Nurturing and Pampering Paradigm for Office Ergonomics

Abstract

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.