The Covid-19 pandemic has increased the pressure on organizations to ensure health and safety in the workplace. An increasing number of organizations are considering wearables and physiolytics devices as part of their safe return to work programs so as to comply with governments’ accountability rules. As with other technologies with ambivalent use (i.e. simultaneously beneficial and harmful), the introduction of these devices in work settings is met with skepticism. In this context, nudging strategies as a way of using design, information, and other ways to manipulate behaviors (system 1 nudge) and choices (system 2 nudge) has gained traction and is often applied alongside the introduction of ambivalent technologies with the aim to ‘nudge’ their use. While the feasibility of different nudge strategies is often studied from only a managerial perspective, where employees' volitional autonomy and dignity is often treated as secondary, we explore which nudges are acceptable from the perspectives of ordinary workers. Using Q-methodology as a more evolutionary and participatory way to design nudges, we describe five basic strategies that are (to varying degrees) acceptable to them: (a) positive reinforcement and fun, (b) controlling the organizational environment, (c) self-responsibility, (d) collective responsibility, and (e) adapting the individual environment. Our findings show that there is a wide range of viewpoints on what is being considered an acceptable nudge and stress the importance of a transparent, equal dialogue between those who design nudges and potential nudgees.