Ergonomic factors are human factors that affect the psychological and physical well-being of workers within an organization. Integrating these human factors together with the philosophies of human resources management into the organizational processes is the best course of action to increase the health conditions of their workers (Nelson et al., 1995).
We will write a custom Research Paper on Delta Corp Ergonomic Factors specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The organization human resources management normally aims at increasing the workers output by ensuring that the workers are satisfied and competent in their work. Therefore, it is essential for the organizations to provide an enabling environment that ensures job satisfaction to the employees. Ergonomic factors are those factors that cause constraints to the workers satisfaction with their jobs.
In fact, human factors encompass all environmental and internal organizational factors that affect physical and psychological well-being of the workers. However, ergonomic factors generally arise from sources that are beyond human control, most of which are caused by human errors or assumptions driven by the emphasis of the output with less consideration of the inputs (Nelson, 1995).
Within the academic circles, ergonomic factors are grouped into various categories. The categories generalize conditions found in almost all industries and organizations. The categories include factors intrinsic to the job, task factors, the roles of the individuals within the organization, personal interrelationship, career-related factors and the organizational structure (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). These ergonomic factors are general and affect all organizations and industries.
Within the airline industry where the focus will be, ergonomic factors are caused by human errors and less strict adherence to the set regulations. Many airline managers agree that human factors are a consequence of improper human-operated systems, which can be managed. In the case of Delta airlines, the company is using human factors professionals to help in the identification and management of the conditions that may affect the workers physical and psychological stress.
Increased interest in the ergonomic factors within the organization is caused by the operational success of the organization when few of the set regulations and conditions to reduce ergonomic factors and errors were implemented. For the organization in the case, how to integrate the ergonomic factors and human resources management is the major concern.
This paper will be examining the ergonomic factors focusing on Delta as a specific organization. Finally, the paper offers a proposal for the organization showing on how Delta Corp can make workplace safer, as well as the manner in which the physical and psychological stress can be reduced.
First, the paper looks into the literature on ergonomic factors and how those factors affect the physical and psychological well-being of the workers, the work environment and the satisfaction of employees with the work environment. The paper then proceeds to look at how Delta is applying and implementing measures that are supposed to reduce the ergonomic factors within the organization.
Ergonomic factors within the workplace
According to the common definitions, industrial ergonomics is the discipline that put together all aspects of the work environment as well as the activities to the organization competencies, magnitude, and the necessities of the stakeholders (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008).
As described, ergonomics are human factors that centers on the importance of better work conditions, apparatus and the gears that are being applied in this work environment, technological levels of the organization as well as the way the organization arranges its operations. The main goal of ergonomics is to enhance the well-being amongst organization workers, their work settings, the tools and equipment they use and their occupational stresses (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008).
In situations that the ergonomic conditions are not met, job stresses and health hazards occur. Nelson, Cooper, and Jackson (1995) have discussed the relationships between job demands and workplace stresses. Indeed the above scholars argue that there must be a balance between job stressors and the diverse features of the occupational blueprints. The balance created is that specific job stressors must counter different blueprints of occupations.
The balancing theoretical framework is essential in the assessment and considerations of human factors and health at work environment. Nelson et al. (1995) pointed out that the deprived human factors in workplace could create distress and disarray that can result in an individual becoming susceptible to stresses related to their occupations as well as disorders in their psychology. In effect, somatic problems may probably intensify.
Many studies have been conducted around job stresses and the relationships that exist between ergonomic factors and the job stresses have been found to be positive. However, it is not only the ergonomic factors that cause job stresses, but also a number of individual factors tend to cause work-related stresses.
Therefore, occupational stresses encompass all factors both work and non-work experienced during work that causes physiological and emotional homeostasis to the employees (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). From the argued context, the stressor relate to the individual factors while the reactions to the individual factors are the stress.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
As such, occupational stress is multivariate observable facts resulting from various factors. Therefore, stress is any strain or forces that destabilize the individual psychological and physical normalcy. Anything that constitutes a threat to individual psychological and physical well-being is stress to that individual. When such threats emanates from the job environment, the stresses caused are occupational or job stresses.
Occupational stresses are caused by many contributory factors. Majority of these factors have been identified as coming from the work environment (Spector, 2006).
The important elements in the occupational environment are the degree at which workers attitudes and capabilities meet the job requirements and the degree at which the work environment meet the needs of the worker, particularly the workers motivation and the use of the acquired skills. In circumstances, where the worker feels that there is a mismatch between the expectations and the job demand stress occurs. In one way or the other, these tend to affect the employee physical and psychological well-being.
Sutherland and Cooper (2008) argue that work environment constitute various factors both physical and psychological interacting together to cause occupational stresses. The way these factors react is dissimilar in diverse environments, situations, and people.
Moreover, the interactions between these factors cannot be explained through epidemiological means alone. Different circumstances, including emotional arousal, exhaustion, work endeavor, pain, apprehension, application, embarrassment, hemorrhage, increased expectations of success are all capable of resulting into occupational stress (Spector, 2006). Thus, a single factor cannot be claimed to be the cause of job stress.
Since there are many factors interacting to cause job stress, Sutherland and Cooper (2008) grouped them into various categories. Though there are overlaps in the categories, they can be used to analyze the way they affect worker or the way they cause work stresses.
According to Sutherland and Cooper (2008), there are factors intrinsic to the job. These include the physical demands such as the noise, machine sensations, and variations in temperature, humidity, hygiene and lighting. Task factors that comprises of shift work, workload, overtime, and work repetitions, applications of new technology, melancholy and exposure to the risk hazards.
The other categories according to Sutherland and Cooper argue (2008) is the role of the individual workers within the organization, which includes role ambiguity, conflicts in responsibilities as well as being responsible for other employees or the company operations. Interrelationship particularly with the seniors and fellow employees is also categorized as own factor.
Career related factors such as the job protection and position inaptness or demotions and promotions. The final category, according to Sutherland and Cooper (2008), is the way the organization is arranged as well as the work atmosphere. For instance, the way organization structure allows the workers to be part of the decision-making process
According to Nelson, Cooper and Jackson (1995), job stresses may result from various sources including increased workload and the frequency emanating from job demands, factors relating to poor job content that in most cases result in world-weariness and lack of significance.
In addition, having no control of any decision in the job, poor organizational guiding principles and measures that make unfriendly workforce may also cause stress. Moreover, the way supervision is carried out that does not affect the general performance of workers, technological factors, individual factors and the environmental conditions (Spector, 2006).
In another study, Nelson, Cooper, and Jackson (1995) discuss the job characteristics that are likely to result in the psychological stress. In that study, they identified attributes such as serious work anxiety, heavy workload, an antagonistic work atmosphere, confusing roles, deficiency of duties that are challenging, emotional overwork, pitiable decision-making relations, not being involved in decision making or not being in control of job responsibilities, poor interpersonal relationship including disconnect with other employees, managers or supervisors.
Further, psychological stress may emanate from the circumstances that employees lack social support that may come from any person being considered important, including supervisors, family members and fellow employees (Spector, 2006).
The adverse human factors at the workplace in most cases result in physical and health constraints that encompass physical and psychological stresses. The physical stresses are such things like visual fatigue, headache, and muscle discomfort. Others include disorders such as growing strain, back, visual, and hearing. In addition, the worker may suffer from, emotional nervousness, apprehension and dejection (Spector, 2006).
Often, these psychological and physical stresses temporarily disappear when workers are rested or when there is perfection in the work design. The physical and emotional stresses may also disappear when the work surrounding and the tools and equipments are improved. In general, enhancement of the work conditions decreases the effects of ergonomic factors that results in physical and emotional constraints in workers within an organization (Nelson et al., 1995).
In the circumstances that employees are open to the elements of human factors, the result is unending consequence. In fact, permanent impairments whether visual, hearing or any other physical bring on anxiety in employees. Such anxieties result in emotional stress, which in effect cause undesirable working state of affairs.
The adverse work conditions again result in stress. Moreover, the physical dysfunctions such as the musculoskeletal disorders resulting into the permanent malfunctions and disability always bring about workers hopelessness, nervousness and downheartedness (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). The psychological stress will further result in the increased sensitivity on the receptors of pain within the eyes and other related muscles that will additionally result into more stress (Nelson et al., 1995).
According to Sutherland and Cooper (2008), five important elements are significant in the control of the causes of stress in the workplace. The scholars argue that when properly implemented within the work design, then the likelihood of the stresses caused by ergonomic misfits is drastically reduced.
Nelson, Cooper, and Jackson (1995) argue that the person, the work surrounding, the workers responsibilities, the workers technological know-how, as well as the general organization of the work are important in the reduction of both physical and psychological stress caused by human factors.
The physical work environment
The physical environment within the workplace includes all the natural features, including the air quality, temperatures, humidity, lighting, and sounds that are critical for the survivability of the workers within the work environment (Spector, 2006). Physical features are elements within the work surrounding without which workers cannot survive.
The physical features are capable of inducing sensory demands that have a direct effect on the capability of the worker to have the sense of hearing, observe and feel. The sense of hearing is affected by sound. The effects of extreme sound (noise) in the workplace causes stress. According to Sutherland and Cooper (2008), noise is the most outstanding ergonomic idiosyncrasy that results in stress.
The workers may be frustrated in the situations where the conditions within the work surroundings are poor. The physical work environment must be conducive in order for the workers to be motivated (Nelson et al., 1995). The circumstances that the physical work environment results in the misgivings of the necessities of the workers and their abilities, the consequences are generalized fatigue and poor performance. The fatigue may be physical or sensory, which causes psychological stress.
The technological factors
Technological aspects including, poor displays, incompatible controls, reduced response attributes of machines, putting up machines without being sensitive to physical conditions, operating difficulties of the technology, machines breakdown, tools and equipments that reduces the workers performance are some of the technological factors that affect workers in the workplace (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). With such technological problems, the likelihood of workers having more physical and psychological stress is high.
The heavy workloads and pressure are the two most critical human factors that are aligned to the causes of the job stress (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). In both ways, too much work or little of it will cause stress. In the circumstances that the workers work under time pressure, may be needed to meet deadlines or in the situations where there are too much tasks to be accomplished, then the stress increases.
In addition, the circumstances that the machines pacing the tasks are too quick or slow then the job stree increase. The workers have no cognitive satisfaction of the occupation responsibilities due to low task control (Nelson et al., 1995).
From the human factors perspective, job responsibilities should be set using the scientific methods where time and output are evaluated according to the workers capabilities. The criteria such as the economic factors, including the necessity to get better of the capital investments and the technological capacity should not be used to measure the workload (Spector, 2006).
The organizational factors
The human resources difficulties because of work environment normally originate from three categories of managerial characteristic of the occupation procedures. The ergonomic management aspects include work in shifts, uncalled-for work after the fullness of time, work paced by machines, as well as the assembly-line work (Spector, 2006). The shift work cause disturbances in the normal biological functioning of the body and in effect affects the psychological well being of the workers.
The assembly line and the machine-paced work normally generate diminutive responsive everyday jobs disregarding the cognitive contents resulting into low employees control over the work processes. The result is unwarranted physical and psychological stress. Unwarranted work after the full daytime can also result in the workers fatigue.
In some instances, the overtime work may lead to undesirable psychosomatic effects, including resentment and dispositional instability (Nelson et al., 1995). All these ergonomic managerial aspects may lead to psychogenic body malfunctions, which affects the general workers performance.
Personal factors are the factors that affect the individual behavior, such as the anxiety and self-esteem. Behavioral factors interact with each other to cause work stresses to an individual, especially in the circumstances that they are found to be the major cause of poor performance (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008).
The individual values and needs, the capabilities and the job experiences, age, ethnicity and well as the expected physical conditions interact to affect the individual performance, which in effect cause the job stress in case of deficiency.
Moreover, genetic characteristics such as the physical composition, sex, reactivity, intelligence, introversion may also cause job stress in case they are found wanting (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008). Other individual characteristics that are acquired such as the educational attainments and social class also affect the individual performance in the workplace, which by extension may cause job stress.
However, an organization can enhance some individual characteristics through the provision of an environment that encourage their growth. Competitive and challenging environment promotes these individual characteristics. The workers must always be encouraged towards the attainment of the set goals (Sutherland & Cooper, 2008).
The encouragement should not be based on the measured output in terms of returns on the investments rather on the individual input and capabilities. Motivation of workers forms the integral part of reducing work-related stresses resulting from the personal factors. However, motivations are derived from an environment that is conducive and encouraging (Nelson et al., 1995). The motivating environment according to the context is that meet the expectations of the workers and the organization.
Delta airlines case
Definition of the functionality of human factors department
In defining the functionality of human factors, an organization pursues its endeavors towards creating the place of work safer and less physically and psychologically stressful. By implementing the requirements of safety measures, the occupations and responsibilities of the human factor department should fully hold on the organization core strategies.
While coming up with the strategies and safety measures, greater consideration should be given to various restrictions that are coined under the organizational and human factor principles. Consequently, the limitations must produce a work environment that is conducive for all the employees in the organization. In considering these facts and limitations, it can be deduced that tools become more important aspect in an organization such as Delta airlines.
In the main, safe institutions that make workplace less psychologically and physically traumatic and non-dangerous should exercise the following. First, with the localized short-term activities in rejoinder to active failures and long-standing measures in reaction to the dormant failures, an organization should react to the practical deficiencies of safety. Secondly, instead of the organization depending on the compliance of control, it should rely on the inner responsibility in order to realize safety objectives.
Moreover, the organization should own a structure that is reliable by features of the surrounding and objectives of the institution. Similarly, an organizational structure must be designed with a particular extent of federal decision-making, standardized processes, and complexity (ICAO, 1993).
Hence, Delta corporation revel in a safety corporate culture that is precisely healthy, good, and open. To permit for an applicable set of scales amid risk and production administration, the organization should advance the appropriate structures of managing the risks. Lastly, Delta esteems safety as the most significant contributor in accomplishing the objectives of production since the corp. pursues safety as a unique of the goals of the institution.
The operating philosophy of Delta ergonomic factor department
The organization should manage and pinpoint the philosophies that operate the department of human factor to transform the place of work become physically and psychologically stress-free and safer. The identification and management of such situations that contribute to human errors enable an organization to remain the facilitator of excellence of human presentation. In fact, the nonexistence of accidents in an organization is no longer a dependable indicator of safety scheme.
The ergonomic factors as well as safety programs should exceed the benchmark defense efforts reacting to the emphasis of the least compliant values that are acceptable. Therefore, the departmental operating programs should ascertain and manage the disorders that result to human factor errors. An organization should identify and manage these errors whereas expediting a move en route to the excellence of human presentation.
Nevertheless, quality should be incorporated at the corporate, small faction, as well as at employee levels as it can never be mandated. The set compliant principles should not be taken as the ultimate organizational safety arrangements of its operational systems. However, it should be cherished as inviolate. By taking into greater consideration of the features and dynamics that cause human errors, the organization is bound to achieve its precincts of work protection.
Actually, the realization comes through enhanced human presentation in the identification and management of circumstances that upshot errors committed by employees. In order for the organization to attain safety environment for its workers, it must put in place measures that drastically reduces human errors. Hence, the support, and coordination of high-ranking management provide an enormous continuum of a potential performance (ICAO, 1993).
The human factor departmental mission and goals
Well-pronounced mission and goals of the organization will help suppress the problem of psychological and physical stress and safety at workplace. The Delta operations expedite quality in the programs of human presentation as one of the institutional goals.
The other goal of the organization is to succor in support and creation of programs for extenuation and management of human errors associated with jeopardy. Conversely, Delta’s mission aims at risk management of human errors through human presentation analysis with deference to structure in support of operation, machineries, strategies, and employees. The mission is essentially applicable in a number of diverse levels (Maurino et al. 1995).
First, Delta projects at minimizing human errors and outlining work performance by arriving at the developments and adjustments. The corporation also uses management science, systems science, biomechanical, psychosocial, physiological, and psychological multiple disciples. Further, the institute employs all these missions in three levels that is task, conditions of work, and organization to meet this target.
The six categories of Delta resource administration
According to ICAO (1993), further categorization, definition, and identification of resource management are of great significance. Such categories in an organization will tend to render safety and lessen the situations of psychological and physical stress.
Actually, it aims at engendering a methodical integration of set abilities of the resource administration into appraisals, training, processes, strategies, criteria, as well as documents. Putting together of the organizations human factor management precincts corresponds to the available technology the organization applies to control its resources.
Actually, the pastry of resource administration is sliced in dissimilar ways in a number of institutions. The fact that Airline Company ought to establish a system of categorization is more important than how it categorizes the administration of its resources (ICAO, 1993). Accordingly, the groupings of ergonomic factors should not be judge in conformity to the way they are specified rather in compliance with the available technology in which they are applied.
Organizational change to practical from theory
The virtuous human resource presentation moralities are simple to a certain degree. Nevertheless, the only difficulty encountered is to decipher the HR straightforward perceptions namely guidance, credentials, processes, guidelines, and staffing standards into performance.
Thus, there is need for a cursory comprehension by the organizational HR on the way of tying together the performance of human resources and acclimating to the demands of the environment. In fact, this would make the place of work a less psychologically and physically traumatic and non-dangerous place as the understanding will enable the organization to avail most airlines into the business.
The Delta Corp director may edifice sound adaptations since the industry puts voice to the principles of human resource presentation increasingly (ICAO, 1993). The manager does this through objectively interlacing human principles factors into practices, processes, strategies, as well as ideas.
Conversely, the scheduled carrier personnel and administrators should prolong the assimilation and understanding of human factors to produce excellence in human presentation. The extent of comprehension and integration should fall beyond a cursory consciousness and non-structured adaptations. Definitely, the initial task for the administrators is to situate such comprehensive human resource administration principles and factors into organizational lingo.
In the meantime, putting this into the organization language would enable every worker to understand the human resource management factors and principle. Besides, via a cohesive strategy and in total consistency, the HR should interlace such perceptions into education, configuration of the firm, credentials, processes, and guidelines. Hence, the organization should deal with the restriction of space promptly to further develop the subsequent tips of integration (Jones, 1993).
The current workplace challenges and environment
There are extensive accords all through the fiscal, regulatory, and operational organizations stipulating that the integration of resource management standards as well as the human or ergonomic factors into the assumed operational activities could be a noble action course. Similarly, the airline administrators have increasingly recognized that errors caused by human are unavoidable.
Most of these human faults stem from systems managed and operated by people, but the consequential circumstances causing such errors are manageable (Maurino et al. 1995). Often, the executive directors use both the ergonomic factors departmental units and human factors experts in helping the corporations to classify and manage situations and risks correlated to these errors.
The operational triumphs and the management of psychologically as well as physically stressful workplaces fuel the interest of integrating ergonomic factors into the activities undertaken by an organization. To the airplane administrators, it is generally debatable whether a firm must examine ‘proviso’ instead of ‘the manner in which’, the assets ought to be handled, and ergonomic aspects incorporated.
Given that, employees become psychologically as well as physically stressed up with unsafe work environment, the proposal offers a decisive framework on how Delta Corporation should integrate ergonomic factors in its operations and management plans to make workplace less stressful and safer (Maurino et al. 1995).
The proposal provides the nature of challenges encountered during integration, the departmental functionality of the ergonomic factors, the departmental units ergonomic factors attributes, the systems approach, and recommendations on how the organization can move to actions from the principles.
The ergonomic factors integration challenges
Workplaces normally become stressful and unsafe the moment the ergonomic factors administrators encounter challenges related to the translation of better ergonomic functional knowledge into practice. In fact, such integrations ought to be carried out with the entire organizational systems in order to realize sustainable transformation.
In the ICAO (1993), the existing safety measures incorporate the extensive workforce safety dearth eminent in the organizational systems instead of solitary functionality (p.1). The analytical proof permits the organizations to identify any management deficiency during the aviation systems operation and designing stages.
When translating the ergonomic factors into science, the process should include a minimum of three stages namely the tasks, the place of work, and the organization. The organizational efforts relating to the management of resources and ergonomic factors must be directed mainly towards evaluating the training programs improvement and workforce attitudes.
As it appears in the case firm, the plans for guiding the employees should not emerge affixed in seclusion. To avoid stress and keep workplace safe, the management of organizational resources and human factors should not be considered just as the employees’ preparation intervention. Educating the organization employees and administration to understand that ergonomic factors go beyond the mere training is the major problem and challenge encountered by the director of human factors.
The ergonomic activities difficulties at Delta Corporation that cause tension and insecurity amongst employees should have prepared resolutions recognizing the dependence as well as the effect of corporate and workplace parameters that outline traditions, actions, and outlook. In fact, both the corporate and individual problems causing stress and insecurity ought to be attended to in order to rectify the errors, which generate the workforce performance and conditional challenges.
The firm traditions, employees’ actions, and manners must be transformed at the managerial and at each workers rank. The most influential tool that Delta Corporation should use to shape the groups and individual employees’ corporate culture is answerability (Jones, 1993). The organization must not allow the employees to violate the internalized occupational, health and safety principles.
The traditions of Delta Corp need to describe the inclined manner and ethics that may put the decisive and desirable conduct pressure needed from a set of personnel. The organization should also enforce standards and express disapproval of any wrongdoer by sanctioning whoever defies the set principles. The internalization at the organizational, small groups and individual levels are important given that they warrant that suitable ergonomic factors undertakings emerge as anticipated and become impulsive.
The function and type of the department of human factors ought to be planned in such as way that the performances of all employees are affected. However, in order to influence the culture, behaviours, and attitudes of the workforce, Delta Corp needs to ensure that there is shared obligation towards systematically integrating ergonomic factors.
Provided the values of human factors fail to be internalized either organizationally or independently, the possibility of sustaining organization practices would be considerably abridged (Jones, 1993). Thus, all Delta Corp workers should attach relevance and internalize the oriented corporate ergonomic factors standards.
The Delta Corp division assuming the ergonomic aspects should bear the intensity and contact width in order to outline the managerial traditions, manners, and outlook. The reach can hardly be attained devoid of being committed to the general incorporation of human factors.
The short-range ensnare must be shunned
In order to reduce stress and make Delta Corp workplace safer, the workforce activities dearth and faults should be rectified frequently while cracking down on the group or each employee’s problems, including offering further guidance and imposition of penalties.
In fact, educating employees and ordering for discipline appears to be the most familiar, easiest, and prompt retort to human deficiencies. There are occasions when employees training and discipline could correctly respond to the human performance incidents, accidents, or deficiencies.
Such quick fixes while often drawn on by organizations as stress and safety strap ups, they hardly rectify the root causes and general problems (Jones, 1993). However, quick fixes tend to send memorandum and training vaccinations intended to alter the performances of each employees devoid of taking into account the managerial and departmental constituents, which carve up the employees’ performances.
A briefing and a memo, which are forms of quick fixes often, alter the actions of employees temporarily. The fundamental practical guidelines for the organization, department, and individual employees nonetheless force back the employees’ actions to the initial statuses except when the basic systems become preset.
Prior to looking afar each employee performances, Dealt Corp should classify and appraise both the managerial and universal factors shaping such performances. Indeed, an undemanding ‘quick fix of Delta operators’ strategy to the ergonomic or human actions tend to neglect the impacts and certainty of additional universal suppliers.
Therefore, to generate unrelenting consequences on each individual action, the ergonomic factors plan adopted by Delta Corp should deal with the corporate procedures and structures, which influence culture, actions, and employees attitudes (Jones, 1993).
The departmental human factors attributes
The subsequent section details most aspects of the ergonomic factors, which ought to constitute the fundamental components and function of the Delta Corp human departments to lessen stress and increase the level of safety.
Enough resources for sustaining change
The department of human factors at Delta Corp should have adequate resources, including loyalty, equipment, funds, and personnel to assist in upholding the integrated plans and departments. The incorporation of ergonomics factors into the Delta Corp culture can be equated to growing vegetation in scorched atmosphere. That is, such human factors should be supported and nurtured up to the time when they can live on their own.
The perception can similarly be applied to the whole Delta Corp ergonomic factor divisions given that it incorporates each ergonomic factor ventures (Jones, 1993). Hence, to lessen stress and minimize insecurity issues, the company must avoid the quick fixes strategies that could take it back to the starting points without compensating for the time and funds used.
Delta Corp must concentrate on a single commercial point for constancy
Most corporations assume ergonomic factors oriented training, documents, procedures, policies, and programs spread across the business units. The manager of ergonomic factors should make the performance plans consistent and seal the cracks that may be present to cause insecurity and stress.
Besides, Delta Corp is required to ensure that all ergonomic agendas should be expressed in lingos understood by all employees and adapted to achieve the purpose of the corporation. It is also essential that Delta Corp should have its business-level point of focus addressing ergonomic factors associated with individual as well as organizational growth and development (Jones, 1993).
The centre of concentration will warrant constancy whereas classifying and curtaining the copying of individuals’ hard work. Thus, the universal adjustments to the Delta Corp practices, processes, policies, and values should be dependable athwart corporate limits in order to become a component of the company’s managerial style and traditions.
Corporate reach and placement
The ergonomic factors administrator should be given the power to attend to employees incorporated in the organizational operations. More often, Delta Corp can appear to be stressful and insecure due to the systemic difficulties and ergonomic errors emanating from the inadequate communication systems in all the operational boundaries and athwart departments.
In fact, it should hardly be assumed that each employee affecting the procedures and structure of Delta Corp might have an extensive ergonomic factors scientific knowledge to be capable of classifying and integrating such tenets (Jones, 1993).
To improve employee capability in an organization, the HR department should train workforces and managers on how to utilize human factor principles continually. There should be leverage and credentials relating to the corporation resources, programs, and individuals that are in existence.
Besides, the managers should acclimatize to the limitations or fix the system as parameters to the identification of deficiencies in human presentation and jeopardy. Rather than letting a solitary merge, the organizational executives should proactively develop a departmental structure to initiate a stress free and safety-working place.
The department of human resource management should succor the administrators to practice and improve human performance feedback schemes and risk administration. Further, to bear on the encounters and difficulties, the managers should create operational archetypes and solutions besides bringing sciences into use. Finally, the corporation managers should try to report, evaluate, and identify the conditions that produce error to the management and bottlenecks encountered in performance of human resource.
Ergonomic factors have become part of the strategies used in the management of organizations and employees. Nevertheless, errors made by people normally appear as distinct variables, which should be properly supervised to increase opportunities and minimize the ergonomics challenges.
Thus, to reduce incidents of accidents, insecurity and stress amongst employees and in the organization, Delta Corp must incorporate ergonomic factors in all the management aspects. The human factors should be included in the universal strategy geared towards improving the performances of employees.
ICAO. Human Factors Management and Organization: Human Factors Digest. Montreal: ICAO, 1993. Print.
Jones, Becker. The Four Domains Affecting Job Performance: Internal Document, Delta Air Lines. Atlanta: DA, 1993. Print
Maurino, Daniel, Reason James and Johnston Neil: Beyond Aviation Human Factors. Vermont, USA: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1995. Print.
Nelson, Adrian, Cooper Cary, and Jackson Paul. “Uncertainty amidst Change: The Impact of Privatization on Employees Job Satisfaction and Well-Being.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68.16 (1995): 57-71. Print
Spector, Paul. “Perceived Control by Employees, a Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work.” Human Relations, 39.11 (2006): 1005-1016. Print.
Sutherland, Johnson and Cooper, Cary. Occupational Stress: Issues and Developments in Research. London: Taylor and Francis, 2008. Print.