work organization and ergonomics

Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 649}662

Work organization and ergonomics

Pascale Carayon*, Michael J. SmithDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA

Received 17 January 2000; accepted 20 July 2000

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of sociotechnical and business trends on work organization and ergonomics. This analysis isperformed with the use of Balance Theory (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1989, 4, 67}79). The impact on workorganization and the work system of the following sociotechnical and business trends is discussed: re-structuring and re-organizing ofcompanies, new forms of work organization, workforce diversity, and information and communication technology. An expansion ofBalance Theory, from the design of work systems to the design of organizations, is discussed. Finally, the issue of change is examined.Several elements and methods are discussed for the design of change processes. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

According to Helander (1997), `ergonomics and hu-man factors use knowledge of human abilities and limita-tions to the design of systems, organizations, jobs,machines, tools, and consumer products for safe, e$cient,and comfortable usea (p. 4). Applications of ergonomicshave evolved over time as ergonomic knowledge andresearch have progressed, but also as human problemsemerge around the world. A survey of professional socie-ties federated in the IEA shows that the "ve most impor-tant emerging areas in ergonomics are (Helander, 1997):

f methodology to change work organization and design;f work-related musculoskeletal disorders;f usability testing for consumer electronic goods;f human}computer interface: software;f organizational design and psychosocial work organ-

ization.

Two of these areas are directly related to the theme ofthis paper, methodology to change work organizationand design, and organizational design and psychosocialwork organization. In this paper, we present concepts ofwork organization and their relationship with ergonom-ics. We also discuss changes in work and business thatcan a!ect work organization and ergonomics. Helander

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-608-262-9797; fax: 1-608-262-8454.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Carayon).

(1997) emphasizes the main purpose of ergonomics, thatof design. In this paper, we also discuss approaches forthe (re)design of work/organizational systems.

2. Work organization

The emergence of macroergonomics has strongly con-tributed to the increasing interest in work organization inthe ergonomics "eld (Hendrick, 1991, 1996). Work or-ganization is de"ned as the way work is structured,distributed, processed and supervised (Hagberg et al.,1995). It is an `objectivea characteristic of the workenvironment, and depends on many factors, includingmanagement style, type of product or service, character-istics of the workforce, level and type of technology, andmarket conditions. According to the US NIOSH (2000),work organization deals with subjects such as the follow-ing: the scheduling of work (such as work}rest schedules,hours of work and shift work), job design (such as com-plexity of tasks, skill and e!ort required, and degree ofworker control), interpersonal aspects of work (such asrelationships with supervisors and coworkers), careerconcerns (such as job security and growth opportunities),management style (such as participatory managementpractices and teamwork), and organizational character-istics (such as climate, culture, and communications).

The objective of ergonomics is to improve both perfor-mance and health and safety. Therefore, the concept ofwork organization is at the core of ergonomics. Somework organizations are more &e$cient' at achieving

0003-6870/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 5

Table 1Balanced work system

Theoretical basis Job design theoriesOccupational stress theoriesErgonomics

Main concepts The work system has "ve elements: environment,task, technology, organizational factors, indi-vidual.Two types of stress load: physical and psychologi-cal dimensions Positive and negative aspects ofthe elements of the work systemThe work organization de"nes the di!erent ele-ments of the work system.Balance of the total work systemCompensatory balance

Publication First publication appeared in Smith andCarayon-Sainfort (1989).

optimal performance and health and safety goals. Theimpact of work organization on people can be concep-tualized as physical or psychosocial work factors (Coxand Ferguson, 1994). Psychosocial work factors are `per-ceiveda characteristics of the work environment thathave an emotional connotation for workers and man-agers, and that can result in stress and strain (Hagberg etal., 1995). Physical work factors include typical ergonom-ics risk factors, e.g. repetitiveness, force, poor worksta-tion design, and unhealthy postures.

According to the Balance Theory of Job Design (Smithand Carayon-Sainfort, 1989), work organization resultsin the design of a work system that has "ve elements: theindividual, task, tools and technologies, physical environ-ment and the organization. The "ve elements of the worksystem interact to produce a &stress load'. The interplayand interactions between these di!erent factors can pro-duce various (physical and psychosocial) stressors on theindividual that then produce a &stress load', which hasboth physical and psychological components. `Loadsaon the person challenge biological resources (energyexpenditure, biomechanical strain, physical status),psychological resources (perception, cognition, decision-making, emotion) and behavioral resources (motivation,coping behaviors). The stress load, if sustained over timeand depending on the individual resources, can produceadverse e!ects, such as health and safety problems andlack of performance. The characteristics of the load pro-duce physiological and psychological consequences suchas hormone release, muscular action, perceptions, andmood states. The responses to the load are in#uenced bythe individual's physical capacity, health status, and mo-tivation. The psychological responses are the product ofpersonality, past experiences and the social situation.These physiological and psychological reactions to the`loadsa act as motivation for employee behavior to re-spond to the `loadsa. The response could be increased ordecreased performance, or `copinga behaviors (adaptiveor maladaptive). The work system can also produce pos-itive e!ects, such as increased motivation and high-qual-ity output. The main elements of Balance Theory arepresented in Table 1.

According to Balance Theory the work system im-poses the `loadsa which bring about the individual'sphysiological and psychological reactions. The physiolo-gical reactions caused by the load produce a strain on theperson if they exceed the available biological resources,such as energy resources or mechanical strength. Forinstance, a repetitive lifting task with heavy materialsbeing carried out for hours without rest can exhaustenergy resources and produce local muscular fatigue.This can diminish strength and a!ect lifting style. Shift-work can disrupt biological rhythms that increase thedemand on the body's energy resources. It can in#uencebehavior such as eating and sleeping, which e!ects energyresources and fatigue.

The work system can also cause psychological reac-tions that have emotional, behavioral and biological con-sequences. These consequences are primarily determinedby the individual's perception of their ability to meet thedemands imposed, upon their perception of the `accepta-bilitya of the working conditions. In addition, the per-son's availability of psychological and behavioralresources, such as motivation, cognitive capacity andcoping behaviors, in#uence the consequences.

The physiological and psychological reactions are notindependent of each other. They interact and may evenreinforce each other. For instance, the repetitive liftingtask may cause boredom, which leads to mental fatigue.It may also produce physical fatigue by depleting energyresources. These e!ects reinforce each other resulting ina systemic response of `generala fatigue (Grandjean,1969). In a similar way, Cox and Ferguson (1994) haveproposed that the e!ects of the work environment onhealth may be mediated by two pathways: "rst, by a di-rect physico-chemical mechanism, and second by an in-direct psycho-physiological mechanism. They alsoemphasized the interactions between those two path-ways. The e!ects of the work environment are due toa set of complex interactions between physical, psychoso-cial and organizational factors and processes.

Physical, psychological and behavioral resources arenot a "xed and stable set of individual characteristics butchange over time and are in#uenced by capacity, motiva-tion, stress responses and the demands of the workingconditions. For instance, these resources may increasebecause of on-the-job training or the availability of pow-ered assistance machinery. In the repetitive liftingexample the introduction of equipment to do the liftingwill reduce the energy requirements and the local musclefatigue, while training in proper lifting techniques mayalso reduce these same outcomes. Stress responses can

650 P. Carayon, M.J. Smith / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 649}662

in#uence the biological, psychological and behavioralresources available to an individual. Individual personal-ity characteristics, genetic make-up and health status allin#uence the physical resources available to the indi-vidual and the nature of the stress responses.

The load on the individual can be in#uenced by thephysical demand, psychological response to the demandas mediated by perception, or both. When the load be-comes too great, the person displays stress responses,which are emotions, behaviors, and biological reactionsthat are maladaptive. When these reactions occur fre-quently over a prolonged time period, they lead to healthdisorders. Thus, chronic exposure with cumulative reac-tions is a hallmark of distress. Cumulative stress re-sponses reduce the available resources for dealing withthe loads from the work environment, and a circulare!ect begins. This repeated circular cycle leads toa breakdown in individual resources, unless external re-sources, are made available or the environmental load isreduced.

According to Balance Theory, the e!ects of the worksystem on the individual are assumed to be mediated bythe stress load that is both physical and psychological.These e!ects have in#uences on the quality of workinglife, performance, strain and health. Research and prac-tice in the "eld of work organization have demonstratedthat considering only a small number of work factors canbe misleading and ine$cient in solving job design prob-lems. Balance Theory emphasizes a systems approach inwhich all elements of the work system should be con-sidered in order to improve performance, and health andsafety. The following is a short review of each element ofthe work system.

Environment: Ergonomists have highlighted various as-pects of the physical environment as job stressors includ-ing noise, lighting, temperature, air quality and workplace layout. Noise is the most well-known environ-mental stressor that can cause increases in arousal, bloodpressure, and negative psychological mood (Cohen andSpacapan, 1984; Crocker, 1997). Environmental condi-tions, general air quality and housekeeping have beenshown to a!ect energy expenditure, heat exchange, stressresponses, and sensory disruption which make it moredi$cult to carry out tasks and increase the level ofworker stress and emotional irritation.

Task: Many of the so-called psychosocial work factorsfall into the task element: job demands (e.g., perceivedquantitative workload, work pressure, cognitive de-mands), job content (e.g., challenge, repetitiveness), ma-chine-pacing and job control (Carayon and Lim, 1998).According to the Job Strain model of Karasek (1979), thecombination of high job demands and low decision latit-ude is the most stressful combination and can lead tovarious health problems. These two task factors are onlytwo of the many task elements that can a!ect perfor-mance, and health and safety. Another task element,

repetitiveness, can be stressful both physically and psy-chologically. Physical repetitiveness has been found to bea major predictor of various musculoskeletal disorders(see, for example, Silverstein et al., 1987). Psychologicalrepetitiveness, such as lack of challenge, low variety andunderutilization of skills, can also lead to various phys-ical and mental health problems (see, for example, Cox,1985).

Technology: Lack of adequate skills to use the techno-logy leads to poor motivation, stress and diminishedperformance. Fear over job loss due to replacement bytechnology reduces motivation and increases stress. Onthe other hand when new technology is applied appro-priately it can enhance job content and skill utilisation,leading to increased motivation and performance withdecreased stress. The physical characteristics of the toolsand technology can put physiological loads on the em-ployee. For instance, poor workstation design can lead tounhealthy postures and movements, and diminished per-formance (see, for example, Grandjean, 1969). Ergonomicproblems of hand tools have been much discussed (Konz,1979).

Organizational factors: The organizational context inwhich work tasks are carried out often has consider-ations that in#uence worker motivation, stress and per-formance. The way in which workers are introduced tonew technology or some other change, and the organiza-tional support they receive-such as training and time toacclimate-have been related to stress and performance(Smith and Carayon, 1995). The ability to grow in a joband to be promoted (career development) a!ects motiva-tion and stress. Potential job loss in#uences motivation,performance and stress. Other organizational consider-ations such as work schedule (shiftwork) and overtimehave been shown to have negative mental and physicalhealth consequences (Monk and Tepas, 1985).

Individual: A number of personal considerations deter-mine the physiological and psychological responses thatthe preceding elements of the work system model willproduce. These include, but are not limited to, personal-ity, physical health status, skills and abilities, physicalconditioning, anthropometrics, prior experiences andlearning, motives, goals and needs.

The "ve elements of the balance model system work inconcert to provide the loads and the resources forachievement of individual and organizational goals. Wehave described some of the potential negative attributesof the elements in terms of motivation, performance andjob stress, but there are also positive aspects of each thatcan counteract the negative in#uences. For instance, thenegative in#uences of inadequate skill to use new techno-logy can be o!set by increased worker training. Theadverse in#uences of low job content can be balanced byan organizational supervisory structure that promotesemployee involvement and control over the tasks. Jobswith many negative elements are jobs that produce the

P. Carayon, M.J. Smith / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 649}662 651

most adverse impact on the employee, whereas jobs thathave better balance are less stressful and may actuallyproduce positive outcomes, such as high quality of work-ing life and enhanced quality of performance (Carayon,1994; Eklund, 1997b).

3. Sociotechnical and business trends

The US NIOSH (2000) indicates that work organiza-tion is in#uenced by factors such as economic conditions,technological change, demographic trends, and changingcorporate and employment practices. There are majorchanges and trends occurring in business, technology andsociety that can represent new forms of work organiza-tion and, therefore, have potentially large impacts on thework system. In this section, we describe some of thesetrends and their potential impact on the work system.The following trends are discussed: (1) re-structuring andre-organizing of companies, (2) new forms of work organ-ization, (3) workforce diversity, and (4) information andcommunication technology.

3.1. Re-structuring and re-organizing of companies

In the past decade, companies have been goingthrough increasingly rapid changes in their structuresand organizations. Programs and management tech-niques, such as business process engineering, total qualitymanagement (TQM), virtual organizations, networkedorganizations, #exibility, lean manufacturing, and agileproduction, have posed major challenges to companies.These programs and management techniques have amajor impact on the way companies are structuredand organized. In this section, we discuss some of thepotential e!ects of these re-structuring and re-organizinge!orts, in particular on work organization andergonomics.

3.1.1. Re-engineering and downsizingRe-engineering and downsizing continue to be imple-

mented by businesses. These organizational re-structur-ing e!orts a!ect work organization and may haveadverse results for people, for example in increased work-load demands, longer and more varied work shifts, andjob insecurity. The negative aspects of downsizing onemployees remaining in the organization may be com-pensated by appropriate changes in the work organiza-tion. A longitudinal study of downsizing suggests thatimprovements in the work organization were able too!set the negative e!ects of increased workload followingdownsizing (Parker et al., 1997). There was no overalldecrease in well-being after the downsizing, despite in-creased work demands. However, it is possible that theincreased work demands could lead to increased healthproblems, such as musculoskeletal disorders. The empiri-

cal evidence on the human impact of re-engineering anddownsizing shows some potential negative impact onwork organization, quality of working life, and health; italso shows that some of the negative impact can bebalanced out. However, the systemic impact of re-engin-eering and downsizing on work has not been examinedyet. Research on the physical health impact (e.g., mus-culoskeletal disorders) of re-engineering and downsizingis necessary to evaluate the full systemic impact of suchorganizational restructuring.

3.1.2. Quality improvementOther trends in businesses include the widespread de-

velopment of quality improvement strategies, such astotal quality management (TQM). TQM can involveimportant changes in the way work is organized (Smithet al., 1989). TQM can lead to positive and/or negativechanges in psychosocial work factors (Carayon et al.,1999a; Sainfort et al., 1997). Understanding the linkagesbetween ergonomics and TQM is crucial. Drury(1997) lists several interactions between ergonomicsand TQM:

f the use of ergonomics to improve the performance ofquality control inspectors;

f applications of TQM to safety aspects of ergonomics;f linkages between TQM and macro-ergonomics or

socio-technical systems;f open systems strategic issues;f systems approaches to organization design and leader-

ship;f measurement-based operations;f appropriate use of technology;f individuals, teams and the change process.

Interesting research has been conducted to examinethe links between ergonomic stress and low quality ofperformance (Eklund, 1997a; 1995). Further researchshould examine the potential positive and/or negativelinkages between ergonomics and TQM (Eklund,1997a).

3.1.3. Virtual corporationThe virtual corporation is another form of organiza-

tional structure that has been receiving increased atten-tion (Davidow and Malone, 1992). A virtual corporationis created when independent companies join together toact like a single corporation. This work organization canhave major impact on the psychosocial and physicalaspects of the work system. For instance, in a virtualcorporation, much of the interaction between employeesis conducted through some form of information andcommunication technology (e.g., video conferencing,email). This occurs in a context where employees aresupposed to cooperate on a speci"c project for a limitedtime period. From a work organization and ergonomics


point of view, several problems may occur in such a worksystem, such as dependency on the technology andpotential stress problems (Carayon-Sainfort, 1992;Smith, 1987, 1997) and performance obstacles (Brownand Mitchell, 1991), and di$culty in building co-operation between &remote' co-workers. On the otherhand, the virtual corporation may provide some bene"tsto the employees such as opportunity to developand learn new skills through collaboration withemployees in other companies. In virtual corporations,the issue of physical design of home o$ces is particularlyimportant.

3.1.4. Networked organizationThe increasing use of information and communication

technology has facilitated the emergence of organiza-tional networks of people, groups and companies. Theconcept of &networked organization' has been much dis-cussed in the business literature (see, for example, Grand-ori and Soda, 1995); however the implications on workorganization and ergonomics have not been studied andtaken into account in the design and implementation ofthis type of organizational structure. In a networkedorganization, there is collaboration and cooperation be-tween the di!erent organizations that belong to the net-works. Therefore, employees in those di!erentorganizations are supposed to work closely with eachother. Often, the close collaboration includes sharingsome physical space. For instance, in the French plantproducing the Smart cars, workers of di!erent companieswork under the same roof, in the same plant. However,employees of the di!erent members of the network workin di!erent settings and organizations, under di!erentsystems of task distribution and decision-making pro-cesses, and in various physical conditions. This raisesimportant ergonomic considerations, for instance whenworkers can see that they work in di!erent physicalworking conditions and with di!erent tools. Thedi!erent organizational members of the network may putmore or less emphasis on physical working conditionsand ergonomic tools. This may create tension amongemployees, leading to poor cooperation, decreased per-formance, and stress. Further research is necessary toexamine the interactions between di!erent work systemsof a networked organization and their impact on em-ployees.

3.1.5. ConclusionWe have insu$cient knowledge about the impact of

di!erent forms of re-structuring and re-organizing ofcompanies on the work system. It is important to studythe accompanying changes in work organization andthe positive and negative impact of these changes on thedi!erent elements of the work system. Understanding theimpact on people should be of utmost importance tocompanies.

3.2. New forms of work organization

Many changes in work organization have recentlyemerged, even if theoreticians have introduced some ofthe concepts many years ago. For instance, teamwork,participation and empowerment have received increasedattention by companies. In addition, there has beena movement toward building close links betweenemployees and customers.

3.2.1. TeamworkRecently, various forms of teamwork have been pro-

posed and applied, from temporary teams (e.g., qualitycircles, project teams) to permanent teams (e.g., semi-autonomous work groups, self-managed teams). Tem-porary teams are set up when some change needs to beimplemented and to better manage the change process.The design of the change process, including the role ofteamwork, is discussed later. In this section we focus onpermanent teams.

Teamwork represents one form of work organizationthat can have large positive and/or negative e!ects on thedi!erent elements of the work system and on humanoutcomes, such as performance, attitudes, well-being andhealth. Sundstrom et al. (1990) have de"ned work teamsas `interdependent collections of individuals who shareresponsibility for speci"c outcomes for their organiza-tionsa (p. 120). Teams can vary a great deal in the waythey are designed, managed and implemented. Lawler(1986) lists the following characteristics of work teams:membership, work area coverage, training, meetings,supervision, reward systems, decision-making responsib-ility, installation process, and size. Sundstrom et al.(1990) have proposed that work team e!ectiveness isdynamically inter-related with organizational context,boundaries and team development. Hackman (1987) hasproposed a normative model of group e!ectiveness. Themodel identi"es three process criteria: e!ort, knowledge,and the appropriateness of task performance strategies.Increases in these three criteria, given task con"gura-tions, should improve the overall e!ectiveness of thegroup. According to Hackman (1987), the basic levers tochange the process criteria are group design, organiza-tional context, and synergy.

Given the variety of team characteristics and organiza-tional settings, it is likely that the impact of teamwork onthe work system will be highly variable. Some teams mayprovide for positive characteristics, such as increasedautonomy and more interesting tasks, whereas otherteams may produce production pressures and tightenedmanagement control (Lawler III, 1986). One importantissue in team design is the degree of authority and auton-omy (Goodman et al., 1988; Medsker and Campion,1997). It is, therefore, important to examine the impact ofteamwork on the task and organizational elements of thework system. Tasks performed by teams are typically of


a di!erent nature compared to tasks performed by indi-vidual employees. Understanding the physical and psy-chosocial characteristics of the tasks performed by theteam and the members of the team is highly signi"cantfor ergonomists. Teams can provide opportunity for re-ducing the physical and psychosocial repetitiveness oftasks performed by individual employees. This is trueonly if employees have su$cient training on the di!erenttasks and if rotation among tasks occurs. In some instan-ces, the increased authority and autonomy provided toteams may allow employees to in#uence their workrhythms and production schedules. This may have bene-"cial physical impact if adequate work}rest schedules areused. On the other hand, members of the team may workvery hard at the beginning of the shift in order to rest atthe end of the day. This overload at the beginning of theshift may have some physical health consequences, suchas musculoskeletal disorders. A more balanced workloadover the entire shift is preferred. In other instances, team-work has been accompanied by tightened managementcontrol (Barker, 1993) and electronic and peer surveil-lance (Sewell, 1998). In conclusion, the impact of team-work on work organization and ergonomics is largelyundetermined and depends on a range of factors. How-ever, teamwork can provide many opportunities to im-prove elements of the work system. Ergonomics researchshould be conducted to characterize elements of &good'teams and to propose approaches for designing andimplementing them.

3.2.2. ParticipationAnother major change in work organization is the

increased use of participation. Participation is not a newconcept (see, for example, the early study by Coch andFrench, 1948), but it has received increased attention byboth theoreticians and practitioners in diverse areas,including ergonomics (Wilson, 1991). The "eld of par-ticipatory ergonomics has seen a marked increase fromthe early 1980s to today (Wilson and Haines, 1997). Sinceparticipatory ergonomics can be conceived as a macro-ergonomic tool for implementing ergonomics, it is furtherdiscussed in the section on change process. In the 1990s,in parallel with the increased interest in participation, theconcept of &empowerment' has emerged. While the twoconcepts of participation and empowerment are not sim-ilar, they share some common interest in increasedemployee control and involvement (Bowen and Lawler,1995; Lawler III, 1986). For instance, participative man-agement can be conceptualized as a means for empower-ing employees (Speer and Hughey, 1996). At theorganizational level, empowerment may exist when or-ganizations implement practices that distribute power,information, knowledge, and rewards throughout theorganization (Bowen and Lawler, 1995). At the indi-vidual level, empowerment refers to intrinsic tasks mo-tivation that manifests itself in four cognitions: meaning,

competence, self-determination and impact (Thomas andVelthouse, 1990). It is generally assumed that participa-tion and empowerment are positive characteristics ofa work organization that can foster quality of workinglife, and reduce stress and health problems. However,some authors have warned against the potential negativehuman consequences of participation (see, for example,Fantasia et al., 1988; Dickson, 1981). Therefore, followingBalance Theory, it is important to understand the multi-dimensional, dynamic characteristics of participationand empowerment, and their potential positive and nega-tive impact on the work system and people (Cotton et al.,1988; Dachler and Wilpert, 1978; Wilson and Haines,1997). It will be interesting to conduct research on therole of various &participants' (see, for example, Haims andCarayon, 1998; Karltun and Eklund, 2000). Research isalso necessary to further examine the potential negativeimpact of participation, in particular increased workloadand work pressure (Carayon et al., 1999a).

3.2.3. Employee}customer relationshipThe service sector now accounts for a large proportion

of the economy of industrialized countries. In addition,many &manufacturing' companies are becoming moreand more &service' companies: they develop and sell notonly a physical product, but also associated services (e.g.,a computer with a maintenance contract). Moreover thecustomer tends to be more directly involved in the manu-facturing operations. These changes lead to closer rela-tionships between employees and customers, inparticular in the form of transactions and interactions(Drury, 1998). Therefore, it is important to understandthe work organization and ergonomics impact of thesetransactions and interactions between the employee andthe customer. Many elements of the work system can bea!ected by these changes in work organization. Often,the interaction between the customer and the employeewill not be face-to-face but through some technology,such as telephone and email. When technological prob-lems occur, for instance, the technology-mediated inter-action between the customer and the employee may leadto a range of consequences, including increased stressand pressure on the employee. Further research is neces-sary to examine the technology-mediated interaction be-tween customers and employees, in particular undersub-optimal technological functioning.

The direct contact between the employee and the cus-tomer will also have major impacts on the organizationalelement of the work system, such as work schedules.Customers may expect to have access to the servicewhenever needed, therefore leading to longer work daysand weeks, and shiftwork for the employees. The conse-quences of shiftwork have been largely discussed in theergonomics literature (see, for example, Tepas et al.,1995). Other e!ects of the closer employee/customer rela-tionship on the work system include major changes in the


tasks performed by the employee. In this context, it isnecessary to understand the nature and content of cus-tomer/service provider interactions (Drury, 1998). Chenand Drury (1997) have proposed an ergonomics frame-work for understanding the interactions between a cus-tomer and a service provider, e.g., an employee.

3.2.4. ConclusionIn conclusion, major changes in work organization are

occurring, in particular in the forms of teamwork, partici-pation, empowerment and increased linkage betweenemployees and customers. Ergonomic researchers andpractitioners have tackled some of those issues. However,much is still not known about the potential positive, aswell as the negative aspects of these new forms of workorganization, and their consequences on performance,health and safety. Can these new forms of work organiza-tion be the foundation for implementing ergonomics andfostering positive human outcomes? As ergonomists, it isimportant not to embark quickly on &management fads'but to stay alert in order to identify the potential threatto employee well-being and health. On the other hand,much bene"t can be derived when implementing some ofthe changes (see, for example, the literature on participa-tory ergonomics), and ergonomics concepts and methodshave much to o!er in the `humanea implementation ofthese new forms of work organization.

3.3. Workforce diversity

The workforce is aging rapidly and becoming increas-ingly diverse with regard to race and ethnic background,gender and nationality/culture. The increase in work-force diversity challenges ergonomists who need to con-sider a greater variety of employee needs, expectations,and characteristics. Work systems should be designed totake into account the (actual and/or potential) diversityof the workforce. Some ergonomics research has beenconducted to study the e!ects of aging (see, for example,Czaja, 1990). However, many other issues related todiversity, such as cross-cultural aspects, have been largelyignored by ergonomics research.

In the midst of the globalization of the economy,companies have been faced with increasing cross-culturalchallenges and problems. New knowledge and under-standing of cross-cultural issues in work organizationand ergonomics are necessary to better take into accountcultural characteristics in the (re)design of work systems,in particular in the context of the development of globalcompanies. Global companies need to understand di!er-ent cultures and the e!ects of cultural factors on em-ployees, and thus on organizational e!ectiveness andfunctioning. For instance, leadership styles and organiza-tional structures suitable for a given national culture maynot necessarily be applicable to the context of anothernational culture (Hofstede, 1997). As an example, par-

ticipatory ergonomics is a methodology that has beenused and implemented in a variety of countries andworkplaces. The type and methods of participation mayvary considerably on di!erent dimensions, as de"ned byWilson and Haines (1998): extent/level, purpose, continu-ity, involvement, formality, requirement for participa-tion, decision-making structures, and coupling. Thedesign and implementation of participatory ergonomicsshould also take into account characteristics of the na-tional cultures (Carayon and JarvenpaK aK , 2000; Kogi,1997). More generally, we could argue that the humanoutcomes of work organization depend on the culturalcharacteristics of the employees. The (re)design of worksystems should, therefore, take into account not only thedemographic and background characteristics of the em-ployees (e.g., age, gender, anthropometric dimensions,race and ethnic background), but also their culturalbackgrounds. Some attention has been given to the cul-tural/societal context of work systems (see, for example,the concept of anthropotechnology by Wisner (1995)).However, much more work is needed to develop theoriesand methods for facilitating the "t between employeesof di!erent countries and cultures and their workingenvironment.

3.4. Information and communication technology

The implementation of various forms of informationand communication technology (ICT) in organizationshas led to many important changes in work organizationand ergonomics. The following issues are discussed inthis section: telework, mental demands, and E-commerce.

3.4.1. TeleworkThe development of ICT has contributed to the emer-

gence of new forms of work organization, such as tele-work and teamwork via computer-mediated commun-ication. Telework or working at home is common forclerical workers performing routine transactions and forautonomous professionals such as writers and designers(Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). In terms of the work system,there are potential positive and negative aspects of ICTthat can in#uence the stress load and impact perfor-mance, health and safety. ICT can have both positive andnegative e!ects on work demands. One example is in thecontext of telework or remote work. On the one hand,telework allows for increased control over work pace andvariability of workload. It has been found, however, thatelectronic communication and telework have led to feel-ings of not being able to get away from work and to theaugmentation (rather than substitution) of regular o$cehours (Phizacklea and Wolkowitz, 1995; Sproull andKiesler, 1991). The work place and the home are one andthe same, and constant access to technology eliminatestime boundaries for work. Although there is a potentialnegative impact in terms of work demands, the freedom


and #exibility o!ered by telework is a major advantage,especially for individuals with children and other non-work responsibilities (Phizacklea and Wolkowitz, 1995).The ability to schedule work around other crucial re-sponsibilities increases job control and helps to reducerole con#ict. Remote work does, however, lead to de-creased social interaction with work peers and sometimesdecreased career mobility because of the lack of informal,social networks developed within the organization(Sproull and Kiesler, 1991).

In addition, working at home necessitates the rightworkstation and physical environment. Ergonomics ofhome o$ces has not been studied much. Moreover thequestion of who is responsible for ensuring good ergo-nomics at the home o$ce comes up. How is the informa-tion on ergonomics to be distributed and shared with thehome workers? Can we use macroergonomic methods,such as participatory ergonomics, to improve the designand set-up of computer workstations and o$ces in thehome setting? These important questions have receivedinsu$cient attention and need to be further explored byergonomists.

3.4.2. Mental demandsPeople who use ICT to perform their job may experi-

ence high mental e!ort. Some types of computer-mediated tasks may increase information-processingrequirements and place great demands on attention,decision-making, and memory. Increased levels of cogni-tive demands due to ICT have been shown to in#uenceemployee stress and health (Czaja and Sharit, 1993; Lin-dstrom and Leino, 1989; Lindstrom et al., 1989; Yang,1994). In addition, the characteristics of the ICT, such asvariability of system response time, can a!ect people'sphysiological and psychological responses. Cognitive de-mands can be increased when the system response time ispoor and the nature of work#ow is not transparent to theworkers. In other words, unpredictable demands andinterruptions of work#ow caused by system breakdownsmay be di$cult to deal with because of the disruptivee!ect on cognitive control process. The implementationof ICT in work organization can lead to greater demandson cognitive resources in terms of memory, attention,and decision-making that may have a negative impact onworker health and work performance.

3.4.3. E-commerceThe strong emergence of &dot-com' companies has put

forward the concept of &E-commerce'. Many companieshave implemented ICT-based systems for distributingand selling their products. These E-commerce systemshave important impacts on work organization. Behindthe &high-tech' interfaces of web sites has emerged a rangeof jobs and tasks. In particular, E-commerce activitiesnecessitate packaging, sending and delivering the prod-ucts ordered through a web site. These tasks will be

performed by warehouse workers and delivery em-ployees. Attention should be paid to the ergonomics ofwarehouse and delivery tasks performed by employees of&E-commerce' companies. In particular one should exam-ine the interaction between the physical (e.g., lifting ob-jects) and psychosocial (e.g., performing under timepressure) aspects of work. The development of E-com-merce is also having a large impact on the amount of timespent in front of computers, not only at the workplacebut also at home. The cumulative impact of times spentat computers should be further researched. The di!usionof E-commerce systems will lead to increasing time spentin front of computers. Therefore, the issue of ergonomicdesign of computer workstations in a variety of environ-ments (e.g., warehouse, o$ce, shop#oor) will becomeincreasingly important.

3.4.4. ConclusionThe positives and negatives of ICT are ultimately not

inherent to the technology itself, but rather are e!ects ofthe organizational structures and policies (i.e. work or-ganization) under which the technology resides (Carayonand Lim, 1994; Smith et al., 1981; Sproull and Kiesler,1991). New computer-based technology has promptedsome managers to reinforce hierarchical organizationalstructures by controlling information exchange, blockingcertain channels of communication and enhancing sur-veillance (e.g. electronic performance monitoring). Thesame technology has prompted other managers to initi-ate a new management style characterized by a #exible,continuous learning work environment and culture tosupport information sharing and participation in deci-sion-making (i.e. decision/organizational control). One ofthe biggest challenges of the future for work organizationand ergonomics specialists will be to design for maximiz-ing the positive and minimizing the negative potentialaspects of ICT and its implementation in di!erent typesand forms of work.

4. Balanced work system}Balanced organization

The original concept of the Balance Theory was de-veloped to examine a work system and its impact on theindividual who is at the center of the system (Smith andCarayon-Sainfort, 1989). In this section, we enlarge theoriginal concept in order to examine an organization thatis a group of work systems. The concept of &balancedorganization' is discussed later.

4.1. Balanced work system

The essence of Balance Theory is to improve motiva-tion and performance and reduce stress and the negativehealth consequences by `balancinga the various elementsof the work system to provide positive aspects to counter


the negative ones (see Table 1). The `besta job design canbe achieved by providing all characteristics of each ele-ment of the model that can meet recognized criteria forworker needs ful"llment and that set proper physiolo-gical and psychological loads to eliminate stress andstrain. In reality such a perfect job is not attainable.Balance Theory proposes using good elements to com-pensate for poor aspects in other elements to balance the`loadsa, to reduce stress and health and safety problems,and enhance motivation and performance.

Various theories of job design can help us de"ne thepositive and negative characteristics of the work system.For instance, theories of occupational stress have de"nedwork stressors that are negative characteristics, such ashigh workload, shiftwork, low job control, high roleambiguity and role con#ict (Smith and Carayon-Sain-fort, 1989). Theories of job design have also speci"edpositive characteristics such as high task variety, feed-back, opportunities for learning, and autonomy (Hack-man and Oldham, 1976; Herzberg, 1966). Ergonomicmodels have also de"ned negative characteristics ofwork, and their interactions with the individual (Grand-jean, 1969; Konz, 1979). Generic physical risk factorshave been de"ned, such as repetitiveness of motions,forceful motions and poor postures.

Balance Theory de"nes the process by which workingconditions at di!erent levels (i.e. individual, task, envi-ronment, technology, and organization) can produceloads that can lead to poor outcomes such as low motiva-tion, diminished performance, increased stress andpoorer health. It also proposes a system that helps bal-ance these loads to produce better outcomes. When bal-ance cannot be achieved through changing the negativeaspects of an element, it can be improved by enhancingthe positive aspects of other elements of the job. Thus, thegood aspects of work can be used to `counter-balanceathe bad.

A major advantage of Balance Theory is that it doesnot highlight any one factor such as shiftwork, or a smallset of factors such as demand and control. Rather itexamines the design of jobs from a holistic perspective toemphasize the potential positive elements in a job thatcan be used to overcome the adverse aspects. Thus, allaspects of the job must be considered in developinga proper design. This model does not subscribe to onlyone approach for job design such as content enrichmentor participation. Both approaches may have some posit-ive bene"ts given the right circumstances. In fact, it islikely that there will be circumstances in which bothapproaches can be used in concert to provide less stress-ful work. This model is similar to an òrganizationaldevelopmenta approach in that it uses one or moreaspects or elements from many di!erent theoretical per-spectives to solve speci"c problems. The emphasis di!ersin that stress, performance, and health and safety, andnot only productivity, are the outcomes of interest and

therefore may direct di!erent interventions than wouldan òrganizational developmenta approach.

There are two aspects of `balancea that need to beaddressed. These are (1) the balance of the total system,and (2) compensatory balance. System balance is basedon the idea that a workplace or process or job is morethan the sum of the individual components of the system.The interplay among the various components of thesystem produces results that are greater (or lesser) thanthe additive aspects of the individual parts. It is the wayin which the system components relate to each other thatdetermines the potential for the system to produce posit-ive results. If an organization concentrates solely on thephysical aspects of the work system, then there is anìmbalancea because the psychosocial factors are neglect-ed. Thus, job improvements must take account of andaccommodate the entire work system. The second type ofbalance is `compensatorya in nature. It is seldom pos-sible to eliminate all work factors that cause stress andhealth and safety problems. This may be due to "nancialconsiderations, or it may be because it is impossible tochange inherent aspects of job tasks, the technology orcustomer demands and expectations. The essence ofthis `balancea is to reduce the stress load by makingchanges in aspects of work that can be positively changedto help improve those negative aspects that cannot bechanged.

Empirical research has shown that jobs can be charac-terized by a system of positive and negative elements(Carayon, 1994). Jobs that have many negative elementsare related to higher levels of strain and health problemsthan are jobs with positive elements. Research has alsobeen conducted to understand the linkages betweenphysical and psychosocial work factors (see, for example,Lim, 1994). A recently published paper by Carayon et al.(1999b) further explores the theoretical foundations ofthe relationship between work organization, psychoso-cial work factors, and musculoskeletal disorders. Furtherresearch is necessary to examine the feasibility and po-tential bene"ts of di!erent types of balancing mecha-nisms when redesigning work systems.

4.2. Balanced organization

A company can be thought of as a constellation ofwork systems interacting with each other. The workorganization de"nes the characteristics of the work sys-tems, but also the links and relations among the worksystems. Therefore, it is important not only to &balance'the individual work systems, but also the constellation ofwork systems, that is the company. We can then de"nea &balanced' organization as an organization that takesinto account business goals and human outcomes, thatexamines the positive and negative aspects of work/or-ganizational system design, and that minimizes the nega-tive (human and organizational) outcomes. Minimizing


Table 2Balanced work organization

Theoreticalbasis

Work organization theoriesErgonomicsOrganizational design theories

Main concepts Consideration of both business goals and humanoutcomesPositive and negative aspects of work/organizationalsystem designOrganization conceived as a group of work systems:interactions and interfaces between work systemsOrganization as a system with "ve elements: people,strategy, structure, rewards and processesContinuous improvement and change process

Similar concepts Vink et al. (1998a): `successfula companyHealthy organizations (Cooper and Cartwright, 1994;Cox and Leiter, 1992; Lim and Murphy, 1997; Lin-dstrom, 1997; Lindstrom et al., 1998; Murphy andLim, 1997)Venda and Hendrick (1993): macroergonomic pro-cess for organizational design, mutual adaptation andintegration of technical and personnel sub-systems

the negative outcomes implies weighing up the positiveand negative organizational/job design aspects and com-pensating the negatives by some positive aspect. Themain elements of the balanced organization are present-ed in Table 2.

In a way similar to the concept of &balanced organiza-tion', some ergonomists and work organization re-searchers have discussed the balance between the needs,objectives and expectations of employees and those ofcompanies. Vink et al. (1998a) have de"ned a &successful'company not only in terms of "nancial success, but alsoin terms of environmental bene"ts and healthy per-formance. They argued that companies could be moresuccessful if technological, organizational and humanfactors are balanced. Lindstrom (Lindstrom, 1997;Lindstrom et al., 1998), Lim and Murphy (Lim andMurphy, 1997; Murphy and Lim, 1997), Cox and Leiter(1992), and Cooper and Cartwright (1994) have recentlyproposed the concept of &healthy organizations' to de-scribe an organization in which both corporate healthand employee health are important. This is an importantconceptual development in the "eld of work organizationand ergonomics because it ties some of the micro-level characteristics (e.g., individual, task) with organiza-tion-level characteristics. This should lead to a betterintegration of both human and organizational levels ofanalysis and design. Venda and Hendrick (1993) havede"ned the importance of taking a broader perspective oforganizational design using a top down process incor-porating various levels of human decision-making. Thisapproach examines the integration of technical and per-sonnel subsystems, which are seen as interdependent.`Mutuala adaptation of each subsystem provides more

#exibility than either approach singularly. In a similarway, our approach to &balanced organization' attemptsto integrate the di!erent levels of consideration, from thehuman level to the task and organizational level.

Our approach de"nes the organization as a system ofwork systems with the following characteristics:

f The work systems have "ve di!erent elements: theindividual, tasks, tools and technologies, physical andsocial environment, and organizational conditions(Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989).

f The work systems are related to each other, anda group (or system) of work systems forms an organ-ization.

f The organization is a system with "ve elements:people, strategy, structure, rewards and processes(Galbraith, 1995).

According to Galbraith (1995), the company's strategyspeci"es the goals and objectives to be achieved as well asthe values and missions to be pursued. The strategy is themost important factor because it establishes the criteriafor choosing among organizational forms. The structuredetermines the placement of power and authority in theorganization. Information and decision processes cutacross the organization's structure. Rewards de"ne pol-icies regulating salaries, promotions, bonuses, pro"tsharing, stock options, etc. The &people' element is com-prised of the human resource policies of recruiting, selec-tion, rotation, training and development.

According to Galbraith (1995), a balanced approach isnecessary for organizational design, &weighing the posit-ives and negatives of organizational design alternatives'(p.7). Galbraith emphasizes that the ultimate decisionregarding the organizational design depends on the busi-ness strategy. We argue that the business strategy shouldinclude all facets of the organization, including the peopleworking in that organization (see also Eklund, 1997a).We can, therefore, extend Galbraith's approach by in-cluding human outcomes. Therefore, when weighing thepositives and negatives of an organizational form, it isimportant to not only understand its impact on organ-izational performance, but also on employee perfor-mance, stress, health and safety.

The process of designing an organization and its worksystems should not be considered as a &one-shot' ap-proach. Continuously improving organizations andwork systems, especially in the context of &turbulent'environments, should be the aim of organizationaldesigners. This issue of change process is discussedbelow.

Finally, a company has a variety of interactions withother companies and entities that also comprise worksystems. In the previous section, we have highlightedthe many di!erent trends that can a!ect work organiza-tion and work systems. These trends put increasing


Table 3Design of change process

Theoretical basis Participatory ergonomics and participationBehavioral cyberneticsOrganizational learning

Main concepts Participation and learningSelf-determination, self-regulation and real-timefeedback controlNetworks

importance on the interfaces and interactions betweenvarious entities (i.e. companies, work systems, people).Therefore, the concept of `balancea should be extendedto the many interactions and interfaces between worksystems. For example, the use of information and com-munication technology has a major impact on whereworkers perform their jobs. As discussed earlier, ICT canincrease #exibility in the workplace through, for instance,telework. That new form of work organization has im-pact on the work system of people working at home, butalso on the interaction between their work system andtheir family life. Understanding these interactions andinterfaces between the work system and the non-worksystem is increasingly important. Finding the right `bal-ancea between work life and family life is not a newconcept, but is becoming increasingly important becauseof changes in work organization. The study of interac-tions between di!erent entities and work systems is be-coming increasingly important in work organization andergonomics (Wilson, 2000).

5. Design of change process

For ergonomists around the world, one of the biggestchallenges is to introduce and implement long-lastingchanges that bene"t employees. Increasingly, attention isgiven to the methodologies for implementing ergonom-ics, such as participatory ergonomics, and to the processused to introduce and implement changes. Table 3 pres-ents the main elements of the proposed change processdesign. In the work organization and ergonomics litera-ture, two concepts have emerged as critical to changemanagement and change process: participation (Eklund,1997b; Haims, 1999; Haims and Carayon, 1998; Vink etal., 1998b; Wilson and Haines, 1997) and learning(Haims, 1999; Haims and Carayon, 1998; Vink et al.,1998b). In order to achieve a &balanced organization',participation of all stakeholders (including the em-ployees) and learning at all levels (i.e. individual learningand organizational learning) are necessary. An importantquestion arises of how to truly implement participationand learning to foster both individual and corporatehealth and performance. Deep continuous improvement

e!orts are necessary to avoid super"cial strategies andprograms and to achieve what Argyris (1977) has calleddouble-loop learning. Deep continuous improvemente!orts require very profound changes in the entireorganization (Zink, 1996). For example, in a recent dis-cussion on empowerment, Argyris (1998) emphasized theimplementation of e!orts aimed at increasing internalcommitment, instead of external commitment. Furtherresearch should be conducted on how to further link theconcepts of participation and learning in ergonomics.

The behavioral cybernetics literature has de"nedergonomic characteristics, which are central to humanperformances as self-determination, self-regulation andreal-time feedback control (Smith and Smith, 1966; Smithet al., 1994b). Self-determination indicates the need fora person to exercise judgment over her/his own actions.This principle is in conformity with sociotechnical theory(Gardell, 1971; Hendrick, 1996) and participative man-agement theory (Lawler III, 1986; Vink et al., 1992; Wil-son and Haines, 1997). Self-regulation is related toself-determination, but de"nes the action at the level ofindividual employees. This principle recognizes the needfor individual &control' of the action at the personal level.Thus, there is the requirement for providing instrumentalcontrol and decision latitude to each individual employeeat the task level (Carayon-Sainfort, 1991; Karasek, 1979).In this control process, real-time feedback is essential forindividual employees to be able to make good decisionsand to direct their responses for e!ective performance. Inaddition, it is important to coordinate the responses ofvarious individuals and groups to achieve larger organ-izational goals. To meet such needs, Ting et al. (1971) andSmith et al. (1994b) have de"ned system-level feedbackparameters, which integrate the responses of many indi-viduals and groups to provide direction for concertedorganizational e!orts. This process is called &social track-ing'which establishes feedback and tracking mechanismsfor jointly meeting the objectives of the organization.Such systems require coordination of these processes thatmay be best mediated through, for instance, knowledgecomputer-based systems as discussed by Bradley (1983)and the macroergonomic approach of Hendrick (1986,1996). In addition, this process of social tracking withina group and among groups using dynamic feedback mayproduce positive results in organizational cohesionand cooperation, therefore achieving a `balancedorganizationa.

A `balanceda organization can be achieved when em-ployees are encouraged to take initiative in order to(continuously) improve their work systems, and the over-all organizational design (Frohman, 1997). Individualinitiative and self-determination can be achieved throughparticipation and can allow for employee self-regulation.The change process should also provide real-time feed-back and dynamic feedback for achieving proper re-sponses at the individual and organizational levels. In


order to implement these feedback mechanisms at alllevels of an organization, one could use, for instance, theprinciples of &High Involvement Management' of Lawler(1986). Lawler (1986) proposed that participative man-agement needs to integrate issues of information #ow,knowledge, rewards and power. The integration of theseorganizational approaches into ergonomics is an impor-tant area of research.

Another interesting approach for the change process isto build on the concept of `networksa (Gustavsen, 1998),which "ts well with the increasing attention put on inter-actions and transactions in the "eld of work organizationand ergonomics (Drury, 1998; Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989; Wilson, 2000). Gustavsen (1998) empha-sizes the construction of networks to implement changeand development in the area of quality of working life. Hediscussed a Norwegian research program which is basedon cooperation between enterprises and whose aim is tofoster positive changes in work organization. In the tradi-tion of action research, combinations of research groupsand enterprises are formed to (1) help companies solveproblems, and (2) devise new ways of implementingpositive quality of working life changes. Networksrepresent an important conceptual and practical devel-opment in the area of organizational design and changeprocess and provide interesting opportunities for workorganization and ergonomics researchers. How can net-works be used as a mechanism for implementing ergo-nomic changes or for di!using ergonomics knowledgeand methods?

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined work organizationand its relationship to ergonomics, sociotechnical andbusiness trends a!ecting work organizations (i.e. re-struc-turing and re-organizing of companies, new forms ofwork organization, workforce diversity, and informationand communication technology), the concepts of bal-anced work system and balanced organization, and"nally the design of change process. We have emphasizedthat work and organizations are multidimensional, canhave multiple (positive and negative) impact on people,and can be re-designed to accommodate both human andorganizational needs. The concept of `balancea is at thecenter of our approach to the design of work systems andorganizations.

The globalization of economies has put much empha-sis on interactions between people and organizations ofdi!erent parts of the world with di!erent cultures. Thispaper's focus is on the work environment. However, it isimportant to recognize that work is only one aspect ofpeople's life. As ergonomists, we have much to contributeto the design and betterment of other aspects of people'slife. Moray (1995) has proposed that ergonomics can play

a signi"cant role in solving the major ecological andsocial problems of the world (e.g., population pressure,pollution, water shortage, urbanization). According toMoray, `The task of ergonomics is to design a lifestylesupport system that elicits the behavior required to re-duce the severity of the global problems, taking intoaccount cultural and environmental features.a (p.1699).Therefore, we should further expand our level of analysisto not only include the organizational level, but also theinter-organizational level and the society level. The re-cent development of &Community ergonomics' (Cohen,1997; Newman, 1997; Smith et al., 1994a) goes into thatdirection.

References

Argyris, C., 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harv. Bus.Rev. 55, 115}125.

Argyris, C., 1998. Empowerment: the emperor's new clothes. Harv. Bus.Rev. 76 (3), 98}105.

Barker, J.R., 1993. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control inself-managing teams. Administrative Sci. Quart. 38, 408}437.

Bowen, D.E., Lawler, E.E.I.I.I., 1995. Empowering service employees.Sloan Manage. Rev. 36 (4), 73}84.

Bradley, G., 1983. E!ects of computerization on work environment andhealth: from a perspective of equality between sexes. Occup. HeathNurs. 31 (5), 35}39.

Brown, K.Q., Mitchell, T.R., 1991. A comparison of just-in-timeand batch manufacturing: the role of performance obstacles. Acad.Manage. J. 34 (4), 906}917.

Carayon, P., 1994. Stressful jobs and non-stressful jobs: a cluster analy-sis of o$ce jobs. Ergonomics 37 (2), 311}323.

Carayon, P., JarvenpaK aK , E., 2000. Cross-cultural factors in macroer-gonomics. In: Karwowski, W. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia ofHuman Factors and Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis.

Carayon, P., Lim, S.-Y., 1994. Stress in automated o$ces. In: Kent, A.(Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Vol.53, Suppl. 16, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 314}354.

Carayon, P., Lim, S.Y., 1998. Psychosocial work factors. In: Kar-wowski, W., Marras, W.S. (Eds.), The Occupational ErgonomicsHandbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 275}283.

Carayon, P., Sainfort, F., Smith, M.J., 1999a. Macroergonomics andtotal quality management: how to improve quality of working life?Int. J. Occup. Safety Ergon. 5 (2), 303}334.

Carayon, P., Smith, M.J., Haims, M.C., 1999b. Work organization, jobstress, and work -related musculoskeletal disorders. Hum. Factors41 (4), 644}663.

Carayon-Sainfort, P., 1991. Stress, job control and other elements:a study of o$ce workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 7, 11}23.

Carayon-Sainfort, P., 1992. The use of computers in o$ces: impact ontask characteristics and worker stress. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Inter-action 4 (3), 245}261.

Chen, A.-C., Drury, C.G., 1997. Human errors in customer service:a research framework. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard,C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Con-gress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 3. FinnishInstitute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.

Coch, L., French Jr., J.R.P., 1948. Overcoming resistance to change.Hum. Relations 1, 512}532.

Cohen, S., Spacapan, S., 1984. The social psychology of noise. In: Jones,D.M., Chapman, A.J. (Eds.), Noise as A Public Health Problem.Centro Ricerche e Studui Amplifon, Milan, Italy.


Cohen, W.J., 1997. Community ergonomics: operational requirementsand Design process. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation Departmentof Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison, WI.

Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S., 1994. Healthy mind; healthy organization* a proactive approach to occupational stress. Hum. Relations 47(4), 455}469.

Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Jenn-ings, K.R., 1988. Employee participation: diverse forms and di!erentoutcomes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 13 (1), 8}22.

Cox, T., 1985. Repetitive work: occupational stress and health. In:Cooper, C.L., Smith, M.J. (Eds.), Job Stress and Blue-Collar Work.Wiley, New York, pp. 85}112.

Cox, T., Ferguson, E., 1994. Measurement of the subjective workenvironment. Work Stress 8 (2), 98}109.

Cox, T., Leiter, M., 1992. The health of health care organizations. WorkStress 6, 219}227.

Crocker, M.J., 1997. Noise. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of HumanFactors and Ergonomics. Wiley, New York, pp. 790}827.

Czaja, S.J., 1990. Aging } Special issue. Hum. Factors 32, 505}622.Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J., 1993. Stress reactions to computer-interactive

tasks as a function of task structure and individual di!erences. Int. J.Hum. Comput. Interaction 5 (1), 1}22.

Dachler, H.P., Wilpert, B., 1978. Conceptual dimensions and bound-aries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Admin-istrative Sci. Quart. 23, 1}39.

Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S., 1992. The Virtual Corporation. HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

Dickson, J.W., 1981. Participation as a means of organizational control.J. Manage. Stud. 18 (2), 159}176.

Drury, C.G., 1997. Ergonomics and the quality movement. Ergonomics40 (3), 249}264.

Drury, C.G., 1998. Service, quality and human factors. Paper presentedat the Workshop on `Developing Work and Quality ImprovementStrategiesa, Brussels, Belgium.

Eklund, J., 1997a. Ergonomics, quality and continuous improve-ment * Conceptual and empirical relationships in an industrialcontext. Ergonomics 40 (10), 982}1001.

Eklund, J., 1997b. Ergonomics, quality and continuous improve-ment * some current issues. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T.,Nygard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th TriennialCongress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1* or-ganizational Design and Management. Finnish Institute of Occupa-tional Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 10}12.

Eklund, J.A.E., 1995. Relationships between ergonomics and quality inassembly work. App. Ergon. 26 (1), 15}20.

Fantasia, R., Clawson, D., Graham, G., 1988. A critical view of workerparticipation in American industry. Work Occup. 15 (4), 468}488.

Frohman, A.L., 1997. Igniting organizational change from below: thepower initiative. Organ. Dyn. 25 (3), 39}53.

Galbraith, J.R., 1995. Designing Organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers,San Francisco, CA.

Gardell, B., 1971. Alienation and mental health in the modern indus-trial environment. In: Levi, L. (Ed.), Society, stress and disease, Vol.1. Oxford University Press, London, pp. 126}145.

Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R., Hughson, T.L.G., 1988. Groups andproductivity: Analyzing the e!ectiveness of self-managing teams.In: Campbell, J.P., Campbell, R.J. (Eds.), Productivity inOrganizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA,pp. 295}327.

Grandjean, E., 1969. Fitting the Task to the Man; an ErgonomicApproach. Taylor & Francis, London.

Grandori, A., Soda, G., 1995. Inter-"rm networks: antecedents, mecha-nisms and forms. Organ. Stud. 16 (2), 183}214.

Gustavsen, B., 1998. From experiments to network building: trends inthe use of research for constructing working life. Hum. Relations 51(3), 431}448.

Hackman, J.R., 1987. The design of work teams. In: Lorsh, J. (Ed.),Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey,pp. 315}342.

Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the designof work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance 16, 250}279.

Hagberg, M., Silverstein, B., Wells, R., Smith, M.J., Hendrick, H.W.,Carayon, P., Perusse, M., 1995. Work-Related MusculoskeletalDisorders (WMSDs): A Reference Book for Prevention. Taylor& Francis, London.

Haims, M. C., 1999. A longitudinal study of the process and content ofa participatory work organization interventions. UnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Haims, M.C., Carayon, P., 1998. Theory and practice for the implemen-tation of &in-house', continuous improvement participatory ergo-nomic programs. Appl. Ergon. 29 (6), 461}472.

Helander, M.G., 1997. The human factors profession. In: Salvendy,G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley,New York, USA, pp. 3}16.

Hendrick, H.W., 1986. Ergonomics in organizational design and man-agement. Ergonomics 34 (6), 743}756.

Hendrick, H.W., 1991. Human factors in organizational design andmanagement. Ergonomics 34, 743}756.

Hendrick, H.W., 1996. Human factors in ODAM: an historical per-spective. In: Brown, O.J., Hendrick, H.W. (Eds.), Human Factors inOrganizational Design and Management -V. Elsevier Science Pub-lishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 429}434.

Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Thomas Y. CrowellCompany, New York.

Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and Organizations - Software of the Mind.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Karasek, R.A., 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mentalstrain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Sci. Quart. 24,285}308.

Karltun, J., Eklund, J., 2000. Experts versus participants. Paper present-ed at the International Ergonomics Association, San Diego, CA.

Kogi, K., 1997. Ergonomics and technology transfer into small andmedium-sized enterprises. Ergonomics 40 (10), 1118}1129.

Konz, S.A., 1979. Work Design. Grid Pub, Columbus, OH.Lawler III, E.E., 1986. High Involvement Management: Participative

Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance. Jossey-Bass,San Francisco.

Lim, S.Y., 1994. An integrated approach to cumulative trauma dis-orders in computerized o$ces : the role of psychosocial workfactors, psychological stress and ergonomic risk factors. Unpub-lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering,University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Lim, S.Y., Murphy, L.R., 1997. Models of healthy work organizations.In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.),Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the InternationalErgonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of OccupationalHealth, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 501}503.

Lindstrom, K., 1997. Assessing and promoting healthy work organiza-tions. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard, C.-H., Mattila, M.(Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the Interna-tional Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of Occupa-tional Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 504}506.

Lindstrom, K., Leino, T., 1989. Assessment of mental load and stressrelated to information technology change in banking and insurance.In: Klix, F., Streitz, N.A., Waern, Y., Wandke, H. (Eds.),Man}Computer Interaction Research, MACINTER-II. pp.523}533.

Lindstrom, K., Pakkala, K., Torstila, I., 1989. Coping with technolo-gical change in banking and insurance. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G.(Eds.), Work with Computers: Organizational, Management, Stressand Health Aspects. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 256}263.


Lindstrom, K., Schrey, K., Kaleva, S., 1998. Characteristics promotingorganizational health in small and medium-sized companies. In:Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, S. (Eds.), Human Factors inOrganizational Design and Management * VI. Elsevier SciencePublishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 281}286.

Medsker, G.J., Campion, M.A., 1997. Job and team design. In: Sal-vendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2ndEdition. Wiley, New York, pp. 450}489.

Monk, T.H., Tepas, D.I., 1985. Shift work. In: Cooper, C.L., Smith, M.J.(Eds.), Job Stress and Blue Collar Work. Wiley, New York, pp.65}84.

Moray, N., 1995. Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-"rst century. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1691}1707.

Murphy, L.R., Lim, S.Y., 1997. Characteristics of healthy work organ-izations. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard, C.-H., Mattila, M.(Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the Interna-tional Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of Occupa-tional Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 513}515.

Newman, L., 1997. Quality improvement/assessment of educationalsystem for students of color in the university of wisconsin college ofengineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engin-eering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 2000.Organization of work.: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nrworg.html.

Parker, S.K., Chmiel, N., Wall, T.D., 1997. Work characteristics andemployee well-being within a context of strategic downsizing. J.Occup. Health Psychol. 2 (4), 289}303.

Phizacklea, A., Wolkowitz, C., 1995. Homeworking Women: Gender,Racism and Class at Work. Sage Publications, London.

Sainfort, F., Carayon, P., Smith, M.J., 1997. Total quality managementand quality of working life in a public sector organization. In:Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergo-nomics Association, Vol. 1 * Organizational Design andManagement. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki,Finland, pp. 522}524.

Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams: the control of team-basedindustrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Adminis-trative Sci. Quart. 43 (2), 397}428.

Silverstein, B.A., Fine, L.J., Armstrong, T.J., 1987. Occupational factorsand carpal tunnel syndrome. Am. J. Ind. Med. 11, 343}358.

Smith, K.U., Smith, M.F., 1966. Cybernetic Principles of Learning andEducational Design. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York.

Smith, M.J., 1987. Mental and physical strain at VDT workstations.Behav. and Inform. Technol. 6 (3), 243}255.

Smith, M.J., 1997. Psychosocial aspects of working with video displayterminals (VDT's) and employee physical and mental health. Ergo-nomics 40 (10), 1002}1015.

Smith, M.J., Carayon, P., 1995. New technology, automation, and workorganization: stress problems and improved technology implemen-tation strategies. Int. J. Hum. Factors Manuf. 5 (1), 99}116.

Smith, M.J., Carayon, P., Smith, J., Cohen, W., Upton, J., 1994a.Community ergonomics: a theoretical model for rebuilding theinner city. In: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38thAnnual Meeting. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,Santa Monica, CA, pp. 724}728.

Smith, M.J., Carayon-Sainfort, P., 1989. A balance theory of job designfor stress reduction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 4, 67}79.

Smith, M.J., Cohen, B.G., Stammerjohn, I.W.J., Happ, A., 1981. Aninvestigation of health complaints and job stress in video displayoperations. Hum. Factors 23 (4), 387}400.

Smith, M.J., Sainfort, F., Carayon-Sainfort, P., Fung, C., 1989. E!ortsto solve quality problems. Secretary's Commission on WorkforceQuality and Labor Market E$ciency. U.S. Department of Labor,Washington, D.C.

Smith, T.J., Henning, R.A., Smith, K.U., 1994b. Sources of performancevariability. In: Salvendy, G., Karwowski, W. (Eds.), Design of Workand Development of Personnel in Advanced Manufacturing. Wiley,New York, pp. 273}330.

Speer, P.W., Hughey, J., 1996. Mechanisms of empowerment: psycho-logical processes for members of power-based community organiza-tions. J. Community Appl. Social Psychol. 6, 177}187.

Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., 1991. Connections. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P., Futrell, D., 1990. Work teams: Applica-

tions and e!ectiveness. Am. Psychol. 45 (2), 120}133.Tepas, D.I., Paley, M.J., Popkin, S.M., 1995. Work schedules and

sustained performance. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of HumanFactors and Ergonomics, 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York, pp.1021}1058.

Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A., 1990. Cognitive elements of empower-ment. Acad. Manage. Revi. 15, 666}681.

Ting, T., Smith, M. J., Smith, K. U., 1971. Social feedback factors inrehabilitative processes and learning. Ame. J. Phys. Med. 51.

Venda, V., Hendrick, H., 1993. Qualitative and quantitative analysis ofhuman-decision making complexity. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G.(Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Case Stud-ies. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 636}641.

Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, S., 1998a. Balancing organiza-tional, technological and human factors * The model and theheadline of this book. In: Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, W.(Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management- VI. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp.1}6.

Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, S. (Eds.), 1998b. Human Fac-tors in Organizational Design and Management * VI. ElsevierScience Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Vink, P., Lourijsen, E., Wortel, E., Dul, J., 1992. Experiences in par-ticipatory ergonomics: results of a roundtable session during the11th IEA Congress. Ergonomics 35, 123}127.

Wilson, J.R., 1991. Participation* A framework and a foundation forergonomics? J. Occup. Psychol. 64, 67}80.

Wilson, J. R., 2000. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.Applied ergonomics 31/6.

Wilson, J.R., Haines, H.M., 1997. Participatory ergonomics. In: Sal-vendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics.Wiley, New York, pp. 490}513.

Wilson, J.R., Haines, H.M., 1998. Participatory design in the organisa-tional context. In: Scott, P.A., Bridger, R.S., Charteris, J. (Eds.),Global Ergonomics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp.11}19.

Wisner, A., 1995. The Etienne Grandjean Memorial Lecture* Situatedcognition and action: Implications for ergonomic work analysis andanthropotechnology. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1542}1557.

Yang, C.-L., 1994. Test of a model of cognitive demands and workerstress in computerized o$ces. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Zink, K.J., 1996. Continuous improvement through employee partici-pation: some experiences from a long-term study. In: Brown Jr., O.,Hendrick, H.W. (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Designand Management-V. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,pp. 155}160.


work organization and ergonomics

Documents