The pros are fairly self-evident. For the company, a healthier work force means fewer sick days taken, a probable reduction in certain on-the-job injuries, lower insurance premiums over time, etc. For the individual there are obvious benefits from stress reduction to longevity. So, the idea is “all good” as they say, right? Well … maybe not so fast. There is, of course, the philosophical question of how much an employer ought to get involved in the personal lives of their employees who, after all, signed on to work not to be adopted. And the creation of a “winners culture” where good folks are thin and fit and eat right automatically creates a “loser culture” of nonparticipants or those who can’t stick with the program. Anyone who ever attended high school may remember how easy it is for human beings to form tribes of “jocks” and “nerds” or whatever. And let’s face it, people essentially promote themselves, so a nonparticipant with great skills is likely to be disadvantaged over a fitness nut with adequate skills if… Read more »

The fact that Target is demonstrating concern for their employees’ health and fitness is admirable. More and more of the best companies are using these programs as differentiators for hiring and incentives for retention. As the battle for talent continues, these programs can be seen as differentiators.

The key will be whether health and fitness programs become part of the company’s DNA or whether they are jettisoned the first time that finances become tough.

I agree with Ryan’s points. Target’s focus on wellness is good for business and for its brand image, and providing extra incentives (discounts, etc.) for its own associates is to be applauded. Where the Fitbit program crosses the line is management’s reported ability to see who opts into the program and to monitor their progress. In the interest of wellness, perhaps Target ought to look at its eligibility standards for health insurance too.

The pros of a more fit workforce are obvious. The process of how to get there is challenging. How do you encourage and motivate employees to be involved without creating an in-group/out-group division among members of the team which could hurt team morale and having employees fear retaliation if not successful?

A month-long competition may work. Competition for a longer period makes it more difficult to not cross into the negative set of results.

Providing discounts for purchasing healthy food sounds like a good idea if accommodations can be made for employees who can’t eat some of the “healthy” food for their individual health reasons.

Guarding against the fear of retaliation is a real issue that needs to be addressed as well. Finding the line that works is difficult. It remains to be seen whether this plan will work.

Healthy bodies = healthy minds = healthy attitudes = healthy productivity.

Good for the business, and a good move by any employer who understands the need to create a great work experience for their employees.

I think the Fitbit idea is a good employee benefit that other retailers should copy. Healthy employees are more productive employees. As it happens I wear a Fitbit, and I think it’s pretty cool.

Promoting, enabling, encouraging wellness and healthy lifestyle = good. Management scrutiny of employee lifestyle data = bad.

It’s OK to hand out Fitbits as an employee benefit, along with confidential counseling. Collecting and aggregating personal health data is questionable. Using the data to shame employees into prescribed lifestyle choices is problematic. What’s next, pre-shift weigh-ins and blood glucose tests?

It’s not quite clear from the articles whether Fitbit protects individual data under its corporate program. If they do, I’d be a little more comfortable with it. Management should be very thoughtful about how it defines team goals, so as not to create a workplace that is healthful for some, but toxic for others.

Dick Seesel says it all—he is right on.