermining of employees’ privacy and the subtle perpetuation of managerialist ideologies (―get fit or
get fired‖) (Kirby, 2006; Park et al., 2008; Zoller, 2003). Given the powerful influence that the
implementation of health programs can have on employees’ perceptions (Zoller, 2003), this study
examined perceptions of an undergraduate sample still relatively untouched by corporate health
promotion.
Concerning whether and how perceived legitimacy of health policies and programs would change
with increasing levels of control exerted by the employer, the current findings showed that as control
increases, ratings of legitimacy decreased. There is concern for the privacy of behaviors ―off the
clock.‖ Several of the respondents in this study indicated rather strong objections to certain types of
control, and even added spontaneous and unsolicited comments such as ―None of their business!!‖ to
measurement items such as ―It is okay for the company to change employees’ general eating
behaviors.‖ The significant decrease in perceived legitimacy resulting from increases in control
level/type illustrates that even among this young, generally health conscious sample, concerns about
privacy still take precedence over the potential personal health benefits that may result from being
pressured into living healthy. Factors such as involuntariness, severe consequences of noncompliance,
and extension of control beyond the workplace and after business hours have previously been shown to
enhance the likelihood of reactance and decreased morale among employees in reaction to workplace
health promotion (Greer & Labig, 1987; Truxillo et al., 2002; Zoller, 2004).
When examining how personal health orientations, i.e. those related to fitness, nutrition, smoking,
and wellness awareness, would affect the perceptions of legitimacy of employer control of health
behaviors related to these areas, a few interesting findings emerged. For smoke-free programs, overall
legitimacy ratings did not vary across individuals, while the slope of the decrease with increasing
control did vary depending on individuals' anti-smoking orientations. Individuals with stronger anti-
smoking orientations still perceived high control as less legitimate than low control, but this reduction
was significantly less pronounced than for individuals less opposed to smoking. Other health-related
orientations did not moderate the decrease, suggesting that to a certain degree these legitimacy
perceptions are not global, but policy-specific.
For employee fitness programs, not only the slope of the decrease but also perceived overall
legitimacy across the control levels/types varied significantly across individuals, which indicates an
twofold need to understand moderating factors. Again, only a directly ―relevant‖ personal orientation,
in this case nutrition orientation, was a significant predictor. Interestingly, the pattern here was
different from the one observed for smoke-free programs: In the case of fitness programs, those