Contextual factors affecting task distribution in two participatory ergonomic interventions: a qualitative study

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of the evolution of the division of labour in participatory ergonomics (PE) programmes in two worksites. The analysis is based on interviews and field observations in the worksites. In both settings there was meaningful participation by both worker and management members of ergonomic change teams (ECTs) in the hazard assessment and solution identification stages, but as the teams moved to the implementation stage, worker representatives were marginalised and the participatory nature of the programmes was severely curtailed. The removal of workers from the process was the outcome of the interplay among the type of activities pursued in the implementation stage, the skills and knowledge required to carry out those activities, and workers’ limited influence in the organisational hierarchies. Findings highlight the salience of the social context in which participatory programmes are located and the importance of examining participatory programmes as they evolve over time.

Statement of Relevance: This article contributes to a growing literature on the process and implementation of PE programmes. The article's focus on social and organisational factors that affect the division of labour and attention to the evolution of involvement over time extend current understandings of participation in ergonomics programmes.

Keywords:

• participatory ergonomics
• division of labour
• qualitative case study
• worker involvement
• musculoskeletal disorders

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the workplace parties and the researchers of the Ergonomic Intervention and Evaluation Group (Richard Wells, Donald Cole, Mardy Frazer and Michael Reid). Also, we would like to thank Dwayne Van Eerd for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Funding for the research was provided by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Research Advisory Council (Grant nos. 980 008 and 01041).

Notes

1. Courier Co. and Furniture Co. are pseudonyms.

2. This number represents individuals who were current members of the ECT at the time of the interviews as well as former ECT members.

3. As discussed later in the article, this expectation was grounded in the view that the source of managers’ dismissal of workers input was their low status in the corporate hierarchy.