basictraining
BY ART VAN BODEGRAVEN AND
KENNETH B. ACKERMAN
the case for “revergonomics”
ALTHOUGH IT’S THE VIOLATIONS THAT MAKE
headlines, there are plenty of businesses out there
that take ergonomics seriously. In recent years,
companies from coast to coast have made great
headway in establishing ergonomics programs to
protect their working associates from costly and
devastating injuries.
Traditionally, ergonomics has been all about adapting the job and equipment to the worker. So the focus
has been on developing tools and techniques to
reduce fatigue, repetitive motion, and physical strain.
That approach has obvious
merit, and we have yet to
exhaust all the possibilities.
But maybe it’s time to con-
sider the problem from
another perspective—an
approach that might be
described as traditional
ergonomics in reverse. Instead
of trying to shape jobs to the
workers, why not try better
matching workers to the
demands of specific jobs? This
strategy, which we call “rever-
gonomics,” may represent an untapped gold mine
in win-win-win job performance. (We are indebted
to our former partner Steve Mulaik for coining the
term “revergonomics” as well as his support in ana-
lyzing the attributes—ergonomic and otherwise—
of a high-performing order picker.)
A case in point
Consider the example of order pickers in a modern
distribution center. We hire picker candidates who
can pass muster on a few rudimentary criteria. We
train them on the basics. Then we coach them for
improvement. They either make the grade, or they
don’t. We let go those who don’t, hire a gaggle of
replacements, and begin the cycle all over again.
This is an incredibly expensive, time-consuming,
and generally ineffective way to build a high-performing order fulfillment organization. When a
facility employs hundreds and hundreds of people—not only as pickers, but also as packers,
replenishers, material handlers, folders, baggers,
and the like—there are almost untold opportunities
to match the wrong people with the jobs.
We think there is a better way. What we’re suggesting is that employers pay closer attention to the
match between candidates’ characteristics—
including ergonomic factors—and job characteristics
during the screening process. Instead of assessing
only general intelligence, arrest records, and evidence of substance abuse, why not also look for the
things that will likely lead to real success on the job?
For example, here are some attributes that can
make for high-performing order pickers, each of
which can be tested and measured: dexterity, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, color recognition, oral English comprehension (much more
important than written comprehension in day-to-day interaction), technology aptitude, and fitness.
There are also physical attributes that may come
into play (such as height in a range that allows the
person to work easily at low levels—bending and/or
kneeling—and at high levels without needing a
stool or ladder).
A similar list could be created for other active
work assignments in supply chain operations. The
point is, fitting the candidates to the jobs is likely to
lead to a safer, more productive operation.
Play it safe
Of course, you can’t do this arbitrarily. You need to
validate the screening tests you want to use. You can
do that by looking at and testing existing high-performing employees to ensure their characteristics
track with the specific demands of a given position.
There’s no intent to be discriminatory in this
process. Physical size—within reason—does not by
itself exclude anyone from meeting any (or all) of
the listed criteria. Neither does age. And gender
