Work Organization And Ergonomics

Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 649}662

Work organization and ergonomics Pascale Carayon*, Michael J. Smith Department 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 is performed with the use of Balance Theory (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1989, 4, 67}79). The impact on work organization and the work system of the following sociotechnical and business trends is discussed: re-structuring and re-organizing of companies, new forms of work organization, workforce diversity, and information and communication technology. An expansion of Balance 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 human factors use knowledge of human abilities and limitations to the design of systems, organizations, jobs, machines, tools, and consumer products for safe, e$cient, and comfortable usea (p. 4). Applications of ergonomics have evolved over time as ergonomic knowledge and research have progressed, but also as human problems emerge around the world. A survey of professional societies federated in the IEA shows that the "ve most important emerging areas in ergonomics are (Helander, 1997): E E E E E

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

Two of these areas are directly related to the theme of this paper, methodology to change work organization and design, and organizational design and psychosocial work organization. In this paper, we present concepts of work organization and their relationship with ergonomics. We also discuss changes in work and business that can 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, that of design. In this paper, we also discuss approaches for the (re)design of work/organizational systems.

2. Work organization The emergence of macroergonomics has strongly contributed to the increasing interest in work organization in the ergonomics "eld (Hendrick, 1991, 1996). Work organization is de"ned as the way work is structured, distributed, processed and supervised (Hagberg et al., 1995). It is an `objectivea characteristic of the work environment, and depends on many factors, including management style, type of product or service, characteristics of the workforce, level and type of technology, and market conditions. According to the US NIOSH (2000), work organization deals with subjects such as the following: the scheduling of work (such as work}rest schedules, hours of work and shift work), job design (such as complexity of tasks, skill and e!ort required, and degree of worker control), interpersonal aspects of work (such as relationships with supervisors and coworkers), career concerns (such as job security and growth opportunities), management style (such as participatory management practices and teamwork), and organizational characteristics (such as climate, culture, and communications). The objective of ergonomics is to improve both performance and health and safety. Therefore, the concept of work organization is at the core of ergonomics. Some work 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

650

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

optimal performance and health and safety goals. The impact of work organization on people can be conceptualized as physical or psychosocial work factors (Cox and Ferguson, 1994). Psychosocial work factors are `perceiveda characteristics of the work environment that have an emotional connotation for workers and managers, and that can result in stress and strain (Hagberg et al., 1995). Physical work factors include typical ergonomics risk factors, e.g. repetitiveness, force, poor workstation design, and unhealthy postures. According to the Balance Theory of Job Design (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989), work organization results in the design of a work system that has "ve elements: the individual, task, tools and technologies, physical environment and the organization. The "ve elements of the work system interact to produce a &stress load'. The interplay and interactions between these di!erent factors can produce various (physical and psychosocial) stressors on the individual that then produce a &stress load', which has both physical and psychological components. `Loadsa on the person challenge biological resources (energy expenditure, biomechanical strain, physical status), psychological resources (perception, cognition, decisionmaking, emotion) and behavioral resources (motivation, coping behaviors). The stress load, if sustained over time and depending on the individual resources, can produce adverse e!ects, such as health and safety problems and lack of performance. The characteristics of the load produce physiological and psychological consequences such as hormone release, muscular action, perceptions, and mood states. The responses to the load are in#uenced by the individual's physical capacity, health status, and motivation. The psychological responses are the product of personality, past experiences and the social situation. These physiological and psychological reactions to the `loadsa act as motivation for employee behavior to respond to the `loadsa. The response could be increased or decreased performance, or `copinga behaviors (adaptive or maladaptive). The work system can also produce positive e!ects, such as increased motivation and high-quality output. The main elements of Balance Theory are presented in Table 1. According to Balance Theory the work system imposes the `loadsa which bring about the individual's physiological and psychological reactions. The physiological reactions caused by the load produce a strain on the person if they exceed the available biological resources, such as energy resources or mechanical strength. For instance, a repetitive lifting task with heavy materials being carried out for hours without rest can exhaust energy resources and produce local muscular fatigue. This can diminish strength and a!ect lifting style. Shiftwork can disrupt biological rhythms that increase the demand on the body's energy resources. It can in#uence behavior such as eating and sleeping, which e!ects energy resources and fatigue.

Table 1 Balanced work system Theoretical basis

Job design theories Occupational stress theories Ergonomics

Main concepts

The work system has "ve elements: environment, task, technology, organizational factors, individual. Two types of stress load: physical and psychological dimensions Positive and negative aspects of the elements of the work system The work organization de"nes the di!erent elements of the work system. Balance of the total work system Compensatory balance

Publication

First publication appeared Carayon-Sainfort (1989).

in

Smith

and

The work system can also cause psychological reactions that have emotional, behavioral and biological consequences. These consequences are primarily determined by the individual's perception of their ability to meet the demands imposed, upon their perception of the `acceptabilitya of the working conditions. In addition, the person's availability of psychological and behavioral resources, such as motivation, cognitive capacity and coping behaviors, in#uence the consequences. The physiological and psychological reactions are not independent of each other. They interact and may even reinforce each other. For instance, the repetitive lifting task may cause boredom, which leads to mental fatigue. It may also produce physical fatigue by depleting energy resources. These e!ects reinforce each other resulting in a systemic response of `generala fatigue (Grandjean, 1969). In a similar way, Cox and Ferguson (1994) have proposed that the e!ects of the work environment on health may be mediated by two pathways: "rst, by a direct physico-chemical mechanism, and second by an indirect psycho-physiological mechanism. They also emphasized the interactions between those two pathways. The e!ects of the work environment are due to a set of complex interactions between physical, psychosocial and organizational factors and processes. Physical, psychological and behavioral resources are not a "xed and stable set of individual characteristics but change over time and are in#uenced by capacity, motivation, stress responses and the demands of the working conditions. For instance, these resources may increase because of on-the-job training or the availability of powered assistance machinery. In the repetitive lifting example the introduction of equipment to do the lifting will reduce the energy requirements and the local muscle fatigue, while training in proper lifting techniques may also reduce these same outcomes. Stress responses can

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

in#uence the biological, psychological and behavioral resources available to an individual. Individual personality characteristics, genetic make-up and health status all in#uence the physical resources available to the individual and the nature of the stress responses. The load on the individual can be in#uenced by the physical demand, psychological response to the demand as mediated by perception, or both. When the load becomes too great, the person displays stress responses, which are emotions, behaviors, and biological reactions that are maladaptive. When these reactions occur frequently over a prolonged time period, they lead to health disorders. Thus, chronic exposure with cumulative reactions is a hallmark of distress. Cumulative stress responses reduce the available resources for dealing with the loads from the work environment, and a circular e!ect begins. This repeated circular cycle leads to a breakdown in individual resources, unless external resources, are made available or the environmental load is reduced. According to Balance Theory, the e!ects of the work system on the individual are assumed to be mediated by the stress load that is both physical and psychological. These e!ects have in#uences on the quality of working life, performance, strain and health. Research and practice in the "eld of work organization have demonstrated that considering only a small number of work factors can be misleading and ine$cient in solving job design problems. Balance Theory emphasizes a systems approach in which all elements of the work system should be considered in order to improve performance, and health and safety. The following is a short review of each element of the work system. Environment: Ergonomists have highlighted various aspects of the physical environment as job stressors including noise, lighting, temperature, air quality and work place layout. Noise is the most well-known environmental stressor that can cause increases in arousal, blood pressure, and negative psychological mood (Cohen and Spacapan, 1984; Crocker, 1997). Environmental conditions, general air quality and housekeeping have been shown to a!ect energy expenditure, heat exchange, stress responses, and sensory disruption which make it more di$cult to carry out tasks and increase the level of worker stress and emotional irritation. Task: Many of the so-called psychosocial work factors fall into the task element: job demands (e.g., perceived quantitative workload, work pressure, cognitive demands), job content (e.g., challenge, repetitiveness), machine-pacing and job control (Carayon and Lim, 1998). According to the Job Strain model of Karasek (1979), the combination of high job demands and low decision latitude is the most stressful combination and can lead to various health problems. These two task factors are only two of the many task elements that can a!ect performance, and health and safety. Another task element,

651

repetitiveness, can be stressful both physically and psychologically. Physical repetitiveness has been found to be a major predictor of various musculoskeletal disorders (see, for example, Silverstein et al., 1987). Psychological repetitiveness, such as lack of challenge, low variety and underutilization of skills, can also lead to various physical and mental health problems (see, for example, Cox, 1985). Technology: Lack of adequate skills to use the technology leads to poor motivation, stress and diminished performance. Fear over job loss due to replacement by technology reduces motivation and increases stress. On the other hand when new technology is applied appropriately it can enhance job content and skill utilisation, leading to increased motivation and performance with decreased stress. The physical characteristics of the tools and technology can put physiological loads on the employee. For instance, poor workstation design can lead to unhealthy postures and movements, and diminished performance (see, for example, Grandjean, 1969). Ergonomic problems of hand tools have been much discussed (Konz, 1979). Organizational factors: The organizational context in which work tasks are carried out often has considerations that in#uence worker motivation, stress and performance. The way in which workers are introduced to new technology or some other change, and the organizational support they receive-such as training and time to acclimate-have been related to stress and performance (Smith and Carayon, 1995). The ability to grow in a job and to be promoted (career development) a!ects motivation and stress. Potential job loss in#uences motivation, performance and stress. Other organizational considerations such as work schedule (shiftwork) and overtime have been shown to have negative mental and physical health consequences (Monk and Tepas, 1985). Individual: A number of personal considerations determine the physiological and psychological responses that the preceding elements of the work system model will produce. These include, but are not limited to, personality, physical health status, skills and abilities, physical conditioning, anthropometrics, prior experiences and learning, motives, goals and needs. The "ve elements of the balance model system work in concert to provide the loads and the resources for achievement of individual and organizational goals. We have described some of the potential negative attributes of the elements in terms of motivation, performance and job stress, but there are also positive aspects of each that can counteract the negative in#uences. For instance, the negative in#uences of inadequate skill to use new technology can be o!set by increased worker training. The adverse in#uences of low job content can be balanced by an organizational supervisory structure that promotes employee involvement and control over the tasks. Jobs with many negative elements are jobs that produce the

652

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

most adverse impact on the employee, whereas jobs that have better balance are less stressful and may actually produce positive outcomes, such as high quality of working life and enhanced quality of performance (Carayon, 1994; Eklund, 1997b).

3. Sociotechnical and business trends The US NIOSH (2000) indicates that work organization is in#uenced by factors such as economic conditions, technological change, demographic trends, and changing corporate and employment practices. There are major changes and trends occurring in business, technology and society that can represent new forms of work organization and, therefore, have potentially large impacts on the work system. In this section, we describe some of these trends and their potential impact on the work system. The following trends are discussed: (1) re-structuring and re-organizing of companies, (2) new forms of work organization, (3) workforce diversity, and (4) information and communication technology. 3.1. Re-structuring and re-organizing of companies In the past decade, companies have been going through increasingly rapid changes in their structures and organizations. Programs and management techniques, such as business process engineering, total quality management (TQM), virtual organizations, networked organizations, #exibility, lean manufacturing, and agile production, have posed major challenges to companies. These programs and management techniques have a major impact on the way companies are structured and organized. In this section, we discuss some of the potential e!ects of these re-structuring and re-organizing e!orts, in particular on work organization and ergonomics. 3.1.1. Re-engineering and downsizing Re-engineering and downsizing continue to be implemented by businesses. These organizational re-structuring e!orts a!ect work organization and may have adverse results for people, for example in increased workload demands, longer and more varied work shifts, and job insecurity. The negative aspects of downsizing on employees remaining in the organization may be compensated by appropriate changes in the work organization. A longitudinal study of downsizing suggests that improvements in the work organization were able to o!set the negative e!ects of increased workload following downsizing (Parker et al., 1997). There was no overall decrease in well-being after the downsizing, despite increased work demands. However, it is possible that the increased work demands could lead to increased health problems, such as musculoskeletal disorders. The empiri-

cal evidence on the human impact of re-engineering and downsizing shows some potential negative impact on work organization, quality of working life, and health; it also shows that some of the negative impact can be balanced out. However, the systemic impact of re-engineering and downsizing on work has not been examined yet. Research on the physical health impact (e.g., musculoskeletal disorders) of re-engineering and downsizing is necessary to evaluate the full systemic impact of such organizational restructuring. 3.1.2. Quality improvement Other trends in businesses include the widespread development of quality improvement strategies, such as total quality management (TQM). TQM can involve important changes in the way work is organized (Smith et al., 1989). TQM can lead to positive and/or negative changes in psychosocial work factors (Carayon et al., 1999a; Sainfort et al., 1997). Understanding the linkages between ergonomics and TQM is crucial. Drury (1997) lists several interactions between ergonomics and TQM: E the use of ergonomics to improve the performance of quality control inspectors; E applications of TQM to safety aspects of ergonomics; E linkages between TQM and macro-ergonomics or socio-technical systems; E open systems strategic issues; E systems approaches to organization design and leadership; E measurement-based operations; E appropriate use of technology; E individuals, teams and the change process. Interesting research has been conducted to examine the links between ergonomic stress and low quality of performance (Eklund, 1997a; 1995). Further research should examine the potential positive and/or negative linkages between ergonomics and TQM (Eklund, 1997a). 3.1.3. Virtual corporation The virtual corporation is another form of organizational structure that has been receiving increased attention (Davidow and Malone, 1992). A virtual corporation is created when independent companies join together to act like a single corporation. This work organization can have major impact on the psychosocial and physical aspects of the work system. For instance, in a virtual corporation, much of the interaction between employees is conducted through some form of information and communication technology (e.g., video conferencing, email). This occurs in a context where employees are supposed to cooperate on a speci"c project for a limited time period. From a work organization and ergonomics

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

point of view, several problems may occur in such a work system, such as dependency on the technology and potential stress problems (Carayon-Sainfort, 1992; Smith, 1987, 1997) and performance obstacles (Brown and Mitchell, 1991), and di$culty in building cooperation between &remote' co-workers. On the other hand, the virtual corporation may provide some bene"ts to the employees such as opportunity to develop and learn new skills through collaboration with employees in other companies. In virtual corporations, the issue of physical design of home o$ces is particularly important. 3.1.4. Networked organization The increasing use of information and communication technology has facilitated the emergence of organizational networks of people, groups and companies. The concept of &networked organization' has been much discussed in the business literature (see, for example, Grandori and Soda, 1995); however the implications on work organization and ergonomics have not been studied and taken into account in the design and implementation of this type of organizational structure. In a networked organization, there is collaboration and cooperation between the di!erent organizations that belong to the networks. Therefore, employees in those di!erent organizations are supposed to work closely with each other. Often, the close collaboration includes sharing some physical space. For instance, in the French plant producing the Smart cars, workers of di!erent companies work under the same roof, in the same plant. However, employees of the di!erent members of the network work in di!erent settings and organizations, under di!erent systems of task distribution and decision-making processes, and in various physical conditions. This raises important ergonomic considerations, for instance when workers can see that they work in di!erent physical working conditions and with di!erent tools. The di!erent organizational members of the network may put more or less emphasis on physical working conditions and ergonomic tools. This may create tension among employees, leading to poor cooperation, decreased performance, and stress. Further research is necessary to examine the interactions between di!erent work systems of a networked organization and their impact on employees. 3.1.5. Conclusion We have insu$cient knowledge about the impact of di!erent forms of re-structuring and re-organizing of companies on the work system. It is important to study the accompanying changes in work organization and the positive and negative impact of these changes on the di!erent elements of the work system. Understanding the impact on people should be of utmost importance to companies.

653

3.2. New forms of work organization Many changes in work organization have recently emerged, even if theoreticians have introduced some of the concepts many years ago. For instance, teamwork, participation and empowerment have received increased attention by companies. In addition, there has been a movement toward building close links between employees and customers. 3.2.1. Teamwork Recently, various forms of teamwork have been proposed and applied, from temporary teams (e.g., quality circles, project teams) to permanent teams (e.g., semiautonomous work groups, self-managed teams). Temporary teams are set up when some change needs to be implemented and to better manage the change process. The design of the change process, including the role of teamwork, is discussed later. In this section we focus on permanent teams. Teamwork represents one form of work organization that can have large positive and/or negative e!ects on the di!erent elements of the work system and on human outcomes, such as performance, attitudes, well-being and health. Sundstrom et al. (1990) have de"ned work teams as `interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for speci"c outcomes for their organizationsa (p. 120). Teams can vary a great deal in the way they 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 responsibility, installation process, and size. Sundstrom et al. (1990) have proposed that work team e!ectiveness is dynamically inter-related with organizational context, boundaries and team development. Hackman (1987) has proposed a normative model of group e!ectiveness. The model identi"es three process criteria: e!ort, knowledge, and the appropriateness of task performance strategies. Increases in these three criteria, given task con"gurations, should improve the overall e!ectiveness of the group. According to Hackman (1987), the basic levers to change the process criteria are group design, organizational context, and synergy. Given the variety of team characteristics and organizational settings, it is likely that the impact of teamwork on the work system will be highly variable. Some teams may provide for positive characteristics, such as increased autonomy and more interesting tasks, whereas other teams may produce production pressures and tightened management control (Lawler III, 1986). One important issue in team design is the degree of authority and autonomy (Goodman et al., 1988; Medsker and Campion, 1997). It is, therefore, important to examine the impact of teamwork on the task and organizational elements of the work system. Tasks performed by teams are typically of

654

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

a di!erent nature compared to tasks performed by individual employees. Understanding the physical and psychosocial characteristics of the tasks performed by the team and the members of the team is highly signi"cant for ergonomists. Teams can provide opportunity for reducing the physical and psychosocial repetitiveness of tasks performed by individual employees. This is true only if employees have su$cient training on the di!erent tasks and if rotation among tasks occurs. In some instances, the increased authority and autonomy provided to teams may allow employees to in#uence their work rhythms and production schedules. This may have bene"cial physical impact if adequate work}rest schedules are used. On the other hand, members of the team may work very hard at the beginning of the shift in order to rest at the end of the day. This overload at the beginning of the shift may have some physical health consequences, such as musculoskeletal disorders. A more balanced workload over the entire shift is preferred. In other instances, teamwork has been accompanied by tightened management control (Barker, 1993) and electronic and peer surveillance (Sewell, 1998). In conclusion, the impact of teamwork on work organization and ergonomics is largely undetermined and depends on a range of factors. However, teamwork can provide many opportunities to improve elements of the work system. Ergonomics research should be conducted to characterize elements of &good' teams and to propose approaches for designing and implementing them. 3.2.2. Participation Another major change in work organization is the increased use of participation. Participation is not a new concept (see, for example, the early study by Coch and French, 1948), but it has received increased attention by both theoreticians and practitioners in diverse areas, including ergonomics (Wilson, 1991). The "eld of participatory ergonomics has seen a marked increase from the early 1980s to today (Wilson and Haines, 1997). Since participatory ergonomics can be conceived as a macroergonomic tool for implementing ergonomics, it is further discussed in the section on change process. In the 1990s, in parallel with the increased interest in participation, the concept of &empowerment' has emerged. While the two concepts of participation and empowerment are not similar, they share some common interest in increased employee control and involvement (Bowen and Lawler, 1995; Lawler III, 1986). For instance, participative management can be conceptualized as a means for empowering employees (Speer and Hughey, 1996). At the organizational level, empowerment may exist when organizations implement practices that distribute power, information, knowledge, and rewards throughout the organization (Bowen and Lawler, 1995). At the individual level, empowerment refers to intrinsic tasks motivation that manifests itself in four cognitions: meaning,

competence, self-determination and impact (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). It is generally assumed that participation and empowerment are positive characteristics of a work organization that can foster quality of working life, and reduce stress and health problems. However, some authors have warned against the potential negative human consequences of participation (see, for example, Fantasia et al., 1988; Dickson, 1981). Therefore, following Balance Theory, it is important to understand the multidimensional, dynamic characteristics of participation and empowerment, and their potential positive and negative 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 the role of various &participants' (see, for example, Haims and Carayon, 1998; Karltun and Eklund, 2000). Research is also necessary to further examine the potential negative impact of participation, in particular increased workload and work pressure (Carayon et al., 1999a). 3.2.3. Employee}customer relationship The service sector now accounts for a large proportion of the economy of industrialized countries. In addition, many &manufacturing' companies are becoming more and more &service' companies: they develop and sell not only a physical product, but also associated services (e.g., a computer with a maintenance contract). Moreover the customer tends to be more directly involved in the manufacturing operations. These changes lead to closer relationships between employees and customers, in particular in the form of transactions and interactions (Drury, 1998). Therefore, it is important to understand the work organization and ergonomics impact of these transactions and interactions between the employee and the customer. Many elements of the work system can be a!ected by these changes in work organization. Often, the interaction between the customer and the employee will not be face-to-face but through some technology, such as telephone and email. When technological problems occur, for instance, the technology-mediated interaction between the customer and the employee may lead to a range of consequences, including increased stress and pressure on the employee. Further research is necessary to examine the technology-mediated interaction between customers and employees, in particular under sub-optimal technological functioning. The direct contact between the employee and the customer will also have major impacts on the organizational element of the work system, such as work schedules. Customers may expect to have access to the service whenever needed, therefore leading to longer work days and weeks, and shiftwork for the employees. The consequences of shiftwork have been largely discussed in the ergonomics literature (see, for example, Tepas et al., 1995). Other e!ects of the closer employee/customer relationship on the work system include major changes in the

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

tasks performed by the employee. In this context, it is necessary to understand the nature and content of customer/service provider interactions (Drury, 1998). Chen and Drury (1997) have proposed an ergonomics framework for understanding the interactions between a customer and a service provider, e.g., an employee. 3.2.4. Conclusion In conclusion, major changes in work organization are occurring, in particular in the forms of teamwork, participation, empowerment and increased linkage between employees and customers. Ergonomic researchers and practitioners have tackled some of those issues. However, much is still not known about the potential positive, as well as the negative aspects of these new forms of work organization, and their consequences on performance, health and safety. Can these new forms of work organization be the foundation for implementing ergonomics and fostering positive human outcomes? As ergonomists, it is important not to embark quickly on &management fads' but to stay alert in order to identify the potential threat to employee well-being and health. On the other hand, much bene"t can be derived when implementing some of the changes (see, for example, the literature on participatory ergonomics), and ergonomics concepts and methods have much to o!er in the `humanea implementation of these new forms of work organization. 3.3. Workforce diversity The workforce is aging rapidly and becoming increasingly diverse with regard to race and ethnic background, gender and nationality/culture. The increase in workforce diversity challenges ergonomists who need to consider a greater variety of employee needs, expectations, and characteristics. Work systems should be designed to take into account the (actual and/or potential) diversity of the workforce. Some ergonomics research has been conducted to study the e!ects of aging (see, for example, Czaja, 1990). However, many other issues related to diversity, such as cross-cultural aspects, have been largely ignored by ergonomics research. In the midst of the globalization of the economy, companies have been faced with increasing cross-cultural challenges and problems. New knowledge and understanding of cross-cultural issues in work organization and ergonomics are necessary to better take into account cultural characteristics in the (re)design of work systems, in particular in the context of the development of global companies. Global companies need to understand di!erent cultures and the e!ects of cultural factors on employees, and thus on organizational e!ectiveness and functioning. For instance, leadership styles and organizational structures suitable for a given national culture may not necessarily be applicable to the context of another national culture (Hofstede, 1997). As an example, par-

655

ticipatory ergonomics is a methodology that has been used and implemented in a variety of countries and workplaces. The type and methods of participation may vary considerably on di!erent dimensions, as de"ned by Wilson and Haines (1998): extent/level, purpose, continuity, involvement, formality, requirement for participation, decision-making structures, and coupling. The design and implementation of participatory ergonomics should also take into account characteristics of the national cultures (Carayon and JarvenpaK aK , 2000; Kogi, 1997). More generally, we could argue that the human outcomes of work organization depend on the cultural characteristics of the employees. The (re)design of work systems should, therefore, take into account not only the demographic and background characteristics of the employees (e.g., age, gender, anthropometric dimensions, race and ethnic background), but also their cultural backgrounds. Some attention has been given to the cultural/societal context of work systems (see, for example, the concept of anthropotechnology by Wisner (1995)). However, much more work is needed to develop theories and methods for facilitating the "t between employees of di!erent countries and cultures and their working environment. 3.4. Information and communication technology The implementation of various forms of information and communication technology (ICT) in organizations has led to many important changes in work organization and ergonomics. The following issues are discussed in this section: telework, mental demands, and E-commerce. 3.4.1. Telework The development of ICT has contributed to the emergence of new forms of work organization, such as telework and teamwork via computer-mediated communication. Telework or working at home is common for clerical workers performing routine transactions and for autonomous professionals such as writers and designers (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). In terms of the work system, there are potential positive and negative aspects of ICT that can in#uence the stress load and impact performance, health and safety. ICT can have both positive and negative e!ects on work demands. One example is in the context of telework or remote work. On the one hand, telework allows for increased control over work pace and variability of workload. It has been found, however, that electronic communication and telework have led to feelings of not being able to get away from work and to the augmentation (rather than substitution) of regular o$ce hours (Phizacklea and Wolkowitz, 1995; Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). The work place and the home are one and the same, and constant access to technology eliminates time boundaries for work. Although there is a potential negative impact in terms of work demands, the freedom

656

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

and #exibility o!ered by telework is a major advantage, especially for individuals with children and other nonwork responsibilities (Phizacklea and Wolkowitz, 1995). The ability to schedule work around other crucial responsibilities increases job control and helps to reduce role con#ict. Remote work does, however, lead to decreased social interaction with work peers and sometimes decreased 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 right workstation and physical environment. Ergonomics of home o$ces has not been studied much. Moreover the question of who is responsible for ensuring good ergonomics at the home o$ce comes up. How is the information on ergonomics to be distributed and shared with the home workers? Can we use macroergonomic methods, such as participatory ergonomics, to improve the design and set-up of computer workstations and o$ces in the home setting? These important questions have received insu$cient attention and need to be further explored by ergonomists. 3.4.2. Mental demands People who use ICT to perform their job may experience high mental e!ort. Some types of computermediated tasks may increase information-processing requirements and place great demands on attention, decision-making, and memory. Increased levels of cognitive demands due to ICT have been shown to in#uence employee stress and health (Czaja and Sharit, 1993; Lindstrom and Leino, 1989; Lindstrom et al., 1989; Yang, 1994). In addition, the characteristics of the ICT, such as variability of system response time, can a!ect people's physiological and psychological responses. Cognitive demands can be increased when the system response time is poor and the nature of work#ow is not transparent to the workers. In other words, unpredictable demands and interruptions of work#ow caused by system breakdowns may be di$cult to deal with because of the disruptive e!ect on cognitive control process. The implementation of ICT in work organization can lead to greater demands on cognitive resources in terms of memory, attention, and decision-making that may have a negative impact on worker health and work performance. 3.4.3. E-commerce The strong emergence of &dot-com' companies has put forward the concept of &E-commerce'. Many companies have implemented ICT-based systems for distributing and selling their products. These E-commerce systems have important impacts on work organization. Behind the &high-tech' interfaces of web sites has emerged a range of jobs and tasks. In particular, E-commerce activities necessitate packaging, sending and delivering the products ordered through a web site. These tasks will be

performed by warehouse workers and delivery employees. Attention should be paid to the ergonomics of warehouse and delivery tasks performed by employees of &E-commerce' companies. In particular one should examine the interaction between the physical (e.g., lifting objects) and psychosocial (e.g., performing under time pressure) aspects of work. The development of E-commerce is also having a large impact on the amount of time spent in front of computers, not only at the workplace but also at home. The cumulative impact of times spent at computers should be further researched. The di!usion of E-commerce systems will lead to increasing time spent in front of computers. Therefore, the issue of ergonomic design of computer workstations in a variety of environments (e.g., warehouse, o$ce, shop#oor) will become increasingly important. 3.4.4. Conclusion The positives and negatives of ICT are ultimately not inherent to the technology itself, but rather are e!ects of the organizational structures and policies (i.e. work organization) under which the technology resides (Carayon and Lim, 1994; Smith et al., 1981; Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). New computer-based technology has prompted some managers to reinforce hierarchical organizational structures by controlling information exchange, blocking certain channels of communication and enhancing surveillance (e.g. electronic performance monitoring). The same technology has prompted other managers to initiate a new management style characterized by a #exible, continuous learning work environment and culture to support information sharing and participation in decision-making (i.e. decision/organizational control). One of the biggest challenges of the future for work organization and ergonomics specialists will be to design for maximizing the positive and minimizing the negative potential aspects of ICT and its implementation in di!erent types and forms of work.

4. Balanced work system}Balanced organization The original concept of the Balance Theory was developed to examine a work system and its impact on the individual who is at the center of the system (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989). In this section, we enlarge the original concept in order to examine an organization that is a group of work systems. The concept of &balanced organization' is discussed later. 4.1. Balanced work system The essence of Balance Theory is to improve motivation and performance and reduce stress and the negative health consequences by `balancinga the various elements of the work system to provide positive aspects to counter

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

the negative ones (see Table 1). The `besta job design can be achieved by providing all characteristics of each element of the model that can meet recognized criteria for worker needs ful"llment and that set proper physiological and psychological loads to eliminate stress and strain. In reality such a perfect job is not attainable. Balance Theory proposes using good elements to compensate 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 the positive and negative characteristics of the work system. For instance, theories of occupational stress have de"ned work stressors that are negative characteristics, such as high workload, shiftwork, low job control, high role ambiguity and role con#ict (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989). Theories of job design have also speci"ed positive characteristics such as high task variety, feedback, opportunities for learning, and autonomy (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Herzberg, 1966). Ergonomic models have also de"ned negative characteristics of work, and their interactions with the individual (Grandjean, 1969; Konz, 1979). Generic physical risk factors have been de"ned, such as repetitiveness of motions, forceful motions and poor postures. Balance Theory de"nes the process by which working conditions at di!erent levels (i.e. individual, task, environment, technology, and organization) can produce loads that can lead to poor outcomes such as low motivation, diminished performance, increased stress and poorer health. It also proposes a system that helps balance these loads to produce better outcomes. When balance cannot be achieved through changing the negative aspects of an element, it can be improved by enhancing the positive aspects of other elements of the job. Thus, the good aspects of work can be used to `counter-balancea the bad. A major advantage of Balance Theory is that it does not highlight any one factor such as shiftwork, or a small set of factors such as demand and control. Rather it examines the design of jobs from a holistic perspective to emphasize the potential positive elements in a job that can be used to overcome the adverse aspects. Thus, all aspects of the job must be considered in developing a proper design. This model does not subscribe to only one approach for job design such as content enrichment or participation. Both approaches may have some positive bene"ts given the right circumstances. In fact, it is likely that there will be circumstances in which both approaches can be used in concert to provide less stressful work. This model is similar to an `organizational developmenta approach in that it uses one or more aspects or elements from many di!erent theoretical perspectives to solve speci"c problems. The emphasis di!ers in that stress, performance, and health and safety, and not only productivity, are the outcomes of interest and

657

therefore may direct di!erent interventions than would an `organizational developmenta approach. There are two aspects of `balancea that need to be addressed. These are (1) the balance of the total system, and (2) compensatory balance. System balance is based on the idea that a workplace or process or job is more than the sum of the individual components of the system. The interplay among the various components of the system produces results that are greater (or lesser) than the additive aspects of the individual parts. It is the way in which the system components relate to each other that determines the potential for the system to produce positive results. If an organization concentrates solely on the physical aspects of the work system, then there is an `imbalancea because the psychosocial factors are neglected. Thus, job improvements must take account of and accommodate the entire work system. The second type of balance is `compensatorya in nature. It is seldom possible to eliminate all work factors that cause stress and health and safety problems. This may be due to "nancial considerations, or it may be because it is impossible to change inherent aspects of job tasks, the technology or customer demands and expectations. The essence of this `balancea is to reduce the stress load by making changes in aspects of work that can be positively changed to help improve those negative aspects that cannot be changed. Empirical research has shown that jobs can be characterized by a system of positive and negative elements (Carayon, 1994). Jobs that have many negative elements are related to higher levels of strain and health problems than are jobs with positive elements. Research has also been conducted to understand the linkages between physical and psychosocial work factors (see, for example, Lim, 1994). A recently published paper by Carayon et al. (1999b) further explores the theoretical foundations of the relationship between work organization, psychosocial work factors, and musculoskeletal disorders. Further research is necessary to examine the feasibility and potential bene"ts of di!erent types of balancing mechanisms when redesigning work systems. 4.2. Balanced organization A company can be thought of as a constellation of work systems interacting with each other. The work organization de"nes the characteristics of the work systems, but also the links and relations among the work systems. Therefore, it is important not only to &balance' the individual work systems, but also the constellation of work systems, that is the company. We can then de"ne a &balanced' organization as an organization that takes into account business goals and human outcomes, that examines the positive and negative aspects of work/organizational system design, and that minimizes the negative (human and organizational) outcomes. Minimizing

658

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

the negative outcomes implies weighing up the positive and negative organizational/job design aspects and compensating the negatives by some positive aspect. The main elements of the balanced organization are presented in Table 2. In a way similar to the concept of &balanced organization', some ergonomists and work organization researchers have discussed the balance between the needs, objectives and expectations of employees and those of companies. Vink et al. (1998a) have de"ned a &successful' company not only in terms of "nancial success, but also in terms of environmental bene"ts and healthy performance. They argued that companies could be more successful if technological, organizational and human factors are balanced. Lindstrom (Lindstrom, 1997; Lindstrom et al., 1998), Lim and Murphy (Lim and Murphy, 1997; Murphy and Lim, 1997), Cox and Leiter (1992), and Cooper and Cartwright (1994) have recently proposed the concept of &healthy organizations' to describe an organization in which both corporate health and employee health are important. This is an important conceptual development in the "eld of work organization and ergonomics because it ties some of the microlevel characteristics (e.g., individual, task) with organization-level characteristics. This should lead to a better integration of both human and organizational levels of analysis and design. Venda and Hendrick (1993) have de"ned the importance of taking a broader perspective of organizational design using a top down process incorporating various levels of human decision-making. This approach examines the integration of technical and personnel subsystems, which are seen as interdependent. `Mutuala adaptation of each subsystem provides more Table 2 Balanced work organization Theoretical basis

Work organization theories Ergonomics Organizational design theories

Main concepts

Consideration of both business goals and human outcomes Positive and negative aspects of work/organizational system design Organization conceived as a group of work systems: interactions and interfaces between work systems Organization as a system with "ve elements: people, strategy, structure, rewards and processes Continuous improvement and change process

Similar concepts Vink et al. (1998a): `successfula company Healthy organizations (Cooper and Cartwright, 1994; Cox and Leiter, 1992; Lim and Murphy, 1997; Lindstrom, 1997; Lindstrom et al., 1998; Murphy and Lim, 1997) Venda and Hendrick (1993): macroergonomic process for organizational design, mutual adaptation and integration of technical and personnel sub-systems

#exibility than either approach singularly. In a similar way, our approach to &balanced organization' attempts to integrate the di!erent levels of consideration, from the human level to the task and organizational level. Our approach de"nes the organization as a system of work systems with the following characteristics: E The work systems have "ve di!erent elements: the individual, tasks, tools and technologies, physical and social environment, and organizational conditions (Smith and Carayon-Sainfort, 1989). E The work systems are related to each other, and a group (or system) of work systems forms an organization. E The organization is a system with "ve elements: people, strategy, structure, rewards and processes (Galbraith, 1995). According to Galbraith (1995), the company's strategy speci"es the goals and objectives to be achieved as well as the values and missions to be pursued. The strategy is the most important factor because it establishes the criteria for choosing among organizational forms. The structure determines the placement of power and authority in the organization. Information and decision processes cut across the organization's structure. Rewards de"ne policies regulating salaries, promotions, bonuses, pro"t sharing, stock options, etc. The &people' element is comprised of the human resource policies of recruiting, selection, rotation, training and development. According to Galbraith (1995), a balanced approach is necessary for organizational design, &weighing the positives and negatives of organizational design alternatives' (p.7). Galbraith emphasizes that the ultimate decision regarding the organizational design depends on the business strategy. We argue that the business strategy should include all facets of the organization, including the people working in that organization (see also Eklund, 1997a). We can, therefore, extend Galbraith's approach by including human outcomes. Therefore, when weighing the positives and negatives of an organizational form, it is important to not only understand its impact on organizational performance, but also on employee performance, stress, health and safety. The process of designing an organization and its work systems should not be considered as a &one-shot' approach. Continuously improving organizations and work systems, especially in the context of &turbulent' environments, should be the aim of organizational designers. This issue of change process is discussed below. Finally, a company has a variety of interactions with other companies and entities that also comprise work systems. In the previous section, we have highlighted the many di!erent trends that can a!ect work organization and work systems. These trends put increasing

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

importance on the interfaces and interactions between various entities (i.e. companies, work systems, people). Therefore, the concept of `balancea should be extended to the many interactions and interfaces between work systems. For example, the use of information and communication technology has a major impact on where workers perform their jobs. As discussed earlier, ICT can increase #exibility in the workplace through, for instance, telework. That new form of work organization has impact on the work system of people working at home, but also on the interaction between their work system and their family life. Understanding these interactions and interfaces between the work system and the non-work system is increasingly important. Finding the right `balancea between work life and family life is not a new concept, but is becoming increasingly important because of changes in work organization. The study of interactions between di!erent entities and work systems is becoming increasingly important in work organization and ergonomics (Wilson, 2000).

5. Design of change process For ergonomists around the world, one of the biggest challenges is to introduce and implement long-lasting changes that bene"t employees. Increasingly, attention is given to the methodologies for implementing ergonomics, such as participatory ergonomics, and to the process used to introduce and implement changes. Table 3 presents the main elements of the proposed change process design. In the work organization and ergonomics literature, two concepts have emerged as critical to change management and change process: participation (Eklund, 1997b; Haims, 1999; Haims and Carayon, 1998; Vink et al., 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 employees) and learning at all levels (i.e. individual learning and organizational learning) are necessary. An important question arises of how to truly implement participation and learning to foster both individual and corporate health and performance. Deep continuous improvement

Table 3 Design of change process Theoretical basis

Participatory ergonomics and participation Behavioral cybernetics Organizational learning

Main concepts

Participation and learning Self-determination, self-regulation and real-time feedback control Networks

659

e!orts are necessary to avoid super"cial strategies and programs and to achieve what Argyris (1977) has called double-loop learning. Deep continuous improvement e!orts require very profound changes in the entire organization (Zink, 1996). For example, in a recent discussion on empowerment, Argyris (1998) emphasized the implementation of e!orts aimed at increasing internal commitment, instead of external commitment. Further research should be conducted on how to further link the concepts of participation and learning in ergonomics. The behavioral cybernetics literature has de"ned ergonomic characteristics, which are central to human performances as self-determination, self-regulation and real-time feedback control (Smith and Smith, 1966; Smith et al., 1994b). Self-determination indicates the need for a person to exercise judgment over her/his own actions. This principle is in conformity with sociotechnical theory (Gardell, 1971; Hendrick, 1996) and participative management theory (Lawler III, 1986; Vink et al., 1992; Wilson and Haines, 1997). Self-regulation is related to self-determination, but de"nes the action at the level of individual employees. This principle recognizes the need for individual &control' of the action at the personal level. Thus, there is the requirement for providing instrumental control and decision latitude to each individual employee at the task level (Carayon-Sainfort, 1991; Karasek, 1979). In this control process, real-time feedback is essential for individual employees to be able to make good decisions and to direct their responses for e!ective performance. In addition, it is important to coordinate the responses of various individuals and groups to achieve larger organizational goals. To meet such needs, Ting et al. (1971) and Smith et al. (1994b) have de"ned system-level feedback parameters, which integrate the responses of many individuals and groups to provide direction for concerted organizational e!orts. This process is called &social tracking' which establishes feedback and tracking mechanisms for jointly meeting the objectives of the organization. Such systems require coordination of these processes that may be best mediated through, for instance, knowledge computer-based systems as discussed by Bradley (1983) and the macroergonomic approach of Hendrick (1986, 1996). In addition, this process of social tracking within a group and among groups using dynamic feedback may produce positive results in organizational cohesion and cooperation, therefore achieving a `balanced organizationa. A `balanceda organization can be achieved when employees are encouraged to take initiative in order to (continuously) improve their work systems, and the overall organizational design (Frohman, 1997). Individual initiative and self-determination can be achieved through participation and can allow for employee self-regulation. The change process should also provide real-time feedback and dynamic feedback for achieving proper responses at the individual and organizational levels. In

660

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

order to implement these feedback mechanisms at all levels of an organization, one could use, for instance, the principles of &High Involvement Management' of Lawler (1986). Lawler (1986) proposed that participative management needs to integrate issues of information #ow, knowledge, rewards and power. The integration of these organizational approaches into ergonomics is an important area of research. Another interesting approach for the change process is to build on the concept of `networksa (Gustavsen, 1998), which "ts well with the increasing attention put on interactions and transactions in the "eld of work organization and ergonomics (Drury, 1998; Smith and CarayonSainfort, 1989; Wilson, 2000). Gustavsen (1998) emphasizes the construction of networks to implement change and development in the area of quality of working life. He discussed a Norwegian research program which is based on cooperation between enterprises and whose aim is to foster positive changes in work organization. In the tradition of action research, combinations of research groups and enterprises are formed to (1) help companies solve problems, and (2) devise new ways of implementing positive quality of working life changes. Networks represent an important conceptual and practical development in the area of organizational design and change process and provide interesting opportunities for work organization and ergonomics researchers. How can networks be used as a mechanism for implementing ergonomic changes or for di!using ergonomics knowledge and methods?

6. Conclusion In this paper, we have examined work organization and its relationship to ergonomics, sociotechnical and business trends a!ecting work organizations (i.e. re-structuring and re-organizing of companies, new forms of work organization, workforce diversity, and information and communication technology), the concepts of balanced work system and balanced organization, and "nally the design of change process. We have emphasized that work and organizations are multidimensional, can have multiple (positive and negative) impact on people, and can be re-designed to accommodate both human and organizational needs. The concept of `balancea is at the center of our approach to the design of work systems and organizations. The globalization of economies has put much emphasis on interactions between people and organizations of di!erent parts of the world with di!erent cultures. This paper's focus is on the work environment. However, it is important to recognize that work is only one aspect of people's life. As ergonomists, we have much to contribute to the design and betterment of other aspects of people's life. Moray (1995) has proposed that ergonomics can play

a signi"cant role in solving the major ecological and social problems of the world (e.g., population pressure, pollution, water shortage, urbanization). According to Moray, `The task of ergonomics is to design a lifestyle support system that elicits the behavior required to reduce the severity of the global problems, taking into account cultural and environmental features.a (p.1699). Therefore, we should further expand our level of analysis to not only include the organizational level, but also the inter-organizational level and the society level. The recent development of &Community ergonomics' (Cohen, 1997; Newman, 1997; Smith et al., 1994a) goes into that direction.

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 in self-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 and health: from a perspective of equality between sexes. Occup. Heath Nurs. 31 (5), 35}39. Brown, K.Q., Mitchell, T.R., 1991. A comparison of just-in-time and 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 analysis of o$ce jobs. Ergonomics 37 (2), 311}323. Carayon, P., JarvenpaK aK , E., 2000. Cross-cultural factors in macroergonomics. In: Karwowski, W. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis. Carayon, P., Lim, S.-Y., 1994. Stress in automated o$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: Karwowski, W., Marras, W.S. (Eds.), The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 275}283. Carayon, P., Sainfort, F., Smith, M.J., 1999a. Macroergonomics and total 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, job stress, and work -related musculoskeletal disorders. Hum. Factors 41 (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 on task characteristics and worker stress. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interaction 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 Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 3. Finnish Institute 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.

P. Carayon, M.J. Smith / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 649}662 Cohen, W.J., 1997. Community ergonomics: operational requirements and Design process. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation Department of 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., Jennings, K.R., 1988. Employee participation: diverse forms and di!erent outcomes. 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 work environment. Work Stress 8 (2), 98}109. Cox, T., Leiter, M., 1992. The health of health care organizations. Work Stress 6, 219}227. Crocker, M.J., 1997. Noise. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors 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 boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Sci. Quart. 23, 1}39. Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S., 1992. The Virtual Corporation. Harper Collins 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. Ergonomics 40 (3), 249}264. Drury, C.G., 1998. Service, quality and human factors. Paper presented at the Workshop on `Developing Work and Quality Improvement Strategiesa, Brussels, Belgium. Eklund, J., 1997a. Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement * Conceptual and empirical relationships in an industrial context. Ergonomics 40 (10), 982}1001. Eklund, J., 1997b. Ergonomics, quality and continuous improvement * some current issues. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1 * organizational Design and Management. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 10}12. Eklund, J.A.E., 1995. Relationships between ergonomics and quality in assembly work. App. Ergon. 26 (1), 15}20. Fantasia, R., Clawson, D., Graham, G., 1988. A critical view of worker participation in American industry. Work Occup. 15 (4), 468}488. Frohman, A.L., 1997. Igniting organizational change from below: the power 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 industrial 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 and productivity: Analyzing the e!ectiveness of self-managing teams. In: Campbell, J.P., Campbell, R.J. (Eds.), Productivity in Organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 295}327. Grandjean, E., 1969. Fitting the Task to the Man; an Ergonomic Approach. Taylor & Francis, London. Grandori, A., Soda, G., 1995. Inter-"rm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organ. Stud. 16 (2), 183}214. Gustavsen, B., 1998. From experiments to network building: trends in the use of research for constructing working life. Hum. Relations 51 (3), 431}448.

661

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 design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250}279. Hagberg, M., Silverstein, B., Wells, R., Smith, M.J., Hendrick, H.W., Carayon, P., Perusse, M., 1995. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs): A Reference Book for Prevention. Taylor & Francis, London. Haims, M. C., 1999. A longitudinal study of the process and content of a participatory work organization interventions. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Haims, M.C., Carayon, P., 1998. Theory and practice for the implementation of &in-house', continuous improvement participatory ergonomic 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 management. Ergonomics 34 (6), 743}756. Hendrick, H.W., 1991. Human factors in organizational design and management. Ergonomics 34, 743}756. Hendrick, H.W., 1996. Human factors in ODAM: an historical perspective. In: Brown, O.J., Hendrick, H.W. (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management -V. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 429}434. Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 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 mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Sci. Quart. 24, 285}308. Karltun, J., Eklund, J., 2000. Experts versus participants. Paper presented at the International Ergonomics Association, San Diego, CA. Kogi, K., 1997. Ergonomics and technology transfer into small and medium-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 disorders in computerized o$ces : the role of psychosocial work factors, psychological stress and ergonomic risk factors. Unpublished 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 International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 501}503. Lindstrom, K., 1997. Assessing and promoting healthy work organizations. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 504}506. Lindstrom, K., Leino, T., 1989. Assessment of mental load and stress related 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 technological change in banking and insurance. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G. (Eds.), Work with Computers: Organizational, Management, Stress and Health Aspects. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 256}263.

662

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

Lindstrom, K., Schrey, K., Kaleva, S., 1998. Characteristics promoting organizational health in small and medium-sized companies. In: Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, S. (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management * VI. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 281}286. Medsker, G.J., Campion, M.A., 1997. Job and team design. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd Edition. 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 organizations. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygaard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 513}515. Newman, L., 1997. Quality improvement/assessment of educational system for students of color in the university of wisconsin college of engineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, 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 and employee 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 management and quality of working life in a public sector organization. In: Seppala, P., Luopajarvi, T., Nygard, C.-H., Mattila, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 1 * Organizational Design and Management. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 522}524. Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Sci. Quart. 43 (2), 397}428. Silverstein, B.A., Fine, L.J., Armstrong, T.J., 1987. Occupational factors and carpal tunnel syndrome. Am. J. Ind. Med. 11, 343}358. Smith, K.U., Smith, M.F., 1966. Cybernetic Principles of Learning and Educational 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 display terminals (VDT's) and employee physical and mental health. Ergonomics 40 (10), 1002}1015. Smith, M.J., Carayon, P., 1995. New technology, automation, and work organization: stress problems and improved technology implementation 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 the inner city. In: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual 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 design for stress reduction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 4, 67}79. Smith, M.J., Cohen, B.G., Stammerjohn, I.W.J., Happ, A., 1981. An investigation of health complaints and job stress in video display operations. Hum. Factors 23 (4), 387}400.

Smith, M.J., Sainfort, F., Carayon-Sainfort, P., Fung, C., 1989. E!orts to solve quality problems. Secretary's Commission on Workforce Quality 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 performance variability. In: Salvendy, G., Karwowski, W. (Eds.), Design of Work and Development of Personnel in Advanced Manufacturing. Wiley, New York, pp. 273}330. Speer, P.W., Hughey, J., 1996. Mechanisms of empowerment: psychological processes for members of power-based community organizations. 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: Applications 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 Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd Edition. Wiley, New York, pp. 1021}1058. Thomas, K.W., Velthouse, B.A., 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment. Acad. Manage. Revi. 15, 666}681. Ting, T., Smith, M. J., Smith, K. U., 1971. Social feedback factors in rehabilitative processes and learning. Ame. J. Phys. Med. 51. Venda, V., Hendrick, H., 1993. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of human-decision making complexity. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Case Studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 636}641. Vink, P., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Dhondt, S., 1998a. Balancing organizational, technological and human factors * The model and the headline 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 Factors in Organizational Design and Management * VI. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Vink, P., Lourijsen, E., Wortel, E., Dul, J., 1992. Experiences in participatory ergonomics: results of a roundtable session during the 11th IEA Congress. Ergonomics 35, 123}127. Wilson, J.R., 1991. Participation * A framework and a foundation for ergonomics? 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: Salvendy, 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 organisational 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 * Situated cognition and action: Implications for ergonomic work analysis and anthropotechnology. Ergonomics 38 (8), 1542}1557. Yang, C.-L., 1994. Test of a model of cognitive demands and worker stress in computerized o$ces. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison, WI. Zink, K.J., 1996. Continuous improvement through employee participation: some experiences from a long-term study. In: Brown Jr., O., Hendrick, H.W. (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management-V. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 155}160.