The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0828-8666.htm

Work
HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics
psychodynamics: a model and
a research agenda
53
Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour
University of São Paulo Business School, São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to introduce a dialogue between theoretical frameworks that
rarely have contact: human resource management (HRM), ergonomics and work psychodynamics.
Although these three fields of knowledge highlight the human side of socially sustainable organizations,
no prior study was identified that interrelated them.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to overcome this limitation, a brief theoretical foundation
was made on these themes. They were later systematized to form a relational model and a research
agenda.
Findings – In light of the proposed model, it is possible to verify that HRM, ergonomics and work
psychodynamics have a vibrant relationship that generates important theoretical propositions to be
explored by future research.
Originality/value – The paper contributes towards a systemic approach of such important themes,
which the human being has as a common denominator, but whose links still require future research. As its
main result, we record the need for a more in-depth understanding of the elements that act in the interface
between the formal and prescribed organization and the informal, which stems from social reality. An
understanding of this relationship is necessary to building socially sustainable organizations.
Keywords Sustainable development, Social responsibility, Human resource management, Ergonomics,
Work psychology
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
The search for more sustainable organization requires attention to the human side of
organizations ( Jabbour and Santos, 2008). By “sustainable organizations” we refer to
those organizations with an equal development of its economic, social and
environmental performance. The social performance refers mainly to the attention to
employees and human aspects of the organization.
A significant body of knowledge on the human factor in organizations has been
developed in recent decades. Although this knowledge has an invariable focus on the
human inserted in a work environment, such knowledge is presented to the interested
parties as separated, when not conflicting. In this paper, we defend the thesis that work
psychodynamics, ergonomics and human resource management (HRM) are elements of
a similar construction with a focus on the human inserted in an organization. In other
words, they belong to a multifaceted and complex prism. However, the understanding of
this complexity can be made easier by a holistic vision that conjugates these three
analytical pillars. This integrated vision can contributes to building more socially Humanomics
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2011
sustainable organizations, a hot topic of our society. pp. 53-60
Thus, if these frameworks focus on the human being in an organizational, there q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0828-8666
is a common denominator for developing an integrated analysis with the individual DOI 10.1108/08288661111110178
HUM as the link and the systemic approach as the method. As a consequence, the motivation
27,1 for this paper can be described as follows: is it possible to propose a relational model
between HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics, extrapolating the limits
generally attributed between these frameworks in order to systemically understand the
human being in an organizational environment?
The objectives intended with this study are:
54 (1) recover the main concepts on HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics,
respecting their historical development;
(2) propose an integrating model between these foci, underscoring the multiple
interrelations established between the concepts presented; and
(3) in light of the proposed conceptual model, record the suggestions for future
research of a theoretical-empirical nature.

The next topic presents a theoretical foundation on HRM, ergonomics and work
psychodynamics. Section 5 originates from this foundation and it presents arguments
about the need for systemic and complementary analysis of previous topics. Section 5
also shows a model that relates reviewed concepts, and with each argument considered
valid, it registers a theoretical proposition for future research. Section 6 underscores the
study’s main conclusions.

2. Human resource management

There is no unanimous definition in the specialized literature for the concept of HRM and
it is necessary to underscore the co-existence of emphatically operational approaches
and strategic perspectives (Fleury, 2002). Besides, the diversity of this theme, there are
times when HRM is defined in terms of functional area (Flippo, 1973; Ferreira, 1973), and
in other contemplations it is handled in terms of a set of HRM practices shared among
human resource specialists and other line managers in a given organization
(Rocha-Pinto, 2004; Lacombe and Tonelli, 2001).
In order to meet the objective of this study, some core ideas were underscored that
permeate the most important definitions presented by the bibliography (Table I), to
obtain an appropriate conceptualization of the study’s core objective.
Thus, HRM is considered a set of organizational dimensions (or business practices)
planned to influence the behavior of employees, guiding them towards the achievement
of specific business objectives through interaction between the human resources area
and the other organizational areas in which HRM is practiced daily aimed at generating
competitive advantages.

3. Ergonomics
Ergonomics, a multidisciplinary area that unites knowledge from the areas of medicine,
psychology, engineering and anthropology, stems from the Second World War (1939-1945).
The weapons industry was the first to benefit from the series of systematized knowledge,
which was later greatly explored after the war by civil society production systems
(Iida, 1990). As landmarks in the institutional development of ergonomics, specialized
literature cites (Dul and Weerdmeester, 2004; Denis et al., 2008; Iida, 1990):
.
The term ergonomics was created in the mid 1940s, derived from the Greek
words ergon (work) and nomos (rules).
 Work
Study Concept of HRM
psychodynamics
Flippo (1973, p. 25) “The personnel function is the one involved in finding,
developing, remunerating, integrating and maintaining an
organization’s personnel so the organization can achieve its
main goals or objectives”
Ferreira (1973, p. 22) The human resources area is the one in charge of “elaborating 55
and carrying out plans, guidelines and policy aimed at
providing the company with competent, skilled, satisfied and
stable personnel”
Gutierrez (1991, p. 64) Human resource management concerns the “set of human
resource acquisition, conservation and development activities
as per the organization’s needs”
Ivancevich (1995, p. 4) Human resource management concerns the organizational
function that deals with people – the employees. The human
resources function, like its management activities, aims at the
more effective use of personnel to achieve organizational goals
Milkovich and Boudreau (2000, p. 19) “By human resource management, we understand a series of
integrated decisions that form work relationships; its quality
directly influences the capacity of the organization and its
employees to achieve their objectives”
Storey (2001, p. 6) Human resource management seeks competitive advantages
through the strategic development of a high degree of worker
commitment empowerment
Davel and Vergara (2001, p. 34) The objective of human resource management is to explain and
facilitate management’s influence on people’s behavior,
promoting the effective and efficient functioning of the
organization
Fischer (2002, p. 12) Personnel management is how a company organizes itself to
manage and guide human behavior at work, which demands
the establishment of principles, strategies, policies and
management practices or processes
Bohlander et al. (2003, p. 2) Human resource management includes understanding human
behavior, and knowing the various systems and practices
available to construct a qualified and motivated work force
Rocha-Pinto et al. (2004, p. 32) Human resource management must be understood as a
matricial process. One of the vectors has professionals
specialized in human resource management practices. The other
vector has people involved in day-to-day functions, supervision
and coordination activities for operations
Vergara (2005, p. 30) Human resource management involves an organizational pact
whereby companies, through the human resources function, Table I.
offer opportunities for the development of employees and Selected definitions
partners in the expectation that they will take care of their own of human resource
careers and be committed to achieving results management

.
In 1949, the first Ergonomics Research Society was founded in England.
.
In 1961, the International Ergonomics Association was founded and it currently
represents more than 40 member countries.

There are many definitions of ergonomics and they do not present signification variations
(Kuorinka, 1997). Among the best known, ergonomics is recognized as: a scientific
HUM discipline that studies human interaction with other elements of the productive system,
27,1 applying theory, principles and project methods with the objective of improving human
well-being and system’s overall performance (Dul and Weerdmeester, 2004). As a
consequence, ergonomics deals with aspects that are tangible to the production system
and how the employee is inserted in this system (Törnström et al., 2008).

56 4. Work psychodynamics
Organizations as prescribed models and the production systems that influence them,
in whole or in part, tend to generate gaps and weaknesses when the organization is
observed as it really is, and these fall on employees, generating suffering and health
problems (Heloani and Lancman, 2004; Aubert, 1993; Davel and Vergara, 2001; Franco,
2004). In these cases, the organization becomes a place of tension between worker
expectations and dreams and the actual configuration of work organization and task
content (Sznelwar and Uchida, 2004).
The greater the dissonance between the formally projected organization and its
reality, the greater will be the job’s psychological load (Vergara, 2005; Sznelwar et al.,
2004). According to Aubert (1993), increases or maintenance in psychological load can
generate two common phenomena in the current organizational dynamic: stress and
professional neurosis. Whereas stress is the worker’s mobilization of his energy to adapt
to and confront the recrudescence of his professional environment, neurosis is the result
of a greater radicalization of this process.
In order to face growing challenges in the work environment and the resulting
precariousness of work that is unveiled, it is necessary to assume that employees
develop defense strategies, consciously or unconsciously, at the individual and group
level, in order to deal with the fear created in the work environment (Franco, 2004).

5. Integrating model and a research agenda

The relational model defended in this paper is shown in Figure 1. During the explanation
of the model, we can build a research agenda, with propositions for future research.
When you seek integration between HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics it
is necessary to assume that these fields of knowledge have a common denominator, the
organizational human being, as a link. In most cases, HRM is seen as a zone of manager
influence, whereas ergonomics is a zone of engineering influence and psychodynamics
of psychologists. However, it is believed that this knowledge is interconnected. Some
progress was obtained in this sense (Sznelwar et al., 2004; Carayon and Smith, 2000), but
a systemic perspective is still lacking. Therefore, we have:
P1. HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics are related fields of knowledge.
P2. The referred to subjects include the human being inserted in an organizational
environment, as the link that unifies them.
P3. HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics are like faces of the same
multifaceted prism and thus complement each other.
The fact that these three fields of knowledge are often treated in a stagnant manner can
be attributed to the debate that exists between the “prescribed organization” and the
“real organization”, as shown in Figure 1. The prescribed organization can be considered
as a set of rules, norms and systems of control that idealize the organization and outline it
 Work
Job description psychodynamics
and analysis
Prescribed organization

Recruitment
Posture and
movement Selection

Training 57
Environmental
factors
Performance
Information appraisal
and
operations Rewards

Work
organization Grouping
Suffering
teams

Ergonomics Defensive strategies

Real organization

Organizational Group’s defensive

culture strategies
Figure 1.
Work psychodynamics
Organizational Relational model
learning
between human resource
management,
Human Resource ergonomics and work
Management
psychodynamics

in a strictly rational manner. Real organization, on the other hand, concerns the
day-to-day functions of the organization, its informalities and social links. Based on
administrative theories, it can be said that the prescribed organization is the result of
scientific administration, whereas the recognition of the real organization is due to the
human relations movement. We underscore that it is current knowledge that none of
these perspectives should be denied, ignored or rejected; first of all, they must be
complemented.
It is worth noting that HRM as well as ergonomics is linked to both the prescribed
organization and the real organization. First, we have some practices of HRM that are the
foundation of prescribed organization: job analysis and description subsidize
recruitment and selection processes, guide the raising of training needs and determine
a significant portion of rewards, especially financial, perceived by employees. With
regard to ergonomics, problems involving posture, movement, anthropometry,
biomechanics, physiology, noise, chemical substances, vibrations, luminosity and
production system information are formal aspects determined by the prescribed
organization, that is, defined a priori. On the other hand, all subjects related to work
psychodynamics deal with the real organization and significant elements of HRM
(organizational culture, team work and organizational learning) equally belong to the
informal organization. This argument results in:
P4. Diverse elements of human resources elements contribute towards building the
prescribed organization; the remaining elements belong to the informal
organization.
HUM P5. Almost all ergonomic aspects are located in the field of the prescribed
organization.
27,1
P6. The set of elements discussed within the scope of work psychodynamics are
related to the real organization.
Therefore, we see that HRM assumes an intermediate role between organizational
58 extremes (prescribed and real) and that, simultaneous to the building of a range of
prescriptions, it tends to develop informal aspects of the organization. But these
prescribed elements of HRM are strongly related to those explored by ergonomics
because they both involve aspects of determining the job to be performed by each
employee. On the other hand, the more informal and strategic dimensions of HRM (team
work, organizational culture management and organizational learning) are influenced
by work psychodynamic factors. It is assumed that:
P7. The prescriptive aspects of ergonomics influence the more traditional and
equally prescriptive factors of HRM.
P8. Work psychodynamic factors influence the dimensions of human resources
linked to the field of the real organization.
It is curious to observe that besides the abovementioned relation, it is possible to verify
that some prescriptive factors tend to influence elements of the real organization.
For example, ergonomic aspects can strengthen the practices of HRM that act from the
prescriptive organization and can result in suffering by employees. In order to mitigate
the suffering, employees tend to generate defensive strategies, learning to organize,
acting in groups and developing values of an organizational culture that reacts to the
aspects they reject from the prescribed organization. Psychodynamic elements can
influence the employees’ adherence to the organization’s ergonomic rules, which
configures a relation of mutual influence among the model’s elements. Thus:
P9. Ergonomic and prescribed human resources factors can influence the
psychodynamic configuration.
P10. Psychodynamic factors can influence human resource dimensions located
within the scope of the real organization.
P11. Psychodynamic factors can influence the successful dissemination of
ergonomic principles in organizations.
P12. The full understanding of the human being in an organizational environment
requires a systemic approach that considers HRM, ergonomics and work
psychodynamics, considering the organization’s prescribed and real fractions.

6. Final considerations
HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics are related to the study of the human
being within the scope of the organization. Some studies strived to develop a link
between these elements, but no study was found that considered the totality of the
concepts discussed herein. However, to consider the task of relating these three fields of
knowledge as trivial would be naı̈ve, because it is necessary to consider the organization
(prescribed and real) as a backdrop to this debate. The integration between these themes
is necessary to build socially sustainable organizations ( Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
 The main theoretical propositions of this study were highlighted and deserve an Work
in-depth theoretical-empirical research. Most especially, it is necessary to mentally psychodynamics
grasp the meaning used in the model of some elements that act in the interface between
the formal and informal organization. Since these elements move between these two
types of organization, they can play the role of intermediaries when changes are
intended in a given organization.
The first of these elements is the information available for processing a task. From a 59
formal point of view, this information is responsible for the interface project between the
employee and the task, and it also forms the keystone for HRM’s job description process.
But this formally outlined information may not be fully understood by employees, or it
may go through a communication process that contains dysfunctions. Thus, formal
information begins to interact with the real organization, generating suffering,
triggering defensive strategies and creating a learning system on how to reconcile
divergent aspects.
Another element that deserves to be underscored is HRM’s reward system. That is
the system that interferes in what the organizations recognizes as relevant and in
how human performance will be observed. If the reward system only considers the
prescriptive expectation for a given job, it will tend to disregard the informal
organization and the other performance categories, and may cause suffering in the
organizational environment.

References
Aubert, N. (1993), “A neurose professional”, Revista de Administração de Empresas, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 84-105.
Bohlander, G., Snell, S. and Sherman, A. (2003), Administração de recursos humanos, Pioneira
Thomson Learning, São Paulo.
Carayon, P. and Smith, M.J. (2000), “Work organization and ergonomics”, Applied Ergonomics,
Vol. 31, pp. 649-62.
Davel, E. and Vergara, S.C. (2001), Gestão com pessoas e subjetividade, Atlas, São Paulo.
Denis, D., Vicente, M., Imbeau, D., Jetté, C. and Nastasia, I. (2008), “Intervention practices in
musculoskeletal disorder prevention: a critical literature review”, Applied Ergonomics,
Vol. 39, pp. 1-14.
Dul, J. and Weerdmeester, B. (2004), Ergonomia prática, Editora Edgard Blucher, São Paulo.
Ferreira, P.P. (1973), Administração de pessoal, Atlas, São Paulo.
Fischer, A.L. (2002), “Um resgate conceitual e histórico do modelo de gestão de pessoas”,
in Fleury, M.T.L. (Ed.), As pessoas na organização, Gente, São Paulo.
Fleury, M.T.L. (2002), As pessoas na organização, Gente, São Paulo.
Flippo, E.B. (1973), Princı́pios de administração de pessoal, Atlas, São Paulo.
Franco, T. (2004), “A centralidade do trabalho na visão da psicodinâmica de Dejours”, Cadernos
CRH, Vol. 17 No. 41, pp. 309-21.
Gutierrez, L.H.S. (1991), “Enfoque estratégico da função recursos humanos”, Revista de
Administração de Empresas, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 63-72.
Heloani, R. and Lancman, S. (2004), “Psicodinâmica do trabalho: o método clı́nico de
intervenção e investigação”, Revista Produção, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 77-86.
Iida, I. (1990), Ergonomia: projeto e produção, Editora Edgar Blücher, São Paulo.
HUM Ivancevich, J.M. (1995), Human Resource Management, Irwin, Chicago, IL.
27,1 Jabbour, C.J.C. and Santos, F.C.A. (2008), “The central role of human resource management in the
search of sustainable organizations”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 2133-54.
Kuorinka, I. (1997), “Tools and means of implementing participatory ergonomics”, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, pp. 267-70.
60 Lacombe, B.M.B. and Tonelli, M.J. (2001), “O discurso e a prática: o que nos dizem os especialistas
e o que nos mostram as práticas das empresas sobre os modelos de gestão de recursos
humanos”, Revista de Administração Contemporânea (RAC), Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 157-74.
Milkovich, G.T. and Boudreau, J.W. (2000), Administração de recursos humanos, Atlas, São Paulo.
Rocha-Pinto, S.R. (2004), Dimensões funcionais da gestão de pessoas, FGV, São Paulo.
Storey, J. (2001), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, International Thompson,
London.
Sznelwar, L.I. and Uchida, S. (2004), “Ser auxiliar de enfermagem: um olhar da psicodinâmica
do trabalho”, Revista Produção, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 87-98.
Sznelwar, L.I., Lancman, S., Wu, M.J., Alvarinho, E. and Santos, M. (2004), “Análise do serviço
de limpeza hospitalar: contribuições da ergonomia e da psicodinâmica do trabalho”,
Revista Produção, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 45-57.
Törnström, L., Amprazis, J., Christmansson, M. and Eklund, J. (2008), “A corporate workplace
model for ergonomic assessment and improvements”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 39,
pp. 219-28.
Vergara, S.C. (2005), Gestão de Pessoas, Atlas, São Paulo.

Further reading
Schein, E.H. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-19.
Vickers, M.R. (2005), “Business ethics and the HR role: past, present, and future”, Human
Resource Planning, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 26-33.

About the author

Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Theory and
Sustainability at University of São Paulo Business School. He holds a PhD in Production
Engineering from University of Sao Paulo. He is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the United Nations
University – Japan. His articles have appeared in many journals like Journal of Cleaner
Production, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Social Responsibility Journal,
Industrial Management & Data Systems and others. Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour can be
contacted at: charbel@usp.br

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints