Revergonomics - Applying Principles Of Reverse Ergonomics
When The World is Going The Other Way

It All Started With . . .

The art and science of ergonomics haves been with us for quite a while now.  Some – many – actually understand their importance in the health and welfare of working associates, whether clerks, drivers, laborers, or whatever.  We also get it: good ergonomics means good business in supporting productive job performance in any number of environments.
Maybe ergonomics has been overshadowed recently with the PR surrounding the cult of “green,” but it’s still relevant.  So relevant that a new school of consulting is making money by showing employers how to avoid down-the-road medical costs by installing good ergonomic equipment and practices.

Traditional Ergonomics

We’ve written in the past about developments in the field.  Basically, traditional ergonomics is all about re-structuring work to reduce stress and strain for the worker – or even the boss.  We’ve learned to rotate assignments to guard against both ennui and burn-out.  There is a myriad of tools and techniques to organize working spaces.  To bring work to the worker.  To reduce the consequences – and their severity - of repetitive motion.  To teach best practices in bending and reaching – and to eliminate bending and reaching.  To provide assists in lifting or moving heavy and/or cumbersome items.  To make tools easier to grip and easier to align.  To add safeguards to equipment and processes for accident prevention.  Even the lowly office chair now comes in adjustable height and width, as well as in coordinated colors.  And arm rests and lumbar support are often both adjustable, too.

And, Now?

We’ve all seen cases of people who are miserable because they lack some fundamental skill or attribute that is essential to day-to-day success – or survival.  The dyslexic who has to read and reproduce content; the numerically challenged individual (who may also be dyslexic) attempting quantitative analysis; the color-blind person, who can recognize nothing beyond shades of grey, working in an art gallery; the athletically challenged kid who always gets picked last on the softball team – and never plays anywhere but right field.
Maybe now it’s time to consider a perspective from the other side of the equation.  From a position that is the reverse of traditional ergonomics.  Let’s call it “revergonomics.”  In truth, we haven’t nearly exhausted the possibilities of better conforming work to the normal human limitations (or vulnerabilities) of the worker.  But, we’ve scarcely begun to consider how to better match workers to the demands and requirements of specific jobs.  And this may represent an untapped gold mine in win-win-win job performance.

A Case In Point

Bear with us while we consider the homely example of order pickers in a modern distribution center.  In olden times – last week – we hired picker candidates who could pass muster on a few rudimentary criteria.  We trained them on the basics. Then we coached them for improvement.  They either made the grade, or they didn’t.  Those that didn’t were let go, and we hired a gaggle of hopeful replacements.  And the cycle began all over again.  To be honest, for a long time, the people who were selected to work in a warehouse or distribution center were those who weren’t judged quite good enough to make it elsewhere in the organization – including the management team.
This is an incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and generally ineffective way to build a high-performing order fulfillment organization.  We can hear it now – “But that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
When a facility employs hundreds and hundreds of people like this, not only as pickers, but as packers, replenishers, material handlers, folders, baggers, and the like, there are almost untold opportunities to match up the wrong people with the wrong jobs.

What’s A Better Way?

Here’s the crux of what we’re proposing.  How about getting serious about the match between candidate characteristics – including ergonomic factors – and job characteristics?  Instead of assessing only general intelligence, arrest records, and substance abuse possibilities, look for the things that can make for real success on the job as a meaningful second – and more important - hurdle in bringing someone into the organization.
Here are some things that can make for high-performing order pickers, for example, and they can all be tested and measured:

• Dexterity (small motor muscle coordination)
• Hand-eye coordination (the ability to walk and chew gum simultaneously)
• Spatial awareness (generally recognizing the beginning of an aisle from the middle)
• Color recognition (being able to tell black from pink without having to look them up)
• Oral English comprehension (much more important than written comprehension in day-to-day interaction)
• Technology aptitude (comfort with screens, scanners, keypads, keyboards, headsets, and the like)
• Fitness (in generally good physical shape, for a fast-paced and high-expectation job)
• Physical attributes (height in a range that allows easy working at low levels – bending and/or kneeling – and at high levels – without needing a stool or ladder to reach products)

In short, fit the candidate to the job.  And, a list similar to the example above could be constructed for any position in supply chain operations.  Perhaps the correct phrase is “fit the candidates to the jobs.”
On a side note regarding English skills, this is not a tactic to make things easier for line supervision.  In today’s multi-cultural workforce, there are likely a number of other languages and cultures represented within one facility’s workforce – Hispanic, Russian, Vietnamese, Somali, etc.  English then becomes the de facto lingua franca, and is vital for communications within the group, as well as with line management.

Validation

By the way, physical size – within reason – does not by itself rule out qualification in any or all of the listed criteria.  Neither does age.  And, gender confers no particular advantage or disadvantage.  So anyone getting ready to march may now put down the banners and placards.  The protest rally has been called off.
Of course, you can’t do this willy-nilly or arbitrarily.  You’ve got to look at – and test – existing high-performing employees, validating their characteristics that track with the specific demands of a given position.  Prudently, the screening tests you want to use need to be given to the high performers to verify that they, in fact, identify the high performers.
Look, there’s no intent to be discriminatory in this process.  There is ever intent to provide appropriate opportunity for individuals of all sizes, shapes and descriptions by matching them with jobs that they fit – and that fit them.
We’re all sensitive to corporate vulnerabilities in this Age of Litigation, and it’s easy to contemplate prospects for otherwise capable people suing because they’ve been denied entrée to jobs for which they are simply not revergonomically appropriate.  When criteria and screening/testing are even-handedly and fairly applied – and when other positions better suited to an applicant might be offered – this risk and the conditions that might lead to bad publicity or worse legal threats are significantly mitigated.

Who Wins?

Pretty much everybody.  The employee has a more-than-fighting chance at succeeding – every day -in a challenging environment.  Management gets a higher proportion of winners than from random minimal-screening hiring, and avoids much of the cost of turnover and replacement sourcing, recruiting and hiring.  Shareholders/owners get better production from a smaller workforce.

How Much?

Start with the employee.  How much is quality of work life worth in good mental health and attitude?  It’s hard to say, but it is clear that people who succeed – regularly meet performance/contribution expectations – are in better shape than those who consistently can’t get the basic job done, and live in fear of getting tossed out with the scrap corrugated.
For the management team, it’s priceless to be able to get the job done – and done well – with a smaller workforce.  It’s a slam dunk to get 10% - 20% greater throughput from a capable workforce, and that payoff can be even greater.  An often enormous – and frequently hidden –benefit is the significantly reduced cost of backfilling for turnover.  Assume it costs $18,000 to source, recruit, and train a new employee (a realistic amount, with many industries experiencing higher numbers), and turnover of 30% in a workforce of 250.  Reducing the annual turnover to 10% would put nearly a million dollars ($900,000) to the bottom line.
Both outcomes are nearly guaranteed to cheer up owners and shareholders.

Finally

This notion isn’t really new.  In truly olden times – a couple of  generations ago – we hired warehouse labor handling pallets and cases on the basis of apparent brute strength.  We’re suggesting that there are more relevant and enlightened 21st-century counterpart techniques.
So, we think it’s time.  Time to thoughtfully engage in some revergonomics.  Doing a better job of aligning what it takes to be successful in a job with intrinsic candidate characteristics.  Thinking longer-term about more than simply filling an open slot.  Daring to take a different approach to harnessing the power of what we know about ergonomics to build win-win-win organizational/staffing solutions.
That doesn’t mean that we should abandon traditional ergonomics initiatives.  We’ve still got a way to go in that department.  But, maybe it’s time for “revergonomics” to enter our business vocabulary – and our business practices.

Note: We are indebted to our partner, Steve Mulaik, for coining the term “revergonomics,” as well as support in aligning order picking success factors with ergonomic and other attributes.

Bruce Strahan is a Partners in The Progress Group, Inc., an international supply chain and logistics consulting firm headquartered in Atlanta. He lead the Supply Chain and Manufacturing practice groups for TPG. Bruce did his graduate work at Georgia Tech, and was previously a Manager in Coopers & Lybrand’s SysteCon division. He may be reached at 770-804-9920 or bstrahan@theprogressgroup.com