The Ergonomics of Desire
| Pages | 20-28 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055519 |
| Date | 01 March 1985 |
| Published date | 01 March 1985 |
| Author | Norman Jackson,Pippa Carter |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The Ergonomics of Desire
by Norman Jackson and Pippa Carter, University of Aston Management Centre*
Abstract
Freud
has
noted
the basic repression
of
the instincts necessary
for the
continuation
of civilised
social
existence.
This
repres-
sion,
at one
level,
is manifest in structures of
social
order
and
control,
of
which
the work
organisation
is
a particular
form.
However,
it
has been argued
that the
degree
of repres-
sion
existing exceeds
that
which is
defined
as
necessary.
From
this it must be
inferred
either that such control
is,
in Mar-
cuse's
term,
surplus
repressive,
or that
it
proceeds from the
desire
of organisational participants to
be
subjected to such
control.
Surplus repression is
not a noted
explanation
of
con-
trol in
orthodox
organisation
theory,
so
this article explores
the
implications
of the
explanation
in
terms
of
desire,
by
ex-
amining a number of
practices
common in work organisa-
tions in terms
of their symbolic
significance,
using
the techni-
que of
ergonomic reconstruction
at the
psychological
level.
The questions posed for
management
by
this article relate
to whether they
are really
doing something other than they
intend,
by
being,
perhaps
unwittingly,
more
concerned
with
control at the
micro level
than in contributing to economic
performance at the
macro
level.
If
so,
it
implies a
somewhat
different relationship between management action and
economic performance than is
usually
supposed,
and sug-
gests that
management
may not be optimising its contribu-
tion to our economic
recovery
and betterment.
This article is based on
an
understanding
of organisational
structures as symbolic
structures.
Inherently,
this implies
that
they
are
symbolic of
something.
Our enquiry is into what
these
symbols
mean,
and what the ergonomic implications
of
such
meanings are.
Introduction
The need for man's physical environment to be compatible
with
his**
physiological determinants has long been recognis-
ed, and has been refined, in organisation studies, in the
science of
ergonomics.
It has become manifest as a compo-
nent of, for
example,
job and equipment design. One popular
technique for highlighting the need for an ergonomic ap-
proach, and for highlighting the implications of design, is
the ergonomic reconstruction of the necessary physiology
of the man to make him compatible with the system under
*An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Standing Conference
on Organisational Symbolism, University of Lund, 1984. We are grateful
for the Editor's comments.
**Potential criticisms of
the
use of
the
generic "he" are acknowledged. The
usage is intentional, but should not be seen as having sexist implications.
consideration
—
shades of
Procrustes!
There are well-known
examples of machines like the lathe whose controls "are not
within easy reach of the average man but are so placed that
the ideal operator should be 1,372 mm (4½ ft) tall, 610 mm
(2 ft) across the shoulders, and have a
2,348
mm (8 ft) arm
span"[l],
processes which require people to have three hands,
etc.
Such a technique obviates the creation of systems, pro-
cesses, machines, etc, which are not suited to man's physi-
que.
This approach to physiological/environmental fit is well
developed. However, what is barely considered is how well
organisational structures are psychologically suited to man.
Are organisational structures ergonomically compatible with
human psychology?
Our intention is to pursue the ergonomic approach, and
to look at the implications for a "psychological" man who
is implied by various organisational structures and forms.
There has been some recognition of a psychological parallel,
with the focus on limiting psychological determinants such
as fatigue, boredom, concentration. However, such
psychological approaches usually have a strictly deterministic
view of man, aiming at quantifiable variables which can be
controlled, e.g. lighting levels. These approaches fall within
what Burrell and Morgan[2] have identified as functional
organisation theory. Such theorising proceeds from the rather
narrow and particularistic view of an objective sociology of
regulation, which makes no allowance for the possibility of
a model of man based on voluntarism. For our purposes,
the psychological approaches can be included with the
physiological approaches, as being based on the same
mechanistic view of man — man and machine, man as
machine.
Repression — Control or Desire?
It is recognised that some types of personality may prefer,
or need, special types of organisation, such as more or less
total institutions like the military. At the other extreme, cer-
tain types notably avoid formal organisation, e.g. artists. Bet-
ween these two extremes lies what is conceptualised as the
"normal" case, the work organisation (a), the essentially
Hobbesian, rational, consensual organisation in which peo-
ple accept a limited loss of voluntarism for the rational social
benefits to be derived
—
almost
by
definition, such organisa-
tions are not usually subjected to the kind of analysis we
propose (although the more extreme cases have sometimes
been so subjected, e.g. Goffman[3]). The reason for this lies
in the assumptions that are made about supposed rationali-
ty and human psychology generally — see many classic
definitions of an organisation, for
example,
Schein[4], Savage
and Small[5], etc. If these assumptions are correct, it implies
20 • PR 14,3 1985
To continue reading
Request your trial