In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in

BUS 895M

Integrative Action Research Proposal on

INTRODUCTION OF ERGONOMICS IN LEADYA WORKPLACE USING INSIDER ACTION RESEARCH

Submitted by:

Rommel C. Ominga

11389516

Submitted to:

Dr. Ben Teehankee

Submitted on:

November 07, 2016

1
Contents
I. Purpose and Rationale of the Research ................................................................................... 3
II. Context..................................................................................................................................... 5
LeadYa Services Inc.................................................................................................................... 5
LEADYA Mission and Vision, and Goal ................................................................................ 5
Organizational Chart................................................................................................................ 6
Working Hours Pie Chart ........................................................................................................ 9
The researcher and collaborators ........................................................................................... 15
Root Cause Analysis ................................................................................................................. 17
Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders .................................................................................. 23
Ergonomics................................................................................................................................ 25
Participatory Ergonomics ...................................................................................................... 28
Ethics and Ergonomics .......................................................................................................... 29
III. Methodology and Methods of Inquiry ............................................................................... 32
The Action Research Cycle ....................................................................................................... 32
First Person Practice .................................................................................................................. 35
The ORJI Model .................................................................................................................... 36
The Righthand/Lefthand Column .......................................................................................... 38
Second Person Practice ............................................................................................................. 38
Third Person Practice ................................................................................................................ 39
Change Management ................................................................................................................. 40
IV. Meta-learning ..................................................................................................................... 42
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 43

2
I. Purpose and Rationale of the Research

The purpose of this action research is to address the issue of discomfort that was

experienced by the employees of LeadYa Services Inc. in their workstation. Though the

company has been gracious enough to allow this research to be conducted, limitations were set

pertaining to specific information of clients, service processes and products of the company.

Nonetheless, these areas were not the focus, and thus the nondisclosure of these factors would

not have any direct effect on the research.

Belonging to the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry, LeadYa’s different

project-based teams and departments were operating based on performing tasks that were highly

repetitive in nature and promoted posture with limited variety in movement among employees.

The broadest form of disorder that an employee could consider to categorize what he or she

experienced are called Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders or WMSD.

For LeadYa Services Inc., the work-related upper limb disorders and musculoskeletal

pain and dysfunction due to unsatisfactory working posture were the most relevant due to the

deskbound nature of each employee’s tasks. These two are subcategories of WMSD and are

highly detrimental for office employees. On a more specific note, because of the repetitive nature

of our job, the sales team experienced symptoms related to WMSD and we were wary that the

symptoms might advance if we were not able to find the best possible solution. Most of our

colleagues were not yet in the same stage as ours because, upon interviewing them informally,

they said that their discomfort subsided after work. This could be because majority of them were

only working in the company for less than six months and thus have no cumulative discomfort

3
yet. Nonetheless, they were still performing repetitive tasks and the chance for discomfort to

accumulate overtime was to be expected.

Other factors were predominant in the LeadYa workplace as well. When we interviewed

them, the employees’ main concern was that their tables did not properly fit them and that their

chairs were easily broken, not adjustable or have no full support on the back and arms. In terms

of taking breaks, they have admitted that they did not thought of this as an important aspect or a

cause of discomfort. Their first reason for not taking breaks was that they could not get up and

take a pause that easily, especially if they were “in the moment” of writing, researching or

making a sale. Second was the company rule wherein one employee was only allowed to stand

and vacate his or her seat at a time, unless the whole department was going to a meeting. Due to

this strict rule, the employees would rather seat and stay working than be reprimanded for not

being on his or her station.

By addressing the stated issue, this action research will address the changes that the

whole company, from the top management down to the employees, must make to fully realize

the potential of each employee and the benefit of investing on human resources. By being the

catalyst of change and the vehicle towards a better working environment for the employees, this

action research will challenge the unwarranted policies and outdated culture that hounded the

company and instead promote a more engaging and open community that the employees could

be more comfortable working with.

4
II. Context

LeadYa Services Inc.

LeadYa Services Inc. is a small digital marketing company headed by two Israeli

expatriates. The company has undergone multiple organizational changes throughout its five

years of existence such as adding projects, creating departments, merging departments, and

centralizing task-related employees. Currently, LeadYa has three managers, two supervisors and

more than twenty employees. The departments are highly dependent on online solutions

software, social media, Customer Relations Management software and online search engines.

Basically, to perform their respective tasks, all employees are required to be in front of the

computer almost eight hours a day.

LEADYA Mission and Vision, and Goal

Goal:

- Aims in providing other companies with high-quality services while exposing their

brands on the internet through the various marketing strategies.

- Aims to transform brands to icons while LeadYa pushes everyone to the top, and

beyond.

Mission:

5
 "To provide the best service to our clients, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week. In the

online marketing world, there is more unknown than known, we are here for our customers for

any need, anytime, anywhere."

Vision:

"To lead you to the Top and Beyond"

- this means that LeadYa is here to lead each client's brand to the top page of every online

search engine and social media, and provide strong branding presence that goes beyond client's

expectations.

Organizational Chart

LeadYa Services Inc. (LSI) has changed its organization system for several times, often

considering the most efficient way to categorize the employees in different subgroup. The CEO

and COO are spearheading the company, together with the Human Resource Manager,

Operations Manager and Marketing Head. Under them, there are two departments (the Web

Development Department and Marketing Department), and different projects (WHT, CoinPoint

and Traffic). Since the company is still in its starting point, it has not filled all the needed

position. The management must wear many hats such as the HR manager must also handle

finance, the operations manager must take on the role of Traffic manager and Web Development

manager, The COO must be the project manager for WHT, and the CEO as the project manager

for Traffic. The benefit of such set-up is that they are quite visible to the employees, making

them approachable and always aware of what is happening in the company.

6
7
Figure 1 Organizational Chart

The We-Have Traffic (WHT) Project

I belong to the WHT project under a project manager, solely performing sales tasks for

more than a year before eventually leading the sales team of the project. My first team member

was JJS, a fresh graduate student who has a great potential in selling. When she decided to leave

on the first week of July 2015, we hired my second team member, Giselle. She has been in the

field of sales as well, but her background was more on fieldwork and lesser paperwork. She

thought that this was a great opportunity for her because she did not want to always be out in the

office anymore.

8
 Our main tasks have been the same ever since I was the only person doing sales for

WHT. We were to profile online players and email them with different casino offerings. Due to

the pressure of reaching and going beyond the sales quota, my team must be focused on

increasing our email productivity every month, and we must send out 5,500 email offerings a

month to be ensured of continuous increasing sales. In effect, we were focused on this task alone

for eight hours a day. With our muscles doing the same motion repeatedly, the physical well-

being of the team was compromised, resulting in muscle ache and whole body discomfort.

Working Hours Pie Chart

LSI’s main workforce was composed of employees with different industry background.

As such, it was expected that they would have various job description. However, the most

common among the employees were their prolonged exposure to their desktop computer while

sitting almost eight hours in a day. Most of their actions were repetitive and employed the same

body limbs most of the time.

Presented are the different tasks per team and how long they perform each task in an

eight-hour shift to justify the repetitiveness of the tasks. It should be taken into consideration

that, even though the data below were more focused on showing the mouse-to-keyboard usage

ratio, all employees were performing these tasks seated. They might be experiencing other body

aches which were not relevant to using the mouse and keyboard but more connected on the

workstation set up such as upper and lower back pain, neck pain, visual fatigue, leg numbing,

etc.

9
 Figure 2 Writer tasks

The content writers and editors belonged to the SEO department and CoinPoint. Their

main job was to write articles that the SEO specialists would publish. As presented on

the chart, majority of the eight-hour shift was spent on writing and the rest would be on

researching for information about their topics. Due to this, writers were spending more

time using the keyboard than the mouse. Additionally, content editors, though not

necessarily writing articles, were spending time using the keyboard as well in editing and

making revisions in the articles written.

10
 Figure 3 Sales Tasks

The sales team of LSI belonged to two different project teams, WHT and CoinPoint.

Though different in projects, the sales employees were performing the similar tasks of

templates making, lead generating or getting possible clients through online research,

and e-mail marketing. Templates making, which was done in half an hour, was the

only task that involved more keyboard typing than using the mouse; while the lead

generating and e-mail marketing were using mouse most of the time. Email marketing

used the pre-made templates and required minimal editing.

Overall, sales team leader and specialists were using the mouse most of the time than

keyboard and were more exposed to static and non-neutral position of the wrists, arms

and shoulders.

11
 Figure 4 SEO Tasks

The Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Specialists have the most diversified tasks

among the employees of LSI. However, this was not an indication of variety in body

movement for them. Almost all their tasks were done using mouse and they seldom use

the keyboard.

Figure 5 Web Designer Tasks

12
The web designers were also compelled to use the mouse, or in their case, a mouse

pen, in designing. They also have lesser time spent in using the keyboard and have

significant time away from both devices whenever they have a meeting with the other

team. Thus, they have a better chance to pause from their repetitive movement than the

other employees.

Figure 6 Web Developer Tasks

The web developers almost have the same situation with the web designers. Whereas

web designers used mouse pen most of the time, web developers were attached to their

keyboards majority of the time since they were keying in codes and HTML languages.

They also have time away from this repetitive movement due to their need to

13
 constantly collaborate and meet other employees.

The presentation of these charts signified the task diversity in LSI’s workforce and heavy

reliance to the keyboard and mouse, which has been proven to promote repetitive movement in

the upper limb than any office activities. Regarding the mouse and the keyboard, there were

opposing literatures on which among them were creating more discomfort. According to

Pheasant & Haslegrave (2006), people who would use mouse extensively could suffer the same

fate on their upper limbs just like those who would use the keyboard. This was mainly due to the

‘combination of static muscle loading due to working posture and the repetitive motions of the

wrist and fingers that the tasks entail” (Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2006). They also mentioned how

mouse-users would tend to maintain their hands clasping the mouse even though they were not

using it, thus not preventing the muscles in the limbs to be static.

On the other end, R.S. Bridger (2009) cited on his book, “Introduction to Ergonomics

Third Edition”, the research findings of Dennerlein and Johnson (2006) wherein the prolong

usage of mouse, due to the static, non-neutral postures of the wrist and shoulders when using it,

has a more detrimental effect than the keyboard.

A third literature opposed the previous two altogether. Blatter & Bongers (2002) stated in

their study that the extensive usage of the computer itself might be the cause of discomfort that

would ultimately lead to WRULDs. They claimed that frequent mouse-users did not report more

WRULDs, neck or shoulder disorders than frequent keyboard users. The main factor was the

exposure of employees in the computer for six hours or more. This lengthy amount of time doing

the tasks promote more repetitive movement and less variety in bodily functions.

14
 These literatures would suggest that whatever we use extensively, the mouse or the

keyboard, LeadYa employees would be prone to health risks if the issue of discomfort would

retain. To solve this problem, the issue must be taken in its entirety and not just address one

body part or problematic computer hardware.

The researcher and collaborators

I have been working in my company, LeadYa Services Inc., for more than two years. I

started as a sales specialist and was then promoted to the sales team leader position. It was

planned by my manager that I would only be given one sales team member to perform the

similar tasks that I currently do, only with a new set of brands. This was because the company

was just on its early stage and the online casino brands that we were affiliated with were just a

handful that a ‘two-men’ team could already accommodate their demands.

I was hired on February 10, 2014, with the full knowledge of what my job responsibilities

were. Around August of 2014, roughly six months into the company, I felt discomfort in my

upper body and back. I assumed that this was the result of doing the same tasks everyday, even

though I was just sitting and not doing any taxing physical work. I just tolerated the discomfort,

thinking that eventually my body would adapt to this change of work process. However, on May

18, 2015, by the time my first team member, JJS, was hired, the discomfort was still there and

was no longer tolerable. A week after her first day, JJS validated my first assumption. She

opened up about the discomfort in her shoulders, particularly when using the keyboard and

15
mouse. Due to her special case, which she wished not to be disclosed in this research paper, her

discomfort manifested faster than mine did.

I consulted JJS and Charles, our then project manager and currently the Operations

Manager of the company, in terms of what we could do about this discomfort. Since JJS was

experiencing the discomfort, she was on board. For Charles, since he has different daily tasks,

and majority of it was meeting those he managed, he was not exposed to the discomfort.

Nonetheless, he agreed to participate because he knew this would benefit us. On May 25, 2015, I

introduced action research to them and suggested that we use this to address our issue. We

collaborated on the (1) cause of the discomfort; (2) how we could address this; and (3) if we

required additional equipment.

For the first cycle, I collaborated with Charles, the former project manager for WHT, and

JJS, my first team member on the first half of cycle one, and eventually with Giselle, my second

team member. Since Charles was a manager already and has been working in the BPO industry

for more than eight years, I knew that he has different take towards the discomfort that BPO

employees have to endure whenever they would go to work, even though he said he did not

experience the discomfort. It was also easy for us to implement any action since he could easily

approve, revise or give feedback on our proposals. He was also very accommodating on radical

solutions for our issues.

For JJS, she was willing to participate on the actual study and elated to be a part of this

research because she would benefit on the proposed changes. However, further down the taking-

action stage of cycle one, she decided that she still wanted to pursue a career closer to her

undergraduate course. When I asked for her consent to use her name and story for this research,

16
she politely declined and reasoned that since she was no longer connected to LeadYa, she was

not comfortable disclosing those information. I fully understood her decision because I know that

she just wanted to protect her privacy and personal situation.

I also collaborated with Giselle, my second team member after JJS left the company, for

the first cycle. She was also happy to be a part of this research and wanted to see the result of all

cycles. Like me and my first team member, she experienced discomfort in her body months after

doing our repetitive daily tasks. Giselle also joined the constructing up to implementing stage of

the second cycle of the research.

For the second cycle, I asked Charles if he could stay in the IAR group and look for

another solution to our discomfort. He declined this time, stating that, due to his new dual role as

the web development manager and SEO department manager (and eventually promoted to the

operations manager of the whole company), he might not be able to give his 100% attention to

the research. He still gave his word that he would help in any way he can.

Charles told me to ask his two SEO specialists, Lensey and Rina, as IAR group members

for this cycle since he has been hearing discomfort complaints from them. He said that they

could represent their department for this study. After talking to them about the project, I also

talked to Ian, the senior content editor of CoinPoint project, so that I would have a representative

of the writers. He also said that it was a good timing because he has been experiencing pain in

his hand whenever he used the mouse and keyboard.

Root Cause Analysis

17
Issue: discomfort that was experienced by the employees of LeadYa Services Inc. in their

workstation

Being with this job for so long, I have observed that the tasks were highly repetitive and

my body movements were limited. Another observation was that, by working in front of the

computer and sitting in my workstation for eight hours or more, I have become weary and my

body felt discomfort during and even after work. This was true as well for a number of

employees and we have decided to get to the bottom of this issue.

Basically, upon collaborating with my IAR group, we considered the discomfort that we

felt when we performed our tasks as the main issue of the WHT team and, upon further

expansion of the research, of some employees. We concluded that our discomfort, even though

we experienced it in different body parts, was caused by the improper set-up of our workstations,

repetitive motion of our body while doing our tasks and lack of variety in our daily activities.

Therefore, we must address it to prevent us from sustaining any serious work-related injury.

To determine the root cause of issue, we collaborated on the different possible reasons

why we were experiencing such discomfort, granted that majority of our worktime was seated,

no heavy-lifting required nor prolong standing, and we have an hour’s worth of lunch and

another thirty minutes of afternoon coffee break. After listing possible causes, we then used

vectors to illustrate these causes (or power) and how they created the discomfort (Figure 7). In

lieu of using Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, I chose to utilize the vector of powers by Mumford

and Anjum (Mumjum) since it has more specific ways in promoting multiple causes to arrive on

the effect. Mumford and Anjum (2010) said that, “vectors are a useful way of modeling powers

18
because, like powers, they have a direction- the possible manifestation the power is ‘for’- and

they have a strength or intensity, indicated by the length of the vector.” Since the possible

manifestation is the effect, it should also be noted that the direction could go multiple ways,

representing the current state and the desired state.

Another consideration is that, even though we used arrows to depict direction and

intensity, we only used them as ideal representation. In a review by Glynn (2012) on Mumford

and Anjum’s Getting Causes from Powers, he acknowledged the importance of causal relation as

well as lack of necessitation between causes and effects. He did not, however, completely agree

with the usage of vectors as representation of vectors. His main concern was that there was no

common metric system that could be used to compare the vectors.

My take on Glynn’s review is that it did not mean that these forces have realistic means

of measurement. Just like how we elect values on the driving and restraining forces of Kurt

Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, I think we could adopt this notion as well for Mumjum’s vector of

powers. We collaboratively assess the weighting of each power and translate it on the intensity of

the vectors. We just rely mostly on our objective judgment and presented it in a fashion that

greatly supports our intention.

19
 Figure 7 is a one-dimensional quality space with two possible effects, Comfort and

Discomfort, when the powers have accumulated. The powers leading to Comfort (or desired

state) are: Correct Workstation Setup, Mini-breaks and Stretching. When these powers are

strong, their arrows would be longer and could ultimately achieve the comfort effect when all the

powers are added. On the other side, the Discomfort space (or current state), there are four

powers, namely Repetitiveness of tasks, Strict Company Rules, Employee Attitude and Increase

20

Figure 7. Vectors of Power

in Workload. These were considered powers modeled towards discomfort because of specific

reasons.

Repetitiveness of Tasks were one of the strongest power because this was something that

almost all the employees were doing and could not control because their tasks demanded for it,

which means this was a cause of discomfort and yet a necessary activity as well. Another strong

power, the Increase in Workload was something that, again, employees could not control

because, as a young company, LSI must increase its profit-generating activities in order to

succeed. Management would give more tasks and project and, would in turn, demand more

output.

Strict Company Rules were medium powers because they were lesser contributors to the

effect, not deliberately affecting the employees. A sample case would be when the management

implemented rules wherein employees must limit the times that they were standing; they could

not take any breaks 15 minutes before and after lunch time; and no two or more employees

seated within the same area must leave their station vacant at the same time. Lastly, the

Employee Attitude was also a power, albeit a weak one, because this was subjective to the

employees and might not be construed as always negative factor. Some employees preferred to

not take their breaks or mini-breaks so that they could finish their work on the dot, thus

eliminating the possibility of working overtime. Others have this “in-the-zone” moment wherein

they might lose their train of thought or drive to work if they pause.

Additional factors are the Knowledge (a) and Undetermined Date of Office Transfer (i).

Knowledge is an absent factor and could not be considered a power because, per Mumford and

21
Anjum (2010), “absences are nothing and how can nothing have causal powers? Powers, like

properties, must be instantiated by something.” They do, however, added that an absent factor

must still be explained because acknowledging its absence might prove to be useful. In this case,

employees have minimal to none, nor were they offered, knowledge of ways in order to achieve

a comfortable state while working. Though this did not directly do anything to contribute to the

Discomfort space, its presence might affect the Comfort space. The Undetermined Date of Office

Transfer, on the other hand, is an interference factor, which took away, or lessen, the Correct

Workstation Setup power. Since the company could not determine the date of our transfer, they

could not provide yet the comfortable workstation setup.

Lastly, the Threshold account (T) is a point by which the effect occurs, this is “marked as

a particular point that interest us because they involve some significant or dramatic change”

(Mumford and Anjum, 2010). In our scenario, the threshold is situated in the discomfort space,

since we wanted to determine the causes of discomfort. This could be a point in time wherein the

employees have experienced discomfort to the point that it manifested into pain. Adding all the

powers, and considering their strength and direction, the resultant vector (r) is the final effect. In

Figure 7, resultant vector (r) has reached the threshold, and this was consistent with what we

experienced at the office. Often we would hear people complaining that their hands were aching

because of too much typing, that they were having headaches due to prolong looking at the

monitor, or that their back was painful because their chairs were not supporting their posture.

Now that the group has determined all the causes directly factoring to the discomfort, the

most imminent thing that the group must do is to find a way to address this, and one possible

solution was introducing Ergonomics in the LSI workplace.

22
Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders

Stephen Pheasant and Christine Haslegrave (2006) defined musculoskeletal disorders as a

mismatch between the demand of the tasks and the employee’s capacity to perform the said

tasks, thereby putting the employee in a situation of overload. They attributed the direct or

indirect result of the nature and demands of the employee’s tasks to his or her injuries, disorders

and diseases, not the hazardous situation he would be exposed to (Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2006).

In their book, Bodyspace, they have listed several injuries to prove their point. These injuries

include:

- Lifting and handling injuries

- Work-related upper limb disorders or WRULD

- Musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction resulting from unsatisfactory working posture

etc.

Other factors that Pheasant and Haslegrave (2006) considered were the overexertion of

the employee’s body parts to perform the tasks, the cumulative overuse of the body parts over

the course of his or her career, or a combination of both. Concurrently, per Pamela Bush (2012),

most musculoskeletal disorders were cumulative in nature, but the identification of the disorders

would be different from each person. However, in order to form a general rule, three stages were

established to show the gradual pace of the disorders (Pamela McCauley Bush, 2012). These

stages are:

- Stage 1

23
 o Workers experience momentary aches and tiredness during normal working

hours.

o Generally, symptoms would go away on their own overnight and over days

off from work

o Work performance is not affected during this stage, but the symptoms can

continue for weeks or even months.

- Stage 2

o Symptoms include tenderness, swelling, weakness, numbness, and pain that

begin early in the work shift and do not go away overnight.

o Workers experiencing stage 2 symptoms may have a difficult time sleeping

due to the pain and discomfort.

o There is a reduction in work performance, specifically repetitive work.

o Stage 2 symptoms usually last for months.

- Stage 3

o Symptoms during this stage persist even when the person is at complete rest.

o Frequently, sleep is disturbed and pain is felt even with non-repetitive

motions.

o Work performance is highly affected, even when performing light tasks in

daily life.

o Stage 3 symptoms persist for months or years.

Repetitiveness in tasks is one of the contributing factors of Work-related Upper Limb

Disorders among office workers. WRULDs are sometimes referred to as Repetitive Strain

Injuries or RSI in the sense that most repetitive strains are happening in the upper limb of the

24
body. According to (Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2006), these conditions are the result of muscle and

soft tissue overuse and maybe caused by repetitive motion, acute overexertion or intensive use of

hands. These injuries could lead to serious muscle and nerve damages such as Carpal Tunnel

Syndrome, Tendonitis (inflammation of tendon sheaths around the joint) and Ischemia (lack of

blood supply in tissue). Though none of the employees had reported of such injuries, the

company should consider preventive measures before serious damage would occur.

Musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction resulting from unsatisfactory working postures, on

the other hand, could be related to the workstation that an employee is working on, or the lack of

pauses during an extensive period of work. Pheasant & Haslegrave (2006) also highlighted these

two factors. They emphasized the importance of a workstation that is ergonomically designed

and promotes good whole body posture, as well as the significance of small pauses— those that

should be taken in addition to the usual lunch breaks and coffee breaks.

Ergonomics

Ergonomics, or sometimes referred to as human factors, is a branch of science that deals

with keeping the job fit for the people. When Pamela Bush (2012) defined ergonomics in her

book, Ergonomics, Foundational Practices, Applications, and Technologies, she highlighted

how broad and comprehensive ergonomics is, and added that the intention of the concept is to

address the occupational requirements of humans in a more holistic way. She further explained

that ergonomics lies in the application of scientific principles to design processes, systems,

25
equipment and environments to fit the users. Ergonomics is also categorized in three domains to

capture its different aspects. The table below summarizes these domains:

Physical Ergonomics- presents human anatomical, anthropometric, physiological and

biomechanical aspects relative to the physical work. Relevant topics include:

 Working postures

 Materials handling

 Repetitive movements

 Work-related musculoskeletal disorders

 Workplace layout and design

 Safety and health

Cognitive Ergonomics- focuses on mental processes when interacting with other people and

systems. Relevant topics include:

 Mental workload

 Decision making

 Skilled performance

 Human-computer interaction

 Human reliability

 Stress

 Training

26
Organizational Ergonomics- is concerned with optimizing socio-technical systems such as

organizational structures, policies and processes. Relevant topics include:

 Communication

 Personnel resource management

 Task design

 Design of shift hours

 Team and cooperative work

 Participatory design

 Virtual organizations

 Production

 Quality management

Another notable definition of ergonomics is the one from Pheasant and Haslegrave

(2006) wherein they focused on the tasks, the user and the product. They indicated that

ergonomics is a science of work that involves the people who do it and the ways the work is

done; of the appropriate tools and equipment being used; the workspace; and how the

psychosocial aspect of the environment affects the workers.

Last is the definition from a scholarly journal of Justine Chim (2014), wherein it

indicated that ergonomics’ focus is injury prevention. The journal also stated that, “creating a

comfortable environment and adapting the work to fit the person instead of forcing the person to

accommodate the office setting can effectively reduce injury risk” (Chim, 2014). Her approach

in ergonomics is broad in such a way that practicing ergonomics should be starting from the

27
evaluating the office furniture and tools, assessing individual workstation, training and educating

employees regarding the concept and doing stretching exercises and mini-breaks whenever

possible.

These different definitions of ergonomics would be highly helpful in coming up with the

best solution to the issue of discomfort in the LSI workplace. Bush’s (2012) three domains

narrowed down the general area that the research must emphasize, which is the Physical

Ergonomics. Pheasant & Haslegrave’s User-Centered Design would give a better

recommendation that could answer the failure in the first cycle of the research when we tried to

address the discomfort by using a product that was not fit for us, even though it fits perfectly the

tasks. Lastly, Chim’s (2014) focus on ideal workspace and ergonomic activities for people would

help in vindicating the need for an ergonomic intervention in the company.

Participatory Ergonomics

Participatory Ergonomics is a concept of involving individuals in planning and

implementing ergonomic solutions to their issues, specifically workplace musculoskeletal

disorders (WMSDs). On the paper of Hignett et al., (2005), they have listed down how

participatory ergonomics benefited different industries. By providing knowledge and power to

influence their own workplace, the employees were able to address their issues in order to

achieve their desirable goals. Overall, this approach would be an ideal one because the

employees have the power to create changes on their own capability and pace that it would not

create such overwhelming side effect.

The downside of participatory ergonomics, however, is also its main attribute.

Participatory ergonomics is highly dependent on the participation of each employee towards the

28
program. If there would be no champion who would lead the program; if there would be no

budget allotted to start and maintain it; if the employees would not participate and give their

insights; and if the management would not see the point in all of the efforts of participatory

ergonomics, all of its goals would be laid then to waste.

Ethics and Ergonomics

Coghlan and Brannick (2010) indicated that ethics is a part of life and as such, it is also a

part of research. They said that action research’s unfolding nature to attempt to integrate inquiry

with everyday occurrence in our lives, it is highly likely that action research ethical issues are

comparable to ethical issues of a good life. Putting these concepts into perspective, the core

foundation of ergonomics could be

related to ethics. In itself, ergonomics

promotes freedom and participation in order

for employees to have better life at work,

extending its nature by inquiring the

preference and health issues of the

employees and including them in

deciding which ergonomic solutions were

fit for their situation.

29
 Figure 8 User Centered Design

To fully understand the relationship of ethics and ergonomics, it is better to consider the

principle of user-centered design, which states that, “if an object, a system or an environment is

intended for human use, then its design should be based upon the physical and mental

characteristics of its human users (insomuch as these may be determined by the investigative

methods of the empirical sciences)” (Pheasant & Haslegrave, 2006). As shown in Figure 8, the

idea is to find the best possible match between the product, the user or employee, and the tasks.

The product should match the user through ease of use and comfort, while the user is doing the

tasks efficiently, effectively and safely. The tasks should match the user through improving the

quality of working life and maintaining health and safety, while the user is operating the product

the most effective, unrestricting and adjustable way.

An example of improper implementation of the user-centered design is the use of wrist

rest. Based on advertisements and sales talk, wrist rest is an effective way to relieve pressure of

the weight on the wrist, hands and arms of the user. However, according to the study conducted

by Cook et al.,( 2004), there were no significant improvement that the wrist rest has caused to

their subjects. The foam did not fully support the wrist and it did not correct the posture of the

arm. They have concluded that there was minimal differences between the effect of wrist rest on

30
a person using it and a person who just have a normal workstation. Yes the design was user-

centered, but the rationale behind its invention was proven lost.

Additionally, Pamela Bush (2012) also stated that user-centered design has been applied

not just in the physical world, but in the digital world as well. This principle was applied in

different web pages, websites, and other electronic media, gaining recognition in this field

because of its user-centric processes.

Lastly, ergonomic implementation in a company fulfills the responsibilities of a

company, under the theory of Triple Bottom Line (Figure 9). If a company would implement

ergonomic improvement, the management would promote sustainability for its workforce.

People would be able to perform their job more effectively, efficiently and in a healthy manner.

Ergonomics also would fulfill the company’s responsibility to make profit because they would

be investing in their human resources while cutting off expenses due to work-related injuries.

This would ensure a long-term sustainable effect because it would prevent current and future

forms of employee health-related costs while providing means to improve their skills while

performing their tasks. Finally, ergonomics would be for the benefit of the planet because an

ergonomically designed workstation would limit the chance for the company to replace it

because in theory and application, the workstation would already be the ideal place to work at.

This would lessen the carbon footprint of small, medium and large corporation since they would

not be buying furniture and fixture that must be replaced later on.

31
 Figure 9 Triple Bottom Line

III. Methodology and Methods of Inquiry

The Action Research Cycle

To systematically solve the issue of discomfort that was experienced by the employees

of LeadYa Services Inc. in their workstation, we would utilize the techniques of Action

Research. Action Research is defined by Reason and Bradbury as, “a participatory process

concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes,

grounded in a participatory worldview (2008:1)” (as cited by Coghlan and Brannick 2010). The

solution that Action Research would provide would require some form of participation, not just
32
of the author of the research, but the world in general and would use scientific approach in

determining the solution. Action Research, according to Coghlan & Brannick (2010), also

possesses the following characteristics that extensively describe this form of research:

 Research in action, rather than research about action- the action research puts into

consideration scientific approach in resolving important social or organizational issues of

those who are directly experiencing the issues and work together with them in achieving

a meaningful resolution and building a body of scientific knowledge. In order to do so,

action research must go through the cycle of (1) Planning action, (2) Taking action, (3)

Evaluating action, and (4) Constructing.

Figure 10 The Action Research Cycle

 A collaborative democratic partnership- the members of the organization that are being

studied are not merely subjects of the research but active participants of it, having

freedom to give feedback as to how they think the research should be conducted. They

are also main participants in going through the action research cycle of constructing,

planning, taking action and evaluating action.

33
 A sequence of events and an approach to problem solving- it is both a sequence of event

and an approach to problem solving because in order to solve the issue, there are certain

steps that guides the research in the event of data gathering, feedback distribution to those

who are involved, jointly analyzing, planning and further data gathering through using

scientific methods and experimentation to real problems that would be a contribution to

scientific knowledge and theories

34
Figure 11 Spiral of action research cycles

First Person Practice

One focus of Action Research is knowing and developing first, second and third person

skills. First person practice would deal with how an actor inserts his own beliefs, values,

assumptions, ways of thinking, strategies and behavior to his action research (Coghlan &

Brannick, 2010). It is being involved in your study and self-reflecting in every facet of the

research. This kind of practice could only be adapted by journalizing. The habit of journalizing

one’s own observation, experiences and reflection would yield a better way of understanding

yourself, your reasoning and behavior towards certain instances.

35
The ORJI Model

For this action research, I will use the Realistic Observation, Reaction, Judgment and

Intervention (ORJI) Cycle to assess deeply the internal conflicts I would be experiencing while

events take place before my eyes and then considering the biases and pitfalls that I would

acquire. Schein’s (1991) ORJI Cycle “focuses on what goes on inside your head and how it

affects your covert behavior.” By implementing this, it would be easier for me to assess the

thoughts and organize them based on relevance to the main topic. More importantly, it would

help me to determine any traps I have fallen into and backtrack on which part of the ORJI cycle

is inconclusive of the study’s wholeness and question its source. By using this cycle, I must be

able to answer the following questions in order to asses my thoughts and how it affected my

external surroundings:

1. What did I actually observe? Can I describe it?

2. How did I react? What feelings were aroused in me?

3. What was my judgment about what happened? What thoughts or evaluations did the

event trigger?

4. What did I do about it? How did I intervene? (Remember that doing nothing or remaining

silent is also an intervention.)

Afterwards, I must also assess if I have fallen into any of these traps along the way:

a. Misperception

b. Inappropriate emotional response

c. Rational analysis based on incorrect data

36
 d. Intervention based on incorrect data

I will use a mobile app called Journey to record all my observations, reactions, judgment

and intervention. This app will be a great tool because it can be opened in multiple devices,

letting me update

and sync my

journals all the

time (see

Appendix I).

37
 Figure 12 The Realistic ORJI Model

The Righthand/Lefthand Column

Another good technique in determining the internal conflicts that I will be using for this

action research is the Right-hand/Left-hand column. According to (Argyris, 2004, as cited by

Coghlan & Brannick, 2010), the technique would be a good way to determine the privately-held

inferences and attributions in second person practice. This would be an ideal way of testing if all

the things that we would be saying would equate to what we would be simultaneously thinking

or which among the two would bear more weight and importance.

Second Person Practice

The second person practice would be the primary voice that should be used in an action

research. The second person practice is an important form of practice because “it is through

working with others through collaborative processes of engaging in constructing the project,

planning action, taking action, evaluating action, and framing learning that individual (first

person) learning takes place, and it is from that second and first experience and learning that

38
actionable knowledge for a third person audience emerges” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). By

putting into mind that the action research cycle would be mostly started, enacted, evaluated and

re-started with the help of collaborating individuals, the second person practice would be the

foundation of any action research.

To practice my second person skills in this research, I will employ the types of inquiry by

Schein (1999, 2009, 2013) (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010). Pure inquiry is eliciting the real story

behind what is happening, while listening carefully and neutrally. Diagnostic inquiry is the

second category wherein the mode of asking question now deals with emotional processes,

reasoning and actions of the storyteller. Lastly. The third inquiry is confrontive wherein the

storyteller’s ideas are being challenged by the researchers to face another perspective. I will use

this inquiry process in my collaboration with my first team member and Charles during the first

cycle, with my IAR group during the second cycle, and the interviews I will conduct with the

employees before creating the ergonomic module.

Third Person Practice

The third person practice, on the other hand, is an impersonal take on involving people in

the action research that goes beyond the second person practice. Through these three voices, we

can establish that action research is for me, for you and for those who would read this paper.

39
Change

Manag

ement

hange

is inevitable, and so does people’s reaction to change. The resistance to change is something that

could only be addressed through meaningful collaboration. Change and learning takes place not

Figure 13 Lewin's Change Theory

just in the person implying the need for change, but also to the organization he or she belongs to.

This, however, is always met by resistance in two forms, denying and dodging. According to

Coghlan and Rashford (2006), denial and dodging are just natural reactions, especially when the

change is unexpected. They also stated that denying and dodging is the first step to doing and

sustaining, when the change is accepted and implemented (Coghlan and Rashford, 2006, as cited

by Coghlan & Brannick 2010).

Kurt Lewin’s (1999 [1948]) Change Theory is one of the best tool in addressing the

negative reaction to change. Unfreezing, or making the employees motivated to change; Change,

or the implementation of change; and Refreeze, or making sure that the change is permanent and

sustained; are the three steps of Change Theory. Lewin also indicated how important each stage

is and how the organization give equal amount of focus to each stage.

40
 Amick et al. (2003) also created a change theory that is specifically addressing

ergonomics concepts. Based on Figure 14, ergonomics training program in the office would

increase the knowledge of the employees towards the proper posture and behaviors (i.e. break

patterns, workstation set-up) while the chair would implement the improvement of body posture

to reduce musculoskeletal symptom. Both the training and chair’s intervention to postures and

behaviors would eventually improve the health, thereby increasing employee satisfaction and

productivity.

Figure 14 Amick's Theory of Change

Amick’s Theory of Change could be interrelated to Lewin’s Change Theory due to their

similarity to introduce knowledge to motivate and ready people for the change, the change stage

itself towards better health and the permanence and sustaining of the change by looking at the

holistic benefits i.e. better health and satisfaction for the employees and increase in productivity

for the company.

(Amick et al., 2003) developed this framework on their study, “The effects of an office

ergonomics training and chair intervention on worker knowledge, behavior and musculoskeletal

41
 risk”, as a guide for their research model and questions. They conducted a large-scale

longitudinal field intervention study in order to examine the effects of ergonomic trainings and a

highly adjustable chair to employees’ ergonomic knowledge, computing behaviors and postures,

and health and performance as compared to those who were only given a training and the control

group.

IV. Meta-learning

Doing this action research, I have realized a lot of things about myself and how I handle

the pressure of fulfilling something that I have started. I realized that I tend to procrastinate on

the most important tasks that I must do to finish this paper. I also realized that I must see time

like a continuous flowing fluid that would not wait for me. It would continue its course and

eventually would leave me if I would not know how to choose between those activities that I

must prioritize and those that could wait.

There were times that I thought that I would not be able to finish this paper. Sometimes I

would look for the bigger picture and I thought that I could not see it happening on the words,

phrases and paragraphs that I put in here. But I believe that by finishing this paper, I would be

able to prove to myself that I could start something and be proud of the result. I wanted to create

something that would be my proof of how far I have travelled and what journeys I have taken. I

think that this paper would be it and I could not wait where it would lead me.

42
Bibliography
Blatter, B. &. (2002). Duration of computer use and mouse use in relation to musculoskeletal disorders
of neck or upper limb. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 30, 295-306. Retrieved
from www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Bridger, R. (2009). Introduction to Ergonomics Third Edition. Florida: CRC Press.

Chim, J. M. (2014). The FITS model Ergonomics Program: A Model for Best Practice. Work, 48, 495-501.
doi:10.3233/WOR-131806

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing Action Research in your Own Organization. London, California,
Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cook, C. B.-L. (2004). The effect of wrist rests and forearm support during keyboard and mouse use.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33, 463-472. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2003.12.002

Glynn, L. (2012). Review of Mumford & Anjum: Getting Causes from Powers. Mind, 121(484), pp. 1099-
1106. doi:10.1093/mind/fzt010

Hignett, S. W. (2005). Finding ergonomic solutions- participatory approaches. Occupational Medicine,

55, 200-207. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqi084

Mumford, R. L. (2010). A Powerful Theory of Causation. The Metaphysics of Power, 143-159.

Pamela McCauley Bush, P. C. (2012). ERGONOMICS: Foundational Principles, Applications, and

Technologies. Florida: CRC Press.

Pheasant, S., & Haslegrave, C. M. (2006). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of
Work. Florida: CRC Press.

Rosecrance, J. C., & Cook, T. M. (2000). The Use of Participatory Acion Research and Ergonomics in the
Prevention of Work-Releated Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Newspaper Industry. Applied
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 15(3), 255-262. doi:10.1080/104732200301575

43