Psychosocial and ergonomic survey of office and field jobs in a utility company
2018 (English)In: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, ISSN 1080-3548, E-ISSN 2376-9130, Vol. 24, no 3, p. 475-486Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Sustainable development
Sustainable Development
Abstract [en]
Introduction. The effect of different kinds of work on the psychosocial assessment of workers under the same management and organizational environment is investigated.
Methods. A voluntary assessment in a utility company was carried out using the short version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (CoPsoQ) on two occasions, 1.5 years apart. Initially, 25 office workers (11 men and 14 women) participated, while 14 of those workers (8 women and 6 men) participated in the second assessment together with 32 field workers. The sewage, water treatment and maintenance workers, totaling 32 men, also participated in a field ergonomics assessment using the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries field work ergonomic checklist.
Results. The longitudinal outlook was fairly stable, with sustained severe scores in many CoPsoQ subscales and intensification of severity of workers’ control over work and esteem for men. A significantly higher esteem score resulted for field rather than office workers. Workers subjected to foul odors showed similar severity of psychosocial factors.
Discussion. For most psychosocial dimensions, the organizational design and management system in place, as well as the overall cultural environment in which it operates, create a much stronger and more decisive impact than job-specific factors.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2018. Vol. 24, no 3, p. 475-486
Keywords [en]
administrative work, blue-collar workers, macroergonomics, musculoskeletal complaints
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-58649DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1331620ISI: 000436437500016PubMedID: 28589755Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85026891170OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-58649DiVA, id: diva2:1703967
2022-10-172022-10-172022-10-17Bibliographically approved