Developmwnt of Ergonomics - Term Paper Example

«Developmwnt of Ergonomics» Contents Contents 1 Jana Mossey, Knott, K., Higgins M. & Talerico, K. (1995). ffectiveness of a Psychosocial Intervention, Interpersonal Counseling, for Subdysthymic Depression in Medically Ill Elderly. Oxford Journal 51(4) 172-178 17 Willard Mittelman. (1991). Maslow's Study of Self-Actualization. Sage Journals 31(1) 114-135 17 Introduction A great number of advancements have been witnessed in business and management during the last few decades. These decades have witnessed how managers shifted from using typewrites to using expensive computers, from using manual labour to highly specialised equipment and machinery and so on and so forth. In a nutshell, this development can be categorised as development in Information Technology. However, such developments have often resulted in increased complexity, pressures and strains, as well as various other issues, in the workplace. Specifically, the transformation to the wholesale adoption and implementation of computer technology has resulted in the domination of machines in the workplace, where employers typically expect employees to work on complex computer programs and technical equipment such as using barcodes instead of simple manual stock forms as a part of their work to improve their performance and targets in order to acquire bonuses and promotions. All of this has given rise to materialistic culture, even in the workforce, where every employee try to compete with his colleague to win accolades and praise from his boss. This competition is rewarding for the business, but it has had certain bad effects on the health and psychology of individuals. This is due to a number of different reasons that are leading to an adverse impact on individuals in the workplace (Hartvigsen & Lings, 2004). Conflict and Change in Workplace Environment: . Conflicts can be defined as stressors that individuals have to face sometimes in their lives and careers. The complexity of organisational structure and introduction of new technology into the business have increased the risk of conflicts between workers and their supervisors, workers and their colleagues and workers and managers. For example, there might be conflict of interest between workers and supervisors about the working hours, wages etc. This will create disruption in the work and put off workers’ mind towards things that will create stress and in short it will be a disturbance to work. (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) An employment relation service in the Britain, ACAS (2007) have indicated that, despite the important role of ergonomics, a huge number of individuals confront various challenges at times of conflicts such as when they find that the decisions taken by the top management are against their personal value or change in their workplace environment against their wishes can range from physical and social to psychological and emotional adverse impacts (Hartvigsen & Lings, 2004). This subsequently results in the bad performance of the organisations and workers. Before analyzing the different mechanisms that individuals use to cope during times of conflict and change at work, it is imperative to identify and discuss the challenges and issues that will enable a better understanding of the topic. In particular, many agencies and psychologists (e.g., ACAS, 2007) have indicated that changing the workplace environment and avoiding disagreements among the top level management and workers is impossible, as they are a fundamental part of every healthy organization. In other words, it may be riskier to avoid conflict and change, since this could have a detrimental effect on different processes such as differing value judgements or priorities of the top-level management and the production line workers for e.g. top level management may want workers to prioritise their work and work more hours, whereas workers may prioritise giving more time to their family. All of this affects the performance of the organisation as a whole. . They play an important part by being open to workers comments and queries and by giving them frank answers. They should be frank and should always update and take their opinion before making decisions which affect workers. This way a worker will know that he is trusted and no decision affecting him will be taken without consulting them. However, one of the issues in the majority of organisations is the misperception of managers and employees about conflict and change, as they almost always tend to consider these forces as being destructive. On the other hand, conflict is the best way of identifying a problem in the organization, and subsequently allowing its immediate management (Dul, 2001). However, the inefficient management by managers and employers of conflict can lead to detrimental effects on individuals in the workplace environment. In this context, stress is the most common outcome of the lack of effective management, which subsequently inclines individuals towards reduced productivity, in terms of both quantity, as well as quality (Ghei et al., 1994). COPING: Experts (e.g., Moray, 2004) from the field of ergonomics believe that it is possible that individuals may be having a conflict within themselves. People cope problems different depending upon the root cause of the problem. For example, an employee will cope differently to a situation such as an injury that he may sustain from work and will consider benefit payments as his right, whereas if the same injury is sustained while he was away from work, he will take benefit payment as a gesture of goodwill by firm and will not consider that the firm was obliged to pay him that money. However, if employees cannot detect how to deal with stress and change due to lack of adequate management to tell them what to do, they may get frustrated and make rash decisions. For example, if an employee gets injured during work but does not know how to claim his benefit payment due to lack of knowledge, chances is that he may contact a labour court. This rash decision may defame not only the firm but will also put the future of this worker in jeopardy just because he did not know how to react in a certain situation. In such situations, many managers will make a compromise to save them from bad publicity in the majority of organisations, which helps individuals in the workplace environment to cope during times of conflicts (Ghei et al, 1994). However, research (e.g., Moray, 2004) indicates that compromise does not resolve conflict, but only puts it behind the curtains for a temporary period; compromise often ignites the levels of stress in individuals gradually, and this can also be detrimental for them. For example, in order prevent a labour court to pass a ruling against them, an organisation may offer worker the compensation, but later they may fire this worker and this will lead to stress. Besides compromise, a huge number of individuals in the workplace choose to ignore conflicts in order to preserve their employment, since in some business organisations the manifestation of a conflict, especially personal conflict, is an automatic ticket to your termination or lack of promotion in the near future as discussed in our example of a worker who contacted a labour and later was fired. (Kroemer, 1994). For this reason, many individuals in organisations prefer ignoring conflicts, including personal as well as external conflicts. However, ignoring conflicts related to the workplace itself can be very damaging for individuals as well as for the organization, and such a strategy seems very risky for the organization’s long-term survival. (ACAS, 2007) Until now, most mechanisms and strategies for dealing which conflict seem to involve hiding the conflicts for a while. Experts believe, however, that the best way to solve or cope up with a conflict is to confront it, rather than to engage in a compromise or ignore it. Confronting issues than hiding them is often the most effective mechanism for business success, but this practice is generally very rare in individuals; however, if managed adequately, it can bring highly constructive outcomes to organisations. Specifically, some experts (e.g., Meister, 1999) believe that the effective management of conflicts and issues is the best tool that any organization can acquire in order to bring about or maintain success in the current competitive business environment. Therefore, it is imperative to promote individuals in the workplace who can create and maintain the practice of identifying serious conflicts and problems in organisations, and to undertake strenuous efforts to confront and resolve them while collaborating with managers or supervisors (Meister, 1999). It is better than infighting among the co-workers and it creates positive synergy and takes the organisation to success. In this regard, a mechanism for confronting and solving conflict is the best possible way of eliminating primary risk factors and causes of any conflict or problem in the organization. It is the principal responsibility of ergonomics experts to eliminate the underlying causes of destructive conflicts in organisations and to bring about constructive changes to suit the environment according to the needs and demands of the individuals and the tasks that need performing. This, when done at the same time as focusing primarily on the satisfaction of employees, has now become the common formula of attaining success in many organisations. Many businesses think that infighting and competition among workers will lead to higher productivity and bring about the best in their employees, but it is not right as it creates negative synergy. In organisations individuals confront the challenges during times of conflict, and they acquire different choices and opportunities for resolving the relevant issues. Until now, the paper has discussed some of the mechanisms for employees in the workplace during times of conflict (e.g., Karwowski, 2006). On the other hand, managers and supervisors have a higher degree of responsibility in times of conflict, since they play a crucial role in managing conflicts in the workplace environment, and their actions often are the determining factor in the success or failure of organisations in providing a healthier and safer workplace environment (Ghei et al, 2004). In most circumstances, supervisors and managers consider invoking the process of confronting conflicts is the most efficient mechanism and strategy for dealing with the change and conflicts. Such a strategy usually works for both internal as well as external conflicts. In the conflict resolution process, it is imperative for managers to identify the relevant underlying causes, the actions involved in the task, the stakeholders involved, and lastly and most importantly, the consequences of the conflicts and the best mechanism with which to confront and resolve any conflict in the organization (Karwowski, 2006). Effective communication is one of the most important and fundamental requirements in every organization; lack of communication can severely impact the performance of individuals in the workplace, and communication is very important for ergonomics experts in resolving conflict in organisations (McCabe, 2004). For example, it is the workers who are going to put forward to the management as to what is causing discomfort, and through the effective communication process, any factor causing discomfort will be reduced or eliminated from the workplace environment. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE: Many experts (Thompson et al, 2008) have correctly identified a positive correlation between organisational structure and stress. Many times this stress is natural and comes from the nature of the work, whereas the other times it is created by the management itself in order to make sure that the employees are feeling the heat and performing to the best of their capabilities. Subsequently, the physical environment and workplace culture is another consideration for ergonomists, as studies have indicated that the environment, especially the physical environment (e.g., temperature, lighting, etc.) plays a crucial role in influencing individuals’ productivity at work (HSE, 2007). The social environment is the last but equally important concern of ergonomists as humans are social animals. Individuals cannot work in isolation in organisations. It is very important to provide a socially healthy environment to individuals. This is because, many studies (e.g. Mittleman, 1991) say that social need is among the needs that individuals look in a workplace. It is so important that famous Abraham Maslow rated it next to hunger and safety needs. Hence it is very important for ergonomic experts to provide social security to their workers. ERGONOMICS: In response to health and psychological pressures felt by the employees in the midst and of competition and struggle to be the best, experts (e.g., HSE, 2007) have introduced a new branch of science called ergonomics that helps employers in creating and providing a safe and healthy workplace environment for individuals and employees. Although ergonomics focuses primarily on workplace settings that are fundamental risk factors for individuals, researchers (e.g., Pransky et al, 2002) have indicated that, as the years have passed, the scope of ergonomics is expanding as in the past it was only confined to safety of the workforce and their comfort levels and good working environment was not taken into account by the managers or business owners. Ergonomics deals with many different aspects of workplace safety and management, including the health, psychological, and social aspects including good relationships among colleagues and good working environment which tends to increase employee’s productivity and yield benefits for companies in form of profits and revenue. In this regard, good business managers use ergonomics to create an atmosphere where good working relations are established, for example in order to create harmonious relationships among co-workers, a manager may introduce coffee breaks in a comfortable dining room, where he will give opportunity to workers to talk among themselves without having to fear that they being monitored by removing CCTV from that room. This will not only make employees more comfortable, but it will allow them to talk openly and talk on the areas of interest (Pransky et al., 2002) Based on the above-mentioned theoretical framework for ergonomics, every power of supervisors and every strategy or choice of individuals generally falls in one of these domains (IEA, 2010) of ergonomics. Thus, it is very important that individuals along with managers try to understand this framework and the theories of ergonomics (IEA, 2010) that are helpful in developing and maintaining a suitable workplace environment. Some of the specific factors in the physical domain of ergonomics include the size of the body, body posture, position of the muscles and joints, utilization of the five senses and so on, which all can play a significant role in ensuring the productivity of individuals in the workplace (Fernandez, 1995). This information seems to exist in isolation from the above-mentioned discussion related to the coping mechanisms and strategies of individuals during times of conflict and change in organisations. However, a detailed consideration of similar aspects in different domains of ergonomics (IEA, 2010) can be very effective for individuals (employers and employees) to acquire a more comfortable, healthier, and safer workplace environment. Besides the relevant theoretical frameworks and discussions, a few research studies (Fernandez, 1995) have indicated that some conflicts and issues are bound to occur in organisations, and that the individuals working in it should prepare themselves physically, mentally, and psychologically in order to confront such situations appropriately. For instance, as mentioned earlier, some conflicts are internal and exist within an individual, and so only the individual himself will be able to confront and resolve it, while managers and ergonomists may strive to ensure a compatible and complementary workplace environment. However, in some situations, individuals, specifically, employees may leave everything on the shoulders of managers, supervisors or ergonomists to ensure an efficient and safer workplace environment while they deny their role in the occurrence of accidents, issues, and conflicts. This is a wrong perception because even after the ergonomic environment is provided certain internal issues or problems may continue to create problems making the utopian working conditions and optimal productivity impossible. These problems can be reduced by immediate intervention by counselling and conciliation. (Mossey et al, 1995) Similarly, ergonomists (Cooper & Kleiner, 2001) focus primarily on the physical environment while endeavouring to promote a healthy and effective psychological and social environment; however, in the past, various ergonomists focused almost exclusively on the physical environment, while leaving other domains to the employers and employees. However, this arrangement was inadequate. In this regard, as time passes, there will be a need to integrate the three domains of ergonomics (i.e., physical, cognitive, and psychological) in the future (IEA, 2010). Since all of these ergonomic domains are different, it is very difficult to integrate them increasing the complexity of the work. Experts (ACAS, 2007) have identified a number of underlying causes of stress at work. Specifically, this issue is fairly unique in terms of its characteristics, since studies have indicated that stress at work can be internal as well as external. As a result, it is often very complex to deal the issue effectively. In this regard, ergonomists (Cooper & Kleiner, 2001) are responsible for identifying any factors that might increase levels of stress, such as workload, bullying, or harassment in the workplace, lack of motivation, behavioural changes in social settings, or any errors or faults with equipments, and so on. After identifying the underlying causes, the best possible mechanism will be to initiate a conflict resolution process which involves managers/supervisors and individuals. This confrontation of the conflict through mediation is likely be very beneficial for every stakeholder of the organization, and will help in the maintenance of a comfortable, safe, and effective workplace environment, which might not have been the case if other mechanisms of dealing with conflict were tried, such as avoiding, ignoring, or engaging in compromise. Conclusion In conclusion, the researcher has described, analyzed, and discussed some of the noteworthy aspects of ergonomics, while at the same time recognizing the different mechanisms that individuals use to cope in times of conflict and change in the workplace. A great number of advancements have been witnessed in business and management during the last few decades which have changed the outlook of management’s work in these organisations. For this purpose, the researcher has included various studies that have led to a more comprehensive and critical understanding of the role of ergonomics in the workplace. In this regard, managers and employers should welcome conflicts and change in their organisations, since they are positive forces that play an important role in driving individuals to work more effectively in their organisations However, continuous stress is always bad and managers need to balance out between stress and comfort levels in the workplace. This comfort comes from the proper ergonomic techniques which not only pressures employees to perform to the best of their abilities, but it also makes sure that extra pressure is not created so that stress and comfort levels are equally balanced. The researcher anticipates that the paper will be advantageous for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding this topic. References ACAS. (2007), ‘Managing conflict at work’, Advisory, conciliation, and arbitration service, February 2007, pp. 1-20. Ahasan, R., and Imbeau, D. (2003), ‘Who belongs to ergonomics? An examination of the human factors community’, Journal of work study, 52 (3), pp. 123-128. McLaren. (2010), Ergonomics and injury prevention. Available at: http://www.bayregional.org/body.cfm?id=391 [Accessed 15th March 2010]. Cooper, C., Kleiner, and Brian, H. (2001), ‘New developments in ergonomics’, Journal of Management Research News, 24 (3) 114-117. Dul, J., & Weerdmeester, B. A. (2001). Ergonomics for Beginners (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis Fernandez, J.E. (1995), ‘Ergonomics in the workplace’, Journal of Facilities, 13 (4 20-27. Hartvigsen, J., and Lings, S. (2004), ’Psychosocial factors at work in relation to low back pain and consequences of low back pain’, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61 (1) 17-32 Neil Thompson, Stradling, S., Murphy, M., and O’Neill, P,. (2008). Stress and Organisational Culture. British Journal of Social Work 26(5) 647-655 Health and Safety Executive. (2007), ‘Understanding ergonomics at work’, Health and Safety Executive Leaflet. February 2007, pp. 1-8. International Ergonomics Association. (2010), International Ergonomics Association. Available at: http://www.iea.cc/index.php?contID=home [Accessed 18th March 2010]. Karwowski, W. (2006), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors, Volume 1. CRC Press. Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H., Kroemer, K. (1994), Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, McCabe, P.T. (2004), Contemporary ergonomics 2004. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Meister, D. (1999), A History of Human Factors and Ergonomics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moray, N. (2004), Ergonomics. Routledge: London Nayer, N. (1996), ‘Workplace ergonomics and simulation’, Journal of assembly Automation, 16 (1 25-28. Pransky, G., Robertson, M.M., and Moon, S.D. (2002), ‘Stress and Work-Related Upper Extremity Disorders’, American journal of industrial medicine, 41 443-455. Ajay Ghei, Eddystone, C., & Nebel, III. (1994). The successful managers and psychological androgyny: Conceptual and empirical investigation. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 13(3), 247-264. Jana Mossey, Knott, K., Higgins M. & Talerico, K. (1995). ffectiveness of a Psychosocial Intervention, Interpersonal Counseling, for Subdysthymic Depression in Medically Ill Elderly. Oxford Journal 51(4) 172-178 Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Willard Mittelman. (1991). Maslow's Study of Self-Actualization. Sage Journals 31(1) 114-135 Read More