top of page
Search

Designing Work for Humans: The Case for Psychological Ergonomics

Fractional Insights Blog Post Designing Work for Humans: The Case for Psychological Ergonomics

In the rapidly evolving world of work, organizations are grappling with the challenges of adapting to new technologies, working models, and shifting employee expectations. Amidst this change, there is a growing recognition that the traditional approaches to organizational design and people management may no longer be sufficient. As we navigate this new landscape, the concept of psychological ergonomics offers a compelling framework for redesigning work to align with the needs and capabilities of humans.


Psychological ergonomics, a term coined by organizational psychologist Wayne Baughman, draws parallels between the physical ergonomics of the workplace and the psychological "fit" between individuals and their work environment. Just as ergonomic evaluations optimize the physical workspace to promote safety and efficiency, psychological ergonomics seeks to design work systems and processes that are compatible with human cognitive, emotional, and motivational tendencies. Great design uses natural affordances rather than working against them. Designers use push plates to signal push and handles to signal pull. When we break from these natural tendencies, we create friction (and frustration).


Fractional Insights Blog Post Illustration

The foundations of psychological ergonomics can be traced back to the seminal work of Hackman and Oldham (1976) on the Job Characteristics Model (JCM). The JCM posits that certain core job dimensions, such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, contribute to positive psychological states and ultimately lead to favorable outcomes like job satisfaction, motivation, and performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). This model highlights the importance of designing work that aligns with fundamental human needs for meaning, agency, and growth. It emphasized the value of, through intentional design, increasing the alignment between what the individual needs and how the organization gets work done. 


Models from the field of positive psychology have further articulated the factors that contribute to employee well-being and flourishing. Seligman's (2011) PERMA model, for instance, identifies five key elements of well-being: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. By designing work, systems, and processes that support these elements, organizations can create environments that not only promote productivity but also foster human thriving.


The concept of psychological ergonomics is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing transformation of work. As organizations adopt new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and navigate the challenges of remote and hybrid work, the human element cannot be overlooked. 


For example, studies have shown that the introduction of AI in the workplace can lead to increased job insecurity and reduced job satisfaction among employees (Brougham & Haar, 2018). To mitigate these negative effects, organizations must proactively design jobs that leverage the unique strengths of human workers, such as creativity, empathy, and problem-solving, while also providing opportunities for learning and development (Parker & Grote, 2020).


Similarly, the shift to remote and hybrid work models has highlighted the importance of designing work that supports employee autonomy, connection, and work-life balance. Research has found that remote workers who have greater autonomy over their work schedule and location report higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of burnout (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). However, remote work can also lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection from colleagues (Golden et al., 2008). By intentionally designing virtual work practices that foster social connection and collaboration, organizations can help employees thrive in these new work arrangements.


Psychological ergonomics also has implications for HR systems, policies, and practices, such as performance management systems, which have long been a source of frustration and demotivation for many employees. Traditional performance appraisal processes, with their focus on annual reviews and forced rankings, often fail to align with the realities of how people learn, grow, and stay motivated (Cappelli & Tavis, 2016). In contrast, a psychologically ergonomic approach to performance management would emphasize ongoing feedback, development, and coaching, tailored to the individual needs and goals of each employee.


Taking this example one step further, there is an ongoing quest to design performance appraisal systems that yield accurate ratings. For decades, companies have tried everything from different rating scales, rater training, forced distributions, and more. Yet, there is no reliable solution to this problem. Why? There are many reasons, but one very inconvenient truth is that raters are motivated to distort performance appraisals. How a rater appraises employees depends on what goal they are trying to achieve. If accuracy (what the organization needs) interferes with other goals such as motivating the employees to improve (something that may more proximally benefit them), accuracy may be sacrificed. Any rating below meets expectations is unlikely to motivate an employee to improve and is likely to contribute to an antagonistic relationship. Thus, the consequences might actually be more positive for the employee, manager, and even the organization by inflating ratings. Research has shown that managers are more likely to inflate ratings when the consequences of a low rating are high – when it has a strong influence on salaries, promotions, and so on. The task of measuring performance is inherently difficult due to a limited opportunity to observe performance, recall limitations, and inconsistent or limited standards of what constitutes good performance to begin with. As a manager, if I’m not fully confident in my rating to begin with, there’s more incentive to be lenient than there is to be harsh. It’s easier, it feels better, and it creates less hassle and discomfort for everyone involved. 


Future of Work Evolution

Example of PsychologicalErgonomic Approach

Introduction of AI in the workplace

Design jobs that leverage unique human strengths (creativity, empathy, problem-solving) and provide opportunities for learning and development

Shift to remote and hybrid work models

Design work that supports employee autonomy, connection, and work-life balance; foster social connection and collaboration in virtual work practices

Changing performance management systems

Emphasize ongoing feedback, development, and coaching, tailored to individual needs and goals

Challenges with traditional performance appraisal systems

Recognize limitations of traditional systems; consider alternative approaches that prioritize employee development and minimize consequences of ratings to reduce incentive for rating distortion


Right now, there is a big gap to close between current practices and approaches and considering the human element. For example, a study by Accenture that found that while 84% of C-level executives believe they are empowering employees to work with AI, only 41% of employees actually feel empowered to do so. This disconnect is representative of organization’s tendency to focus more on technological, legal, or practical aspects or progress versus human aspects and impact (Accenture, 2021). From AI to remote work to revisioning performance management, there are seemingly endless examples of how the transformation of work into the modern era is requiring deep consideration of human psychology and human needs. 


Where do we go from here? Designing with psychological ergonomics in mind would suggest that the designer would need to consider the motivations of the various stakeholders in the system – the organization, the manager, and the employee – and consider what might get in the way of the organization's goal from each of their perspectives. They would need to consider how to design the system in a way that better aligns the motivations and removes barriers to engaging in the desired behaviors. This might even require questioning the very premise – ratings. What purpose do ratings serve? What decisions are they enabling and how can we get accurate data to help us make them?  


As organizations navigate the challenges and opportunities of the modern workplace, the principles of psychological ergonomics offer a roadmap for designing work that works with, rather than against, human nature. By attending to the cognitive, emotional, and motivational needs of employees, organizations can create environments that promote not only productivity but also well-being and fulfillment. Organizations can also avoid the pain of failed implementations, rampant undermining or manipulation of systems and policies, and unexpected outcomes.  


Of course, implementing psychological ergonomics is not a simple or one-size-fits-all endeavor. It requires a deep understanding of human psychology, as well as a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions about work design and management. However, the potential benefits – in terms of employee engagement, retention, and performance – are well worth the effort.


Psychological ergonomics is an idea whose time has come. In a world where the pace of change is only accelerating, organizations that prioritize the human element will be best positioned to thrive. By designing work that aligns with the needs and capabilities of the human mind, we can create workplaces that are not only productive but also fulfilling, meaningful, and truly human-centered.


References:


Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees' perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55


Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 58-67. 


Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524


Gallup. (2020). How Coronavirus Will Change the 'Next Normal' Workplace. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/309620/coronavirus-change-next-normal-workplace.aspx


Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412-1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722


Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7


Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2020). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241


Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

169 views0 comments

Commenti


bottom of page