ABSTRACT
Quantification practices are increasingly adopted by organizations to monitor and enhance performance, yet their impact on employees remains contested. Traditional research emphasizes negative consequences, including stress and reduced motivation, whereas emerging evidence suggests potential benefits under certain conditions. Across three studies, we examined both positive and negative effects of perceived quantification on well-being, operationalized as emotional exhaustion and work engagement. Our findings reveal dual pathways: when quantification is interpreted as coercive, it heightens perceptions of organizational dehumanization, which in turn translates into increased emotional exhaustion and decreased work engagement; when quantification is seen as a caring measure that prevents freeriding and thus serves collective fairness, it fosters engagement. We further show that perceived quantification correlates with freeriding prevention for employees working in teams with low task cohesion but not for those who work in highly cohesive teams. The results underscore that the consequences of quantification are contingent on how employees interpret the organizational intention behind its implementation. We discuss our studies’ findings in regard of the Job Demands–Resources framework and propose some practical guidance for organizations seeking to implement quantification practices in ways that promote well-being.