Chapter 10 Workers and Physical and Environmental Work Demands.docx

Workers and Physical and Environmental Work Demands There are many extreme examples of how physical and environmental factors at work can impact worker health, safety, and well-being (WHSWB). These range from the brain trauma or torn ligaments due to physical contact among professional athletes, to...

Workers and Physical and Environmental Work Demands There are many extreme examples of how physical and environmental factors at work can impact worker health, safety, and well-being (WHSWB). These range from the brain trauma or torn ligaments due to physical contact among professional athletes, to the accumulated lung damage due to poor air quality among miners. Some work, like mining and farming, has even acquired the label of “3D work” – dirty, dangerous, demanding, and sometimes degrading (Moyce & Schenker, 2018). Even work not characterized by these features exposes workers to a combination of physical and environmental characteristics that may function as demands or resources (a distinction we discussed more fully in Chapter 6). We can begin to understand the effects of the physical work environment on workers through the lens of environmental psychology, which like many OHP perspectives, emphasizes fit between person and environment as key to optimal functioning (Canter & Craik, 1981; Leather et al., 2010). Specific to the present chapter, Wohlwill (1974) also emphasized the importance of ensuring optimal person-environment fit with respect to sensory stimulation, social stimulation, and movement. Over-stimulation (e.g., too much noise, too many distractions, too much movement) or under-stimulation (e.g., silent offices, isolation, sedentariness) at work is bad for worker productivity and well-being. This concept of fitting workers to their work environments relates to the challenge of balancing demands and resources we outlined in Chapter 6. Physical and environmental demands place a sometimes heavy and often very consistent load on workers to which they must adapt. These demands affect workers if they simply do not have the resources to respond (e.g., their physical strength or self-efficacy is not sufficient for a task) or if they have exhausted a particular resource (e.g., physical endurance for completing a strenuous task). Serious strain can occur over time and from repeated exposure to these types of demands (e.g., years of nearly continuous keyboard typing or shiftwork-related disturbance of natural sleep-wake cycles). Thankfully, physical and environmental resources that facilitate effective management of demands can offset some of the negative impacts (e.g., adequate technology and resources, time, natural lighting, cleanliness). Our goal in this chapter is to help you see how organizations can maximize fit between workers and their physical work environments. This involves ensuring that workers have sufficient resources to meet the physical and environmental demands associated with their work. Many essential characteristics of work environments have the potential to function as demands or resources; the challenge is optimizing workers’ exposures to these forces to protect WHSWB (note that we explore the topic of safety more fully in Chapter 11). Common Physical and Environmental Demands and Resources at Work Understanding the design of work and its implications for WHSWB is essential to creating healthy work organization (Wilson et al., 2004). Thus, we begin our discussion here by building familiarity with work requirements and environmental characteristics that function as demands and/or resources. As we noted in Chapter 6, the absence of resources can act as a demand and the absence of a demand can be a resource. This is particularly true when considering work-related physical and environmental factors, which can easily be both a demand (e.g., poor lighting) or a resource (e.g., sufficient, natural lighting). This chapter provides a high-level overview of these topics. To learn more, explore the vast evidence base pertaining to these topics in associated research and practice literature from industrial medicine, ergonomics and human factors, and industrial hygiene. Heavy Lifting, Exertion, and Repetitive Motions A common set of physical demands are those that directly place a burden on the body’s musculoskeletal system. Physical demands can include: lifting, pushing, or pulling heavy objects; performing the same motion over and over again; applying force with your fingers; twisting, bending, squatting, or kneeling; standing in one position for a long time; and holding your arms in one position for a long time (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2010). These demands are especially common among workers involved in physical labor (e.g., construction and manufacturing, agriculture, oil extraction, mining). Physically strenuous work often coincides with environmental exposure risks (e.g., heat, noise, exposure to pathogens), discussed a bit later. Physical demands are present in many other occupations that may require shorter periods of physical work (e.g., delivery drivers who bend and lift heavy packages, nursing professionals who assist with moving a patient). “Hidden” physical demands can affect workers in other professions, often due to repetitive and unnatural body movement. For instance, dental professionals experience physical demands associated with the unnatural, static positions of their arms when performing cleanings or exams (Morse et al., 2010). Similarly, operators of heavy equipment and power tools experience physical demands in the form of vibrations, which have been linked to back pain, among other consequences (Burstrom et al., 2015). Opportunities for Movement Exerting oneself physically at work depletes certain types of resources. Counterintuitively, being too still can also be quite demanding. Prolonged standing can be a requirement for jobs that also involve much physical exertion, like construction and manufacturing, but it is also common in fields like healthcare, retail, and food service (Shockey et al., 2018), where cashiers or surgeons may remain standing in the same spot for hours. Excessive standing poses a risk for musculoskeletal complaints in particular, but resources like supportive shoes or floor mats can lessen the impact (Coenen et al., 2018; Waters & Dick, 2015). Similarly, sitting for long periods, although easier to maintain than standing, can also come with effects on the body, like lower back pain (Chen et al., 2009). There is evidence that sedentary behaviors in and outside of work are risk factors for many physical health outcomes, like diabetes and heart disease (van Uffelen et al., 2010), as well as metabolic syndrome (i.e., a clustering of several metabolic risk factors, like abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol; Edwardson et al., 2012). Workers can benefit when their work allows for a variety of different positions and movements (i.e., not always sitting or standing). Although responding to the physical demands of work can drain some resources, when work provides opportunities for movement, this can facilitate development of other resources. For example, even if tangible physical health benefits are minimal, movement variety while working (i.e., facilitated by flexible or active workstations) can help generate positive psychological states and improvements in concentration (Carr et al., 2016; Kilpatrick et al., 2013). Generating these types of resources, at essentially zero cost to the organization, can be as simple as standing for an office meeting or discussing meeting topics over a walk (Clayton et al., 2015; Danquah & Tolstrup, 2020). Environmental Demands and Exposures Physical job demands often coexist with potentially harmful environmental characteristics and conditions, which are often subject to regulation from national or international agencies (e.g., International Labor Organization [ILO], Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], American National Standards Institute [ANSI]). Here we review several common environmental characteristics that often function as physical demands for workers. Noise The effects of noise in a work environment can range from simple annoyances that impede work performance (Lamb & Kwok, 2016) to long-term physical health consequences, such as actual hearing loss, which is an unfortunately common condition for workers in many industries (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], 2019). Some bursts of loud noise (i.e., over 120 decibels) can cause immediate damage to our auditory systems; regular exposure to noise over 70 or 80 decibels (i.e., just below the level of raising your voice to talk with someone an arm’s length away) can cause damage over time (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). As we mentioned in Chapter 5, noise is not the only concern for hearing loss; it can also result from exposure to chemicals labeled as ototoxicants (NIOSH, 2018b). Most studies suggest that quieter work environments are a resource for workers. However, it is important to keep in mind Wohlwill’s (1974) emphasis on balance that we mentioned earlier. Workers often differ in terms of preference and tolerance for noise; the absence of noise may be a resource to some workers and a demand to others who desire at least some background auditory stimulation. Air Quality and General Respiratory Demands Workers in any work environment may be exposed to poor air quality and more serious forms of exposure or demands on their respiratory systems. These might include exposure to mold, chemicals, and general lack of fresh air (NIOSH, 2013). Work environments associated with obvious respiratory demands are subject to targeted regulations. Some examples would be OSHA’s (1990, 2017) standards for exposure to beryllium and asbestos, chemicals that have been linked with respiratory illness. Air quality is also necessarily monitored in the mining industry; in America, this is done primarily through the Mining Safety and Health Administration (https://msha.gov). More broadly, laboratory and field studies confirm that workers in buildings with better environmental air conditions (i.e., proper ventilation, temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide concentrations) had higher cognitive functioning and reported fewer “sick building” symptoms, like headaches or respiratory concerns (MacNaughton et al., 2015; MacNaughton et al., 2017). Attending to the relatively invisible impact of air quality can also have financial implications for organizations (DeAngelis, 2017). Temperature Many occupations involve working in environments (indoors or outdoors) that expose workers to extremely cold or hot temperatures. The effects of either extreme can be serious, including dehydration, heat exhaustion/hyperthermia, or hypothermia; in more mild cases, heat and cold can be uncomfortable and performance-limiting (Redden & Larkin, 2015). There is actually a very narrow range of temperatures shown to be comfortable and safe for indoor workers (between 68 and 76 degrees Fahrenheit; OSHA, 1999). Beyond being uncomfortable, environments that expose workers to temperatures outside this range can impose real practical limitations on worker functioning (e.g., impairing manual dexterity and judgment). There are many excellent resources available to help address risks of exposure to extreme temperatures (e.g., Jacklitsch et al., 2016; NIOSH, 2018a). Lighting Inadequate or excessively intense lighting conditions at work impose significant physical demands on workers (Redden & Larkin, 2015). When followed, safety regulations identify the minimum number of lighting sources and the visibility that should be present in work environments (OSHA, 2001). Although the importance of adequate lighting in manufacturing and other physical labor settings is obvious, performance in office work environments is also significantly and negatively impacted by poor lighting (Lamb & Kwok, 2016). In contrast, the presence of sufficient and/or natural lighting, may function as a powerful resource that improves and sustains workers’ positive attitudes (Galasiu & Veitch, 2006; Leather et al., 1998). Workspace Aesthetics and Design Attention to workplace aesthetics has increased in recent years, as organizations consider how the look and feel of the workplace can be a resource to workers. Workers themselves are more likely to perceive needs for improvements in workplace aesthetics than ergonomics (Schell et al., 2011). Appropriate lighting and color schemes are specific workspace elements that appear to influence mood across cultural contexts and occupational samples (e.g., Kuller et al., 2006). From a worker’s perspective, a window that provides natural light is one of the most consistently desired aesthetic features (Galasiu & Veitch, 2006). If natural light is not an option, incorporating more color or nature elements (e.g., plants, pictures of nature) in a workspace can have some positive effects on worker attitudes and psychological states (An et al., 2016; Dravigne et al., 2008; Kuller et al., 2006). Organizations have to be thoughtful when implementing workspace changes, as work arrangements may not always have their intended effects. As one example, Robinson (2017) noted that one company’s transition to a sleek, stylish, open-office space resulted in less collaboration among employees, as they were all wearing headphones to control excess noise. Workspaces should be designed to support (as a resource) workers’ efforts to meet the demands inherent in their work (e.g., Wohlers et al., 2017). For example, most office workers need comfortable spaces to concentrate and spaces that facilitate collaboration when needed. Keep in mind, though, that workers also differ in their need for aesthetics, which appears to strengthen the relationship between such features and worker attitudes and well-being (Johnson & Cunningham, 2019) – it is important to understand workers’ needs before spending thousands of dollars on new paint, office plants, or other aesthetic improvements. Work Schedules Although perhaps not an obvious physical feature of a work environment, work schedules play a major role in work experiences and directly trigger a number of other physical and environmental demands for workers. This is especially true when long working hours, insufficient breaks, and non-standard schedules are the norm. Long work hours and the fatigue they cause can affect worker well-being (Angrave & Charlwood, 2015; Ganster et al., 2016). Shiftwork in particular has received a good deal of research attention, given its necessity in continuously functioning organizations (e.g., hospitals, manufacturing settings with continuous productions, 24-hour stores and restaurants). Shiftwork can be considered any schedule outside of “typical” 9AM–5PM weekday work hours (Smith et al., 2011). There is strong evidence that shiftwork negatively affects worker physical health, primarily through disruptions to normal sleep-wake cycles (i.e., circadian rhythm; Smith et al., 2011) and an impact on cognition that may take years to reverse (Marquie et al., 2015). Shiftwork is also linked to higher risks of safety incidents (Folkard & Tucker, 2003). Although there have been some efforts to minimize risks of this form of environmental demand through regulation (e.g., European Union Law [EUR-Lex], 2003), ultimate control over work schedules belongs to organizational leaders. Influential Individual Differences, Psychological States, and Social Norms Up to this point, we have highlighted a number of physical and environmental work demands that can affect WHSWB. It is also important to understand that workers differ in terms of their exposure and response to these demands. The effects of such demands are also influenced by a variety of person-specific psychological and social factors. Some groups of individuals (e.g., males; racial and ethnic minorities) disproportionately occupy jobs that expose workers to high levels of physical and environmental demands, such as in the manufacturing, construction, and agricultural industries (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2019). Underlying differences in personal traits and motivations also affect how we respond to demands in our environment. For instance, differences in motivation influence sedentary behavior at work (Gaston et al., 2016) and tendencies to experience positive emotion can weaken the effects of some environmental demands on worker health (Kożusznik et al., 2017). Other individual differences (e.g., mindfulness) affect the extent to which positive resources in the work environment matter to workers (Johnson & Cunningham, 2019) and the extent to which workers use resources to combat physical demands (e.g., self-efficacy affects use of proper lifting techniques; Asante et al., 2007). The physical environment can also directly affect psychological health (e.g., lighting and noise annoyances correlate with mood, anger, and impulsive behavior; Lamb & Kwok, 2016; Simister & Cooper, 2005; Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Psychological processes also help explain how factors in the work environment affect workers (linking once again to the expanded stressor-response model outlined in Chapter 2; cf., Kożusznik et al., 2017; Rashid & Zimring, 2008). As examples, studies find that psychological variables (e.g., appraisals of one’s work environment, motivation, distraction) explain why environmental demands affect both physical health and one’s productivity (Kożusznik et al., 2017; Lamb & Kwok, 2016). Summarizing, “physical conditions matter together and in interaction with phenomena that occur at the cognitive and affective levels” (Kożusznik et al., 2017, p. 107). In addition, the social context at work influences how workers interpret and respond to physical and environmental demands, with workplace norms often dictating what is typical, expected, or normal when it comes to physical and environmental exposures (Bandura & Walters, 1977). The point to emphasize here is that truly understanding the effects of physical and environmental demands at work requires us to also attend to how workers perceive, appraise, and respond to such demands. Why Physical and Environmental Demands and Resources Matter Managing physical and environmental demands and resources at work is an essential component to a broad strategy to reduce work-related illnesses and injuries. We discuss physical health and safety costs more directly in Chapters 5 and 11, so our focus here is on the more general argument for intentional design and control of physical and environmental demands. Benefits for Workers Workers benefit from aesthetically pleasing and physically comfortable work environments, and when they have access to the physical and environmental resources needed to meet work demands (e.g., collaborative workspaces, quiet areas, necessary technology and tools). Some more obvious benefits are avoiding pain, discomfort, and injury associated with demands, while more subtle benefits include positive psychological states when workers can function well, and even enjoy, their work environment. These potential benefits are an incentive for workers to make changes that are under their control, such as incorporating movement variety into the workday or adding some personal touches to their workspace. The research we have cited throughout this chapter tells us that these little changes are worth it. Benefits to the Organization Reducing burdens on workers from physical and environmental demands can minimize risks of negative WHSWB issues and improve workers’ productivity and quality of work. One study of automotive assembly-line workers showed that workers who consistently stayed at high-workload workstations made more mistakes that affected product quality than those at low-workload workstations (Ivarsson & Eek, 2016). Simply rotating workstations (and thereby modulating workload) helped maintain quality. Organizations that more broadly consider physical and environmental demands and provide protective equipment, rest breaks, and schedule flexibility are signaling clearly that they care for their workers (cf., Eisenberger et al., 1986). Social exchange perspectives tell us that workers tend to reciprocate good treatment, so workers who receive resources to meet their physical and environmental demands are likely to be more committed to their organization and less likely to leave (An et al., 2016; Leather et al., 1998). This same reciprocity principle is apparent in findings that workers find counterproductive workplace behaviors less acceptable in clean versus unclean work environments (Huangfu et al., 2017). Improving less visible physical aspects of the work environment also may be financially smart for organizations. MacNaughton and colleagues (2015) illustrate this point in their calculations that improving ventilation rates in an office building would cost less than $40 per person, but yield an estimated $6,500 increase in employee productivity each year. This estimate does not sound so extreme when you consider how air quality affects comfort, cognition, and sickness. For readers who want to learn more, the Healthy Buildings Program within the Harvard School of Public Health (https://forhealth.org/) provides a number of useful resources regarding how work environments affect workers and organizations. Work environments that meet workers’ needs help to retain healthier and safer workers, which ultimately support healthier and stronger organizations. We want to emphasize that physical and environmental improvements at work do not have to cost a fortune (e.g., allowing workers to personalize their workspaces or offer suggestions for physical or environmental resource needs). Even when efforts targeting physical and environmental demands are expensive (e.g., major technology or infrastructure upgrades), few interventions at work are likely to have a greater or longer-lasting effect on WHSWB. Methodological Considerations and Practical Recommendations Physical and environmental demands and resources are evaluated using various methods. Observation and objective metrics may be particularly valuable in this area of OHP research and practice, but other methods are also needed to dig into the closely related psychological and social factors that influence our experience of these physical features of work environments. In the following subsections, we discuss several essential methodological considerations and intervention recommendations for managing physical and environmental demands and resources. Measuring and Monitoring Physical and Environmental Demands More objective metrics (e.g., pertaining to air quality, noise levels, temperature), are necessary for understanding many environmental demands. Trained evaluators (typically occupational health professionals with various educational backgrounds) can also identify less obvious physical and environmental demands that may be present in a work environment or embedded in a work process (e.g., observing tasks that involve a great deal of physical effort, identifying machinery that excessively dangerous to operate). Trained evaluators can also identify physical and environmental demands that workers themselves might not even notice (e.g., chemical exposures, repetitive motions). One observational method that may be particularly useful when studying these types of demands is process mapping, which involves identifying and documenting how work is done. The resulting step-by-step understanding or “map” helps identify points in the process that could be improved, such as by changing the process to minimize demands or offset demands with additional resources (e.g., additional workers, training, new technology). Observational methods and objective metrics do not tell the whole story when it comes to physical and environmental demands. Comparing objective data (e.g., noise measured in decibels) with employee perceptions and reactions to such demands provides a more comprehensive picture of workers’ actual experiences (e.g., Kożusznik et al., 2017). There are helpful measures available for this type of evaluation, including NIOSH’s generic job stress questionnaire (Hurrell & McLaney, 1988) and components of the Work Design Questionnaire (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) that include questions about perceptions of noise, temperature, humidity, exposure to dangerous substances, cleanliness, and other factors. In some situations, more contextualized assessments of demands are pertinent, such as for retail (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2010) or manufacturing settings (e.g., Ivarsson & Eek, 2016). Leiter and Robichaud (1997) provide another example of multifaceted assessment of physical and environmental demands when they asked Canadian Air Force personnel to rate a list of hazards (e.g., electrical shock, heavy lifting, interaction with aircraft engines) in terms of the prevalence, risk for personal harm, and perceived level of personal preparation for encountering these demands. These sorts of approaches can provide rich and meaningful data for understanding how workers are affected by their environment and how equipped they feel to meet their demands. A multifaceted measurement and monitoring approach also can identify differing perceptions of environmental and physical demands among workers. As examples, experienced workers may feel quite comfortable in a risky environment or organizational leaders may view a work environment as relatively safe and free of physical hazards; these perceptions may not match what other workers perceive. Because objective and subjective perceptions of these demands and resources can differ among workers and other organizational stakeholders, focus groups, interviews, and diary studies can provide a higher level of detail, which can be especially valuable when planning and evaluating interventions in this domain (e.g., Pehkonen et al., 2009; Quandt et al., 2013). Interventions to Address Physical and Environmental Demands The general goals of interventions to address physical and environmental demands and resources are to maximize comfort and safety in the work environment and increase workers’ access to resources to meet demands. We focus more attention on safety-related concerns in Chapter 11, but in the remainder of this section, we present several practical strategies for generally improving the balance of work-related physical and environmental demands and resources. Strategies for Individuals In most occupations, it is impossible (and honestly, counterproductive) to entirely remove physical and environmental demands. The challenge is balancing such demands with the resources workers need to do their jobs and stay healthy and safe. One often overlooked, but very important person-centered strategy here is to modify and constrain work demands so that workers, given their actual resources and abilities, can meet them. A context-specific functional assessment can be an effective approach for establishing whether adjustments or accommodations could help to reduce or prevent avoidable strain from physical or environmental demands. Frings-Dresen and Sluiter (2003) developed an example of this type of approach to assess nurses’ functional capacity to carry out realistic work tasks. This approach provides a practical method for helping to ensure a proper fit between workers and their work environments. Another important and generalizable individual-level intervention strategy is to ensure individual workers have the appropriate knowledge and skills (i.e., through proper selection and training) to do their work in the safest and most efficient way possible. Training should make workers aware of risks associated with the physical and environmental demands they will face while doing their work (Smith & Carayon, 2011). This is important for any job, regardless of the severity of risks. Training should also help workers to better manage their demands. Examples of trainings that focus on safely managing physical and environmental hazards are vast. For some issues, simple knowledge-based training can be quite effective. For instance, ergonomic education regarding proper posture and workstation arrangements has been found to affect worker behaviors and musculoskeletal risks, even if the tangible features of the workspace are not changed (Robertson et al., 2009). To address more complex physical and environmental demands, a combination of knowledge-based training (e.g., safe lifting techniques) and assistive technologies (e.g., lift assist devices) may improve the likelihood of achieving an intervention’s goals (e.g., reducing injuries and associated costs; Aslam et al., 2015; Li et al., 2004). An important point here is that person-level interventions are more likely to be effective and lasting when supported by changes to the broader work context. Related to this, person-level interventions can empower workers to be more aware of physical and environmental demands at work and to work cooperatively with their leaders to make positive changes when they notice areas for improvement (e.g., Pehkonen et al., 2009). Many training-related interventions pertaining to physical and environmental demands ultimately focus on changing worker behavior. As an example, Johnson and Hall (2005) leveraged the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to reduce lifting-related injuries among manufacturing workers. Their evaluation study of this intervention highlighted the importance of behavioral control as the primary antecedent predicting safe lifting, followed by supportive social norms and then individual attitudes. These findings suggest that training workers in relevant knowledge and skills will only partially address this challenge. It is also essential to ensure workers have the resources they need (e.g., time, assistive devices, and social supports) to adhere to their training and ultimately work safely. There are increasingly clever ways to enhance workers’ sense of control over physical and environmental demands. One illustration relevant to safe lifting is an application which enables workers to enter real-world data and determine in real-time the risks involved in a manual lifting task (NIOSH, 2017). We are very encouraged at what advancements in assistive and augmented reality technologies will bring to workers in environments characterized by significant physical and environmental demands. Strategies for Groups, Leaders, and Organizations As noted earlier, efforts to address physical and environmental demands are more likely to be effective when they are not only directed at individual workers. Several general intervention strategies can help by targeting groups and leaders within an organization. For starters, changing work group norms can be an effective way to build a resource that reinforces “good”, healthy, and safe worker responses to physical and environmental work demands. Unfortunately, group norms can also function more like a demand than a resource if they encourage workers to push through pain, take on workloads that exceed personal capacity, or refrain from wearing protective equipment. The typical behaviors and expectations of work group members influence the behavior of the entire group. This has been shown with respect to multiple behaviors associated with physical and environmental demands at work, including safe lifting in manufacturing settings (Johnson & Hall, 2005) and proper use of respirator masks among smelters (Robertsen et al., 2018). It is important to ensure that group norms provide more of a resource than a demand for workers. More specifically, interventions may need to focus on adjusting group norms that downplay or obscure the real risks associated with physical and environmental work demands. Strong interventions to improve workers’ ability to manage physical and environmental demands at work may develop from a deep understanding of why such norms exist. For example, maybe workers in a particular unit do not use the provided protective equipment because it is uncomfortable or cumbersome. The intervention need is to reevaluate the equipment and the work practices that require it to see if there is another way to get the work done or a different form of protection that might be more effective in that situation. Leaders also play an important role in setting and managing group norms and the overall physical and environmental conditions of the workplace (e.g., Zohar & Luria, 2003). Educating and empowering leaders about how to monitor and assess the demands and resources present in their work areas can have tremendous positive ripple effects. The seriousness with which leaders take on these tasks can also then reinforce positive group norms for handling physical and environmental demands. For example, if leaders value limiting exposure and hazards and do not sacrifice these values for the sake of other goals, it signals to employees that their health and safety matters. Leaders can also incorporate time for feedback and discussion regarding physical and environmental demands and resource needs during team meetings and regular performance evaluations. One of the most direct ways leaders and organizations can control workers’ exposures to physical and environmental demands is through modifications to work assignments and work schedules. Individual leaders make some of these adjustments, but some cases may require a more comprehensive change to the way multiple areas in an organization operate. In terms of work assignments, job rotations can be helpful for cross-training workers by alternating their tasks and thereby mixing up the physical and environmental demands to which they are exposed. Such rotations can also help to build broader functional knowledge, skill sets, and social networks, which are all forms of work-related resources that may benefit workers and the organization over time. These methods have been shown to benefit workers and improve the quality of their work (Ivarsson & Eek, 2016). With respect to work schedules, simply allowing regular breaks to replenish resources can go a long way toward reducing fatigue, strain, and injuries (e.g., Fischer et al., 2017). Going a bit deeper, Folkard and Lombardi (2004) developed a practical list of factors that each amplify risks linked to work scheduling (e.g., night shifts and longer work periods are associated with significant increased incident risk; incident risk increases with number of days of consecutive work). Knowledge of these risks may help organizations to adjust working arrangements and schedules for entire groups of workers. When shiftwork is necessary, there are some practical considerations that can lessen the burden on workers. For example, some individuals tolerate shiftwork better than others (i.e., some workers can more easily adapt their circadian rhythm and remain on fixed, rather than rotating shift schedules; Smith et al., 2011) and some shift rotation patterns are more favorable than others (e.g., Bushnell et al., 2010). Regardless of scheduling form, one of the most direct ways to improve workers’ ability to manage physical and environmental demands at work is to provide workers some control over their work schedule (Smith et al., 2011). Scheduling that considers worker preferences and limitations can help keep workers engaged and able to complete tasks in their best physical and mental state. Many physical and environmental demands and resources can only be managed at the level of an organization because that is the level at which control over these aspects of work exists. Certain types of physical and environmental demand exposures can be eliminated or prevented with the help of physical barriers (e.g., enclosing dangerous or loud machinery to reduce noise levels and minimize direct worker contact) or advanced technology (e.g., using robotics to remove workers from hazardous work environments). Many physical and environmental demands, however, are inseparable from workers’ daily reality. In these instances, it may be necessary to consider the actual design of the work environment; helpful interactive tools pertaining to comprehensive healthy building design are available from the Harvard School of Public Health’s Healthy Buildings program (https://9foundations.forhealth.org/) and facilitate consideration of environmental factors like noise, lighting, air quality, temperature, and ventilation. With respect to the physical layout of the work space, organizations are also encouraged to do whatever is possible to ensure the work environment matches the tasks being carried out and that employees are involved in any work (re)design efforts (e.g., Wohlers et al., 2017). Work design decisions that minimize physical and environmental demands, and maximize access to resources needed to meet these demands can benefit workers and organizations in many ways. Along these lines, organizations can also make adjustments to address less obvious physical and environmental demands, such as repetitive motions (e.g., typing) or sedentary work assignments. In a typical office setting, ergonomic interventions have resulted in favorable outcomes when workers are educated on and provided the right workspace for good posture, or when given flexible workstations for sitting or standing (Agarwal et al., 2018; Robertson et al., 2009). More guidance regarding ergonomic changes is readily available through organizations like NIOSH (e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics/). When it is not possible to prevent or reduce workers’ exposure to physical and environmental work demands, other strategies can limit exposure and ultimate risks for negative effects on WHSWB. A common example of this is emphasizing consistent and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Most PPE (e.g., hard hats, goggles, earplugs, face masks, gloves, kneepads, lifting support belts, specialized footwear) serves a specific purpose and therefore matches a particular physical or environmental demand very closely, essentially functioning as a resource that can protect a worker and facilitate their successful functioning in the presence of that demand. Here again, however, is a situation where worker psychology plays an essential role. Even when PPE is available, workers may choose not to use it because workgroup norms do not support it, they are personally unmotivated to use it, or the gear is uncomfortable (e.g., too hot, not properly fit) or performance-limiting (e.g., not being able to hear a co-worker with ear plugs; not being able to perform manual tasks with bulky gloves). These non-physical barriers to PPE use are documented in research across a variety of occupations ranging from healthcare workers to farmers to manufacturing workers (Damalas & Abdollahzadeh, 2016; Kang et al., 2017; Robertsen et al., 2018). In sum, providing the right resources may not be enough to ensure workers use them consistently and properly. Evaluating Physical and Environmental Demand Interventions Extending from the intervention design and evaluation principles we discussed in Chapter 2, it is especially important to remember that the influence of interventions to address physical and environmental demands and resources cannot be fully understood without also considering associated psychological and social factors. The best evaluation efforts for this area of OHP include some evaluation of person and environment interaction that also includes consideration of underlying individual differences, existing social forces and norms, and the actual physical and environmental demands and resources you may be most directly trying to address. Even if changes in the environment are purely physical (e.g., new equipment; reduced noise), you want to know how and why workers are or are not responding to those changes. Because many of the intervention strategies outlined in this chapter also require some level of financial investment, evaluation strategies need to be designed to generate at least rough estimates of return on these investments. A good example here is a participatory ergonomic intervention among kitchen workers; interestingly, no significant pre-post changes were observed in musculoskeletal symptoms and physical workload for their intervention group compared to a control group (Haukka et al., 2008). The intervention group even reported more psychosocial stress following the intervention, which was unexpected (Haukka et al., 2010). The good news is these researchers gathered quite a bit of additional data that helped shed light on actual benefits of the intervention (Pehkonen et al., 2009). For example, focus groups with participants revealed that workers really were motivated by the approach and they perceived that they had fewer symptoms and their work had been improved (even though the objective reports did not necessarily support this). Workers also reported a possible barrier to the intervention’s effectiveness in that they did not feel supported by management during the intervention. Data like these make it possible to improve upon and strengthen an intervention for greater impact in the future. Concluding Thoughts and Reality Check All workers respond to a variety of physical and environmental demands while working. Many of these demands are inherent and obvious in some occupations (e.g., noise, poor air quality), but quite subtle in others (e.g., sitting still, repetitive motion). There are strategies at the person, group, leader, and organization level to reduce worker exposure to these demands and improve workers’ access to the resources necessary to respond to these demands. Interventions to address these forms of demand-resource relationships will be most effective if they also consider workers’ psychological and social realities at work. All organizations can design workspaces and work assignments that support and facilitate WHSWB, even while responding to legitimate work-related demands. When there is good alignment between physical and environment demands and resources, workers can be healthy, engaged, and committed to the work they are doing. This alignment can begin with simple opportunities for workers to control and personalize their own workspaces, to take short breaks throughout work periods, and to connect with nature or at least real sunlight while at work. These and larger-scale efforts can transform work from being only a source of physical and environmental demands, to also being a source for essential physical and environmental resources.