This paper proposes that current ergonomic practices for design of sedentary jobs, focusing on comfort and support, are inadequate to create healthy and productive workplaces. In fact, they may be counter-productive over the long term. The key results from several research investigations supporting this proposition are: 1) Comfortable workstations adjusted to the user, along with training and education, were inadequate to relieve potentially harmful spinal stress and circulatory impedance caused by sedentary jobs (Paul, 1995; Paul and Helander, 1995). 2) Sedentary jobs induced cognitive mood states like drowsiness and lack of alertness that degrade cognitive function and performance (Paul, 1995b). 3) Activity and movement, for example, between sitting and standing, significantly reduced spinal stress and improved blood circulation (Paul, 1995a; Paul and Helander, 1996a). They also improved mood states linked with superior mental performance (Paul, 1995b; Paul, Morrow and Helander, 1996) 4) Excessively comfortable sedentary work settings induce mood states that could be detrimental to cognitive performance (Paul, Morrow and Helander, 1996). 5) Comfort and discomfort are not two ends of an evaluative spectrum, but rather two orthogonal constructs with two sets of casual factors (Zhang and Helander, 1992). These results collectively provided foundation for the nurturing and pampering paradigm. In this paradigm, nurturing is the strategy to reduce discomfort and pampering is the strategy to apply comfort. Nurturing promotes active, dynamic use of the body during workday to maintain health and prevent injuries. It is discussed using phrases like ‘the best posture is the next posture’ or ‘use it or lose it.’ Pampering with aesthetic and plush environments that induce comfortable perceptions, on the other hand, is a motivational tool with an inverted-U relationship to performance. Utility of this paradigm to create healthy and productive work settings and reduce occupational injuries is supported with several studies from diverse fields. Finally, its implications for workplace design and limitations are discussed.
[1]
Rajendra D Paul.
Effects of Office Layout and Sit-Stand Adjustable Furniture: A Field Study
,
1995
.
[2]
K. Jørgensen,et al.
Evaluation of foot swelling and lower-limb temperatures in relation to leg activity during long-term seated office work.
,
1986,
Ergonomics.
[3]
Martin G. Helander,et al.
Effect of Comfort on Mood States Affecting Performance
,
1996
.
[4]
Jennifer L. Etnier,et al.
Brain Function and Exercise
,
1995
.
[5]
Edward L. Deci,et al.
The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes1
,
1980
.
[6]
Stanley Grant,et al.
Is Walking Sufficient Exercise for Health?
,
1993,
Sports medicine.
[7]
Etienne Grandjean,et al.
Fitting the Task to the Man: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics
,
1988
.
[8]
B. Shackel,et al.
The assessment of chair comfort.
,
1969,
Ergonomics.
[9]
E N Corlett,et al.
Assessment of workload from measurements of stature.
,
1987,
Applied ergonomics.
[10]
Martin G. Helander,et al.
Effect of Sit-Stand Schedule on Spinal Shrinkage fn VDT Operators
,
1995
.
[11]
R K Lueder,et al.
Seat Comfort: A Review of the Construct in the Office Environment
,
1983,
Human factors.
[12]
E N Corlett,et al.
A technique for assessing postural discomfort.
,
1976,
Ergonomics.
[13]
M G Helander,et al.
Effects of two types of chairs on stature change and comfort for individuals with healthy and herniated discs.
,
1994,
Ergonomics.
[14]
Rajendra D. Paul,et al.
Foot Swelling in VDT Operators with Sitting and Sit-Stand Workstations
,
1995
.
[15]
E. Deci.
Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.
,
1971
.