Bad Enough Ergonomics: A Case Study of an Office Chair

SAGE Open Janua y-Ma ch 2017: 1 –11 © The Au ho (s) 2017 DOI: 10.1177/2158244016685135 jou nals.sagepub.com/home/sgo C ea i e Commons CC-BY: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 3.0 License (h p://www.c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/) which pe mi s any use, ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and Open Access pages (h ps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-a -sage). A icle Fu u e wo kplaces will be a ec ed by he p essu es o apid echnological change, aging popula ion, and declining wo k o ce, and consequen ly, many schola s ag ee ha e gonomics needs o gain mo e ele ance a wo kplaces (B ewe & Hsiang, 2002; Caple, 2008; Cha ness, 2008; Cha ness & Holley, 2004; C oasmun, 2004; Dul e al., 2012; Kumashi o, 2000; Schwoe e & May, 1996; Walke , 2006). This is especially ue in he case o o ice wo k as mos o ices ha e unde gone, and will mos likely unde go, ex ensi e changes when i comes o adop ing new echnolo- gies and p oduc s. Al hough academics and policy make s migh ag ee ha he e is a eal need o de elop he p ac ice o e gonomics, he e may be o he con adic o y de elop- men s in mode n cul u e ha a e also e lec ed in he o ga- niza ional cul u e as well as design cul u e, and hose may in ac diminish he ole played by he p ac ice and unde - s anding o e gonomics. The objec o his s udy is no e gonomics as such; a he , i is unde s ood as a cul u al idea and esou ce ha ac o s can u ilize o di e en pu poses in di e en con ex s. The a icle analyzes how he ision o e gonomics is cons uc ed du ing a manu ac u ing p ocess in a company ha specializes in p oducing e gonomic o ice u ni u e and p oduc s, and how his ision is in e wined wi h ce ain concep ions o o ice wo ke s and wo k spaces. Those who design and p oduce ma e ial objec s and in e- io design concep s o o ganiza ional se ings an icipa e how hei p oduc s will be in e ac ed wi h, and how hey will i wi hin speci ic spaces (Dan , 2008). The ision o he ole o e gonomics, and he ela ed isions o u u e wo ke s and wo k en i onmen s ac as ools ha help o ganize design knowledge o c ea e a sha ed concep ion and consensus o he aims o speci ic p ojec s. In addi ion, he isions o u u e o ice wo ke s and o ice en i onmen s do no jus e lec eali y bu ac i ely s i e o shape i and con ibu e o c ea - ing ha eali y (Pollock & Williams, 2010). The idea ha he p oduce s’ and designe s’ in en ions and ideas a e in some ways embodied in he design and also esponded o by he use s (see Koskinen, 2006; Koskinen, 2007; Mazé & Reds öm, 2007; Sil e s one & Haddon, 1996; Tiles & Obe diek, 1995) is no new, bu he e is s ill a lack o empi i- cal esea ch ha iden i ies he p ac ices and a gumen s which aim o eeze hese isions and in en ions in o ce ain kind o o ice spaces and u ni u e. Analyzing he ma e ial and aes he ic dimensions o mod- e n o ganiza ional cul u e has la ely become a ich and g ow- ing ield o c i ical esea ch (see, o example, Chugh & Hancock, 2009; Cohen, 2010; Dale, 2005; Dean, 2005; 685135SGOXXX10.1177/2158244016685135SAGE OpenPe e i esea ch-a icle2017 1Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland Co esponding Au ho : Vi e Pe e i, School o Social Sciences and Humani ies, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Linna 5059, Kale an ie 5, Tampe e 33014, Finland. Email: [email p o ec ed] Bad Enough E gonomics: A Case S udy o an O ice Chai Vi e Pe e i1 Abs ac The a icle analyzes e gonomics as a social and cul u al phenomenon, as some hing ha is o mula ed and desc ibed by speake s in a speci ic social con ex ; in a company ha is specialized in p oducing e gonomic o ice u ni u e. Th ough a case s udy o an o ice chai , he a icle examines how e gonomics and i s associa ion wi h he ision o he po en ial use s and hei wo king spaces a e cons uc ed by he ele an ac o s in p ojec mee ings and indi idual in e iews du ing he manu ac u ing p ocess. The a icle is conce ned wi h how, in he p ocess o p oducing an o ice chai , he chai gains an iden i y o an aes he ic design objec and how his comes o mean he e o mula ion o he idea o e gonomics. The empi ical analysis also p o ides insigh in o how he somewha g and discou ses o so capi alism o aes he ic economy a e no abs ac , bu e y much g ounded in e e yday p ac ices o an o ganiza ion. The a icle es ablishes how he ision sha ed by all he ele an ac o s in i es ac i e, lexible, and coope a i e end-use s and how he ision also has po en ial ma e ial e ec s. The esea ch is an e hnog aphically inspi ed case s udy ha d aws ideas om discu si e psychology. Keywo ds o ice u ni u e, e gonomics, discu si e psychology, e hnog aphy, design, o ice wo k, so capi alism, aes he ic economy 2 SAGE Open Gab iel, 2005; Gab iel & Lang, 2008; G ego y, 2011; Hancock & Tyle , 2007; Lopez, 2010; Ra aeli & Vilnai- Ya e z, 2004; S a i & deMon oux, 2002; Val onen, 2012; Wi z, Wa hu s , & Nickson, 2003). This ield o esea ch shows how he design o objec s and spa ial se ings o mod- e n o ganiza ions is also a physical embodimen o a speci ic o ganiza ion’s cul u e and alues. Some imes, he display o hings and people is iden i ied as p esen ing he alues o “knowledgeable capi alism” o “so capi alism” (Chugh & Hancock, 2009; Heelas, 2002, pp. 81-83; Th i , 2005, pp. 20-47) o “aes he ic economy” (Böhme, 2003; En wis le, 2009), while highligh ing he so cha ac e is ic o mode n wo k li e: c ea i i y, inspi a ion, emo ions, and aes he ics. Indeed, i would be nai e o assume ha he isions he designe s and p oduce s p omo e would be somehow iso- la ed om la ge cul u al and socie al alues and discou ses. Howe e , as pa o his de eloping ield o esea ch, he e o mula ion o e gonomics has ye no gained a en ion, and his a icle aims o shed ligh on he speci ic meanings o e gonomics and hei possible consequences h ough a case s udy o an o ice chai . Cen al o he li e a u e conce ning so capi alism is he p oposi ion ha i is a o m o capi alism ha pu s emphasis on o ganiza ions as lexible en i ies ha “go wi h he low,” always in ac ion and on he mo e, aiming o p oduce wo ke s who i his ype o an o ganiza ion. Flexible o ganiza ions aim o ec ea e hemsel es by a emp ing o gene a e new adi ions and ep esen a ions o hemsel es and he wo ld, ins ead o accep ing es ablished knowledge. In ac , he e usal o es ablished knowledge is he basic p emise on which hese o ganiza ions a e buil . Also, one o m o his ec ea ion is o p omo e new kinds o o ice buildings ha ma e ialize and demons a e he new lexible o ganiza ion usually by ying o maximize social in e ac ion and inno a- ion (Th i , 2005). The he o ic o so capi alism is he he - o ic o ca ing and sha ing (Th i , 2005), and i is conce ned, as al eady men ioned, wi h beau y, emo ions, and play ul- ness (Chugh & Hancock, 2009). I s i es o enhance com- mi men and mo i a ion (Heelas, 2002, p. 81), and ies o c ea e new slogans, ans o m in o ma ion and knowledge o ind “ esh” ways o mo i a e employees and a ac cus om- e s. This he o ic iden i ies he success o an o ganiza ion o lie wi h cul u e, na a i es, knowledge, and c ea i i y a he han wi h echnologies, a ionali y, and cos –bene i calcula- ions e en hough i s p ac ices ha e a s ong u ili a ian dimension, and i is basically an a emp , as Paul Heelas (2002) no es, o ins umen alize hese so alues o eco- nomic ends. The li e a u e conce ning so capi alism has some impo - an esonances wi h he wo k o Ge no Böhme (2003) as is also poin ed ou by Shalene Chugh and Hancock (2009). Böhme comes o he conclusion ha we ha e en e ed in o an ad anced phase o capi alism which may be cha ac e ized by an aes he ic economy. By his, he means ha he aes he ic quali ies o commodi ies ha e de eloped in o an au onomous alue, a new ype o use alue. Wha is cen al he e is he way commodi ies can be a ac i e, add new eeling o places, spaces, and people, and “se e o s age, cos ume and in ensi y li e” (Böhme, 2003, p. 72). Böhme also in oduces he concep o aes he ic labo which e e s o all hose p ac ices ha “aim o gi e an appea - ance o hings and people, ci ies and landscapes, o endow hem wi h an au a, o lend hem an a mosphe e,” and acco d- ing o Böhme, his concep encompasses all human ac i i- ies, be i he ac i i ies o a is s, designe s, o p oduce s, ha aim o “lend o hings, people and ensembles ha mo e which goes beyond hei handiness and objec i e p esence.” Aes he ic labo e s ake pa in he p ocess o c ea ing a new alue, a s aging alue, and he e Böhme also expands he de ini ion o aes he ic labo o include mo e han jus embod- ied sel -p esen a ions o employees. He cas s ligh on he impo ance o analyzing he p ocess o c ea ing s aging alue wi h all i s p ac ices, hings, and people who in e ac o c e- a e his some hing mo e (Chugh & Hancock, 2009). Joanne En wis le (2002, 2009) has also a gued in a o o ha iew, s a ing ha al hough some esea ch has been ca ied ou on he ma ke condi ions unde which di e en cul u al a i ac s wi h an aes he ic alue a e p oduced, he e is cu en ly a lack o empi ical wo k wi hin di e en ields o cul u al p oduc- ion and se ices o allow us o uly map he di e si y o p ac ices in which he aes he ic alue is p oduced. And i is p ecisely his p ocess ha my a icle discusses. The objec i e o he a icle is how, in he p ocess o p oducing an o ice chai , he chai gains an iden i y o a special aes he ic design objec ha has his some hing mo e, and how his also comes o mean he e o mula ion o he idea o e gonomics. The empi ical analysis also aims o demons a e how he some- wha g and discou ses o so capi alism o aes he ic econ- omy a e no me e abs ac ions bu e y much g ounded in he e e yday p ac ices and discou ses o an o ganiza ion. The a icle p oceeds as ollows. Be o e ep esen ing he esul s o he case s udy, I will discuss, in b ie , e gonomics as a his o ical and cul u al idea. A e ha , he me hodologi- cal app oach and he da a used will be in oduced in sho . The cons uc ion o a new ision is analyzed in de ail in he subsequen sec ions. The las sec ion o analysis aims a examining how he chai can be analyzed as an embodimen o he new ision. In he concluding sec ion, I p esen and discuss he cen al indings. The Idea o E gonomics Mos o en, “e gonomics” e e s o a biomedical amewo k which ocuses on he measu able quali ies o human–en i- onmen in e ac ion and he esul an s ess o he body. Howe e , o ganiza ional and social issues ha did no adi- ionally exis in he co e o e gonomics ha e la ely been con- side ed o be gaining mo e ele ance; he e o e, he in eg a ion o social scien i ic knowledge wi h e gonomics has inc eased (Mo ay, 2008). Fo example, o e he las ew Pe e i 3 yea s, a ield o e gonomics called mac oe gonomics, which aims a c ea ing ce ain no el guidelines o he p ac ice o e gonomics, has been gaining mo e impo ance (Caldwell, 2008; Ha o & Kleine , 2008; Thebe ge & Neumann, 2010). I ecognizes, among o he hings, he impo ance o o gani- za ional cul u e, his o y, and goals and is also conce ned wi h he ac ual design p ocesses o p oduc s and he o ganiza- ions’ en i onmen s. Ye , e gonomics and design as changing cul u al phenomenon in capi alism ha e so a no a ac ed a en ion in empi ical s udies. Wo k on chai com o was s a ed in ea nes in he 1940s and 1950s, a ound he same ime as he e m e gonomics was in oduced. Howe e , he backg ound o he idea o e go- nomics can be iden i ied in he F.W. Taylo ’s scien i ic man- agemen and in he wa e o s. As new weapon y was ushed in o mass p oduc ion, i was soon ealized ha design deci- sions a ec ed pe o mance and eliabili y in a majo way (Pe e i, 2004; Pheasan , 1996). Scien i ic managemen p o- mo ed he idea o di e en asks being di ided among expe s and di e en expe s being sepa a ed spa ially and sea ed in di e en ypes o chai s. This idea de eloped in o a hie a - chical o ganiza ion o chai s which has had a long-las ing e ec on o ice chai design. Typically, gene al o ice wo k- e s, execu i es, and manage s si in chai s ha e lec hei s a us in he company (Oli a es, 2011). A e he Second Wo ld Wa in G ea B i ain, a g oup consis ing o membe s who had backg ounds in enginee - ing, medicine, and human sciences o med a socie y ha was o s udy “human beings in hei wo king en i onmen ,” and he socie y came up wi h he wo d “e gonomics” o desc ibe wha hey we e doing. All he membe s o he soci- e y had been in ol ed in esea ch conce ning he capaci ies o soldie s (Pheasan , 1996). A e he Fi s and Second Wo ld Wa s, he cul u al no ion o “men al heal h” s a ed o change, as many soldie s we e su e ing om a ious psy- chological symp oms ha had be o e he wa s been consid- e ed biological and mo e o less p eexis ing weaknesses in he pe sonali y. I was ealized ha s ess ul ci cums ances can p oduce “shell shock,” empo a y psycho ic symp oms (C ocq, 2005; Ja is, 2009; Pe e i, 2004; Rae, 2007). A e he wa s, his new knowledge was aken in o accoun when designing wo kplaces and ools ha would imp o e e go- nomics (Pe e i, 2004). In e es in e gonomics inc eased e en u he a e he i s comme cial compu e s based on ansis o s a i ed. Resea che s who we e in e es ed in “human ac o s” s a ed o analyze people’s cogni i e s yles and sys em design con- ce ning compu e s in he la e 1960s and h ough he 1970s (G udin, 2006, pp. 405-407). Be o e he mid-1980s, e go- nomic u ni u e design ocused on suppo ing he body; bu om he mid-1980s, e gonomic design had o suppo he body o 8 consecu i e hou s o sea ed PC use. A ha ime, he Council o he Eu opean Union passed legisla ion ha se minimum e gonomic s anda ds o be me in he wo kplace. This o igina ed pa ly om an inc eased public awa eness o consume goods’ abili y o ei he suppo o p e en heal h and wellness—whe he hey we e ood, ciga e es, ca s, o o ice chai s (Oli a es, 2011). Howe e , p oduc s we e designed wi h he use s’ poin o iew in mind e en be o e he 1940s. The ac ha hings such as chai s o si and elax on ha e exis ed is a good example o ha . Al eady in he Vic o ian e a, u ni u e called pa en sea - ing was de eloped o p e en spinal ill heal h. The pa en sea ing led he way o e gonomic u ni u e al eady 120 yea s be o e e gonomics as a e m was coined. Howe e , he Vic o ian cul u e ailed o app ecia e he chai ha was o assis pos u e, and i was conside ed ulga o anyone else han he elde ly o he disabled o use. In he Vic o ian e a, main aining a digni ied and up igh pos u e speci ically wi hou he help and suppo o u ni u e demons a ed mo ali y, sophis ica ion, and willpowe (Pyn & Higgs, 2008). This example u he p o es how good usabili y and e gonomics, which we e o cou se no he e ms used a ha ime, a e no ixed and objec i e ac s bu cul u ally and his- o ically shaped. In he la e 19 h cen u y, he Ame ican a chi ec Louis Sulli an (1896) became amous o p esen ing he idea ha i is ac ually a na u al law ha o m should always ollow unc- ion, indica ing ha he unc ional conside a ions should de e - mine he design o an objec . Howe e , in p ac ice he p oduc s designed by he ep esen a i es o he Mode n Mo emen we e no ha “use -cen ed”; a he , he ea ly “ unc ionalism” came o mean jus he lack o o namen a ion: Acco ding o his heo y, unc ional objec s a e, o necessi y, aes he ically pleasing. This is called “ unc ionalism.” I was he dominan heo y unde lying he so-called “Mode n Mo emen ” in design. When we conside such mode n classics as he Ma cel B eue “Wassily” chai (1925) o he Mies an de Rohe “Ba celona” chai (1929) we ind e y li le ela ionship be ween he o m o hese sea s and ha o he human body which i is (p esumably) hei unc ion o suppo . The ac ha such pieces a e commonly e e ed o as “occasional chai s” implies ha hey a e wi hou pa icula unc ion— excep o be used “occasionally.” (Pheasan , 1996, p. 9) The so-called Pos mode n Mo emen in A s a gued agains he cen al ideas o unc ionalism. Co in Hughes- S an on (1968) claimed ha pos mode nism was less “an i- pu i anical and mo e humanis ic han he mode n school,” and i means ha “we may no longe ( o gi e a single exam- ple) ha e o choose be ween e gonomic bu clinically dull ca s, and pleasu e-gi ing bu dange ous ca s” (p. 43). In his ision, pos mode nism no only p oduced mo e a ie y, dec- o a ion, play ulness, and lamboyance in design bu also acknowledged he impo ance o e gonomics. I is qui e in e es ing how in his con ex “mode nism,” wi h i s s i ing o designs ha would se e a pu pose o i s use s, is now associa ed wi h an ihumanism ha igno es “all hose o he human needs ha gi e so much pleasu e and sa is ac ion.” 4 SAGE Open In he 21s cen u y, claims ha e eme ged ha ollow he basic a gumen o pos mode nis s and de elop i a bi u he by a guing ha aes he ically pleasing is ac ually na u ally unc ional. This a gumen goes on o say ha unc ionali y should ollow he o m, as pleasu able objec s a e na u ally good o he use s. Fu he mo e, i is a gued ha mode n design places a oo much emphasis on usabili y and no enough on he aes he ics ha p omo e enjoymen and plea- su e (e.g., Bly he & W igh , 2003; No man, 2004; T ac insky, 2006). Donald No man, who has been one o he mos p om- inen ad oca es o use -cen e ed design, has p e iously a gued (No man, 1998) ha he usabili y o e e yday hings is he mos impo an aspec o design. Recen ly, No man has claimed ha he emo ional aspec may a e all be mo e impo an , and ha i hings a e a ac i e, hey usually wo k be e . F om ha ollows ha as he p oduc s make people happie , people will also become mo e c ea i e and inno a- i e in hei wo k (No man, 2004). La ely, he idea (also amilia om he he o ic o he so-called so capi alism) ha aes he ically pleasing, good looking, o “cool” o ice design p omo es in en ions and inspi a ion has been widely emb aced by he business sec o (e.g. Howell Hi , 2012; Youshaei, 2012), and when sea ching o in o ma ion on he In e ne using sea ch e ms such as “good o ice design,” i soon becomes clea ha especially in o ma ion echnology (IT), ad e ising, and media companies such as Facebook, Skype, Pixa , and Google a e p esen ed as leading he way o his line o hinking. By analyzing how my in o man s alk abou e gonomics in his s udy, I do no y o classi y hem as ad oca es o a ce ain iew o e gonomics. The in e iewees employ exis - ing and eme gen cul u al no ions o e gonomics as concep- ual esou ces by which hey jus i y hei no ions. The his o y o he idea o e gonomics and he w i ings ela ed o so capi alism a e ele an , because hey p o ide backg ound o he in e iewees’ commen s analyzed he e. Economic o ces a e a he co e o e gonomics as hey b ing in he claims o humans o adap o wo king en i onmen s. E en hough e gonomics ep esen s he “humani a ian a gumen in o gan- isa ion s udies” (Ho baue , 2000), om a sociological pe - spec i e i is also an ideological p ac ice, which shapes bodies, ac ions, and social ela ions. Resea ch Ma e ial and he Me hodological App oach When I became in e es ed in he p ac ice o e gonomics in he ield o indus ial design, especially in he con ex o mode n o ices, I con ac ed a company ha specializes in e gonomic o ice u ni u e. I eques ed a pe mission om he company’s di ec o s o ga he in o ma ion o hei design p ac ices. Soon, I go an app o al o join in and ollow a design p ocess ha we ( he company’s p oduc manage , one o he company’s designe s and I) decided would mos p ob- ably be comple ed wi hin he ime ha I had unding o his esea ch p ojec (2009-2012) and which he p oduc manage also desc ibed as “a e y in e es ing case.” I did no in o m he company’s di ec o s in ad ance ha I was speci ically in e es ed in he p ac ice o e gonomics, as I al eady knew i o be hei specialis ield. Much o my su - p ise, when I inqui ed abou he e gonomic p ac ices o he company o o he di e en ac o s, he in o man s looked mos ly bewilde ed and/o uncom o able and a imes e en i i a ed. A i s , I was a leas as bewilde ed as my in o - man s. As e gonomics conce ning o ice u ni u e means wo di e en hings, i s , labo a o y es s o p o e ha he p od- uc passes he equi emen s o e gonomic s anda ds, and sec- ond, he designe ’s and he eam’s expe ise o p oduce a sui able chai o ce ain chosen si ua ions and wo k asks, much o his knowledge is ei he s anda dized o p obably aken o g an ed, and he e o e, di icul o a icula e. I was only la e ha I came o ealize ha maybe his e y awk- wa dness i sel con ained some hing in e es ing, some hing wo h e lec ing on. My esea ch is an e hnog aphically inspi ed case s udy o an o ice chai . The ieldwo k pe iod las ed om Sep embe 2009 o summe 2012, and included obse a ions abou and in e iews a an o ganiza ion, which specializes in p oducing e gonomic o ice u ni u e and p oduc s. To ge o know he company, I began by explo ing he company’s annual epo s (2007-2008), and du ing he p ojec , I con inually ollowed i s websi e, Facebook page, and e e y hing ha was w i en abou i in magazines and newspape s. The ieldwo k in he company consis ed o in o mal discussions ega ding he o ganiza ion’s design p ac ices, s udying documen s exp ess- ing he guidelines o design and manu ac u e as well as in e iews wi h ele an ac o s. The p ojec eam ha wo ked on manu ac u ing his o ice chai consis ed o se e al engi- nee s, wo people om he ma ke ing depa men , a ma ke - ing di ec o , p ojec manage , echnical designe , and indus ial designe . The indus ial designe was hi ed om ou side he company o wo k on his pa icula o ice chai . The in e iews ook place ei he in he indus ial designe ’s i m, he company’s head o ice, o in one o he company’s ac o ies whe e he ac ual p oduc ion, p oduc de elopmen mee ings, and di e en labo a o y es s ook place. Fo he pu poses o his a icle, da a ha consis o in o mal mee ings and discussions, indi idual in e iews wi h he designe o he chai , he company’s p oduc manage , he design di ec o , and he design manage , along wi h he mee - ings wi h he p ojec eam, ha e been analyzed. Al oge he , he da a consis o 15 mee ings ha we e no eco ded ( hese ook place in he company’s labo a o y, company’s es au an o du ing ca jou neys om he company’s head o ice o he ac- o y) and o se en indi idual in e iews and i e mee ings o he p ojec eam ha we e eco ded and ansc ibed. The indi- idual in e iews las ed om 1 o 2 h , and he mee ings wi h he p ojec eam las ed om 1 o 3 h . The da a also include a ilm las ing 30 min, whe e he designe explains and ske ches ou he design p ocess. This ilm was o iginally made o he Pe e i 5 s a who a e in ol ed in he p oduc ion o selling o he p od- uc s o “make hem mo e mo i a ed and in ol ed in he p oj- ec ,” as desc ibed by he p oduc manage in an in e iew. The mo e in o mal discussions ha we e no eco ded we e w i en down as ield no es. Fo he pu poses o his a icle, whene e possible, I ied o ind he da a samples om he da a ha we e ansc ibed, so ha I could show wo d o wo d how in o man s desc ibed o jus i ied some hing. In addi ion, he da a con ain no es om p ojec mee ings w i en by he echnical designe , and a business abs ac o he chai (18 Powe Poin slides) c ea ed and w i en by he p od- uc manage . The business abs ac includes a “p oduc po o- lio,” which is an a i ac used o e alua e, de ine, and jus i y he place o he p oduc in ela ion o he company’s o he p oduc s and o simila p oduc s p oduced by compe i o s. The po olio is u ilized o de ine he ma ke “slo ” he p oduc is in ended o : which kinds o en i onmen s i is designed o , and wha he design and p ice indica e o i s place among o he p oduc s. The da a also include pho os and ield no es o he in e na ional S ockholm Fu ni u e Fai whe e he speci ic chai was in oduced and ma ke ed o he i s ime. The analy ic app oach has de i ed some ideas om dis- cu si e psychology. Acco ding o discu si e psychology, a i ac s can be pe cei ed as ha ing in i a ion and inhibi ion owa d ce ain kinds o ac ions. An a icle by B own and Middle on (2006) d aws basic ideas om discu si e psy- chology, and hey assume he posi ion ha a i ac s can be concei ed as ma e ial amewo ks, which ei he enable o cons ain ce ain discou ses o p ac ices. They add ha i is easonable o assume ha objec s place limi s on he ways hey can be desc ibed and cons uc ed in a discou se, bu hey do no exis “jus he e.” Ins ead o assuming ha he e exis s a gi en objec wo ld, which people desc ibe h ough “ hings as hey a e,” hey s a e ha a i ac s and wo kplace communica ion can be app oached by analyzing “how hey a e o mula ed and desc ibed by speake s,” and hus “ he mu ual o ien a ion o speake s o hings is a discu si e accomplishmen , which can be s udied as such” (B own & Middle on, 2006, pp. 195-196). Acco ding o his poin o iew, e gonomic knowledge is some hing ha speake s and ac o s cons uc in alk and use as a linguis ic esou ce a he han jus possess. Hence, a ocus on cons uc ions in alk equi es he ecogni ion o discou se as “s a egies and mean- ings” cons uc ed in con e sa ions. Discu si e psychology in ol es looking a he o ms o language use, i s con en s and unc ions. Th ough language, we ind ways o speak abou objec s and a i ac s, which may ha e po en ial ma e- ial e ec s (B own, Middle on, & Ligh oo , 2001). The Chai as a Symbol o O ganiza ional Change The company in ques ion, which I shall e e o as Möbel o p ese e i s anonymi y, is an old Scandina ian amily busi- ness which designs and p oduces in e io solu ions o wo king en i onmen s and public spaces. I is adi ionally well known o i s high s anda ds o e gonomic u ni u e and is one o he la ges companies in i s sec o in Eu ope. The need o modi y he b and o he na a i e o he o ganiza ion has de eloped, as no ed by he di ec o s, on he ealiza ion ha he i m has es ablished i sel as a p ominen ac o in he ield o e gonomic o ice u ni u e. This ision o he com- pany is so well es ablished ha , as Möbel’s p ojec manage s a ed, he ision o good e gonomics has deg aded o he essen ial images o he company: You ha e o hink o wha is an indi idual p oduc ’s syne gy wi h ou s a egy. We ha e his new slogan ha we a e launching, Emo ional Places, which I dig. In my line o wo k, i has been a bu den ha Möbel is so s ongly seen as a company ha p oduces good e gonomic o ice u ni u e. When a chi ec s design sepa a e spaces o indi iduals o wo k on hei compu e s hey hink o Möbel, bu when hey design lounges, en ance halls and boa d ooms, i is a di e en case. (No embe 2009) I was clea om he ou se ha he manu ac u e s wan ed o p oduce a chai ha would s and o he ongoing o ganiza- ional change o gain ha “syne gy wi h he new s a egy,” as he p ojec manage s a ed. The chai and he p oduc s o ol- low would compose a new “p oduc amily” and would also ad oca e a new line o hinking o he whole o ganiza ion, bo h ou side and inside he o ganiza ion. In he business abs ac , he chai is desc ibed as embodying a “classic” line, “emo ional design” and “ imeless design” ha “will easily adap o di e en kinds o a chi ec u al en i onmen s.” The new way o hinking was also explained as dis anc- ing he company om he old- ashioned ways o making decisions. One way o pu sue his, as I lea ned om a Scandina ian business magazine, was ha he company “sna ched” a new design di ec o om a globally well- known IT company. The idea was ha he new design di ec- o would b ing wi h him a mo e con empo a y line o hinking and making business, and one embodimen o ha , as he p oduc manage s a ed, was he p oduc po olio ha he new design di ec o had c ea ed a e his a i al. This pa icula design di ec o desc ibed in an in e iew ha he way o hinking in Möbel was e y old ashioned and b ough wi h i “a social democ a ic way o making deci- sions” as opposed o a mo e “ ocused way ha will also enable mo e high p o ile p oduc s and no g ey mass.” This is a discu si e ac ic known as a “con as a gumen ” (Edwa ds & Po e , 1992, p. 163). A speake makes his e - sion seem like a ac by con as ing i wi h an al e na i e ha seems uncon incing and like a bad choice. In an in e iew, he p ojec manage labeled he “old way” as a “Swedish mode o discussing e e y hing endlessly and lis ening o e e yone, so ha be o e long e e y idea is i i- a ed.” In a p ojec mee ing in sp ing 2010, he u ni u e designe also commen ed on he p og ess o he p ojec in an i onic manne , and s a ed ha he did no objec o “Scandina ian dynamics” as such “i we achie e a deep 6 SAGE Open commi men ,” o which he echnical designe eplied ha he slowes pa o he p ocess was inally o e , and i was ime o eally ge o wo k. All he key ac o s o he design p ocess equen ly u ilized a discu si e cons uc ion o he “old model” as a he o ical ac ha needed no o he jus i ica- ions. I was a discu si e esou ce ha a icula ed, depending on he con ex , a “na u al connec ion” be ween he chai and he new b and, o be ween he chai and a ision o he changing wo ld o mode n o ices. In hese cons uc ions, he old ision is o en geog aphically and poli ically localized: I is a Swedish o Scandina ian way, he social democ a ic way o hinking and making hings. The new ision does no ha e a simila kind o explici geog aphical loca ion o poli ical iden i y; al hough i seems e iden ha i is no a social dem- oc a ic iew no is i es ic ed geog aphically o Scandina ia. O he wise, iden i ying he old ision as Scandina ian and social democ a ic would be senseless. Below, he p ojec manage desc ibes he changes in mod- e n wo k li e, which a e closely connec ed o he new ision and design o his speci ic chai : Wo king is so di e en nowadays, and people wo k in so many di e en places. People wo k mo e a home and also, acco ding o a esul o a ecen esea ch conduc ed by Kon o Sys em [name changed], nowadays, o ices a e mo e han jus ha . . . hey a e mee ing places. Mode n wo k li e is e y agmen ed: people wo k in di e en places, hey a el, hey wo k in hei home o ices, and inc easingly, o ice spaces a e becoming mee ing places, no so much ese ed o indi idual s anda d wo k s a ions anymo e. People a el mo e, and no e e yone needs a sepa a e desk. Tha p oduces challenges o his collec ion as well. (…) So you ha e his lounge-like chai , whe e you si in a elaxed manne , and he communica ion is also di e en . I belie e ha he u ni u e cul i a es beha iou so ha when you ha e mo e casual colou s and design, i is no a mee ing in a adi ional sense anymo e; a he , i is a con e sa ion. You can ha e a small side- able and you lap op on i , you can check some hing, bu you can also si com o ably. Now you ha e o si s i ly on you small chai s a small ables, he ou o you. (No embe 2010) Based on he da a, i seems ha he new o ganiza ional cul u e o he b and o he company indica es a new mode o hinking abou wo k en i onmen s. As in he exce p abo e, hey a e no longe seen as o ices o public spaces o lounges o en ance halls o boa d ooms, bu as he p ojec manage claims, i s and o emos , as “mee ing places.” Thus, he u ni u e would need o be mo e elaxed o suppo and p o- duce ee and mo e inspi a ional con e sa ions and mee - ings. In he exce p abo e, mode n wo k li e is seen as a collec ion o agmen s and di e en con ex s whe e one wo ks. The connec ion be ween agmen ed wo k asks and changing wo kplaces ollowed by a need o c ea e mo e places as mee ing places is no ob ious. One migh e en sug- ges ha agmen ed wo k li e could call o a coun e bal- ance in he o m o mo e sepa a e wo k s a ions, bu he p ojec manage jus i ies his isions by e e ing o ecen esea ch. Thus, his iews ha e addi ional scien i ic basis and do no seem o equi e u he jus i ica ion. The di ec o p o- ides de ails o he si ua ion o emphasize he di e ence be ween he old and new models. The i m Kon o Sys em ( he name has been changed) ha p oduced he esea ch p ojec , which he p ojec manage uses as a jus i ica ion o his isions, is a company ha p o- ides se ices o o he companies en ing o ice spaces. The esea ch p ojec in ques ion was ca ied ou by se e al ins i- u ions, and Möbel was one o he sponso s and collabo a o s o he p ojec . The companies in ol ed o e ed he cases o he esea ch p ojec and he cases deal , o example, wi h mobili y, open plan o ices and new wo k space solu ions. In he esea ch epo , he cases we e hen explici ly desc ibed as e lec ing con empo a y wo king li e. This was no a esea ch esul as such bu adop ed as a s a ing poin o he esea ch p ojec . Thus, his is a de ining momen o he ision and he design p ojec , because a his poin he ision gained a new s a us and a new iden i y: I was no only a ision in a u opian sense bu i became scien i ic knowledge. To pu i blun ly, he companies ed he esea ch p ojec wi h isions in he o m o case s udies ha we e de ined as ep e- sen ing he ecen de elopmen s o wo king li e and spaces. As quid p o quo, hey gain a new s a us and iden i y o hei isions. The old wo ld o mee ings and mee ing spaces is con- s uc ed in he exce p as a si ua ion whe e people ha e o “si s i ly in small chai s.” The lounge-like chai , which is adi ionally seen as no being in ended o si ing on o long du a ions, is now cons uc ed as he ideal: I is mo e com o - able, and no only ha , bu i also p oduces mo e ci ilized beha io . The e o e, he mee ing is no longe a adi ional mee ing bu a “con e sa ion.” This ision implies a discus- sion ha is ee o au ho i a ian aspec s. I is a con e sa ion, whe e pe sons mee and sha e hei iews. While he ele an ac o s ep esen he old model as an an i hesis o he new model o o ganiza ional cul u e, he clea opposi ion be ween hese models is ac ually ambiguous when analyzed om a discu si e poin o iew. The old model was e e ed o, in a ious con ex s o he in e iew, as a “Swedish” o “Scandina ian” way o discussing hings inde ini ely, and he eby was ing all chances o c ea ing any hing eally inno a i e. The new model seems o call o an a i ude owa d wo k whe e sha ing ideas and con e sa- ions is he mos impo an and essen ial elemen o c ea ing new ideas and inno a ions. I seems ha he old model s ands o cons an discussions and he new model signi ies mo e con e sa ions and less wo king alone. The di e ence seems o be ha he new model’s con e sa ions ake place in mo e open o ices among he designed u ni u e ha is de ined as mo e casual and ee spi i ed. Thus, he wo ke s o he new model ha e hei discussions in ull iew o e e yone, and hese con e sa ions a e s aged by special design u ni u e. Pe e i 7 In he i s da a sample, he p ojec manage s a ed ha “i has been a bu den ha Möbel is so s ongly seen as a com- pany ha p oduces good e gonomic o ice u ni u e.” Thus, he meanings a ached o e gonomics a e con adic o y. On one hand, i is one o hei special ields o expe ise and he key elemen in hei success, and on he o he hand, i seems o be one o he cen al easons hey ha e de eloped a need o emold hei b and and hei ision. The Re o mula ion o E gonomics When I inqui ed abou he indus ial designe ’s ision o mode n wo k spaces as he con ex o his p oduc s, he also u ilized he discu si e esou ce o “ he old model” o o ice en i onmen s “when he s a ic idea o e gonomics was he cen al way o pe cei e hings he e in Scandina ia” and con- inues in an i onic manne “people we e si ua ed in lines in hei own wo k ooms doing he same wo k; i was like ac- o y wo ke s in o ice en i onmen s, bu now i is mo e mobile.” And jus a ew sen ences la e in he in e iew, he con inues desc ibing he o ice chai s ha we e c ea ed on he basis o his old model: They we e passi e chai s, and he expec a ion was ha a pe sons’ neck and hands we e o be in a ce ain ixed posi ion. I do no belie e in ha . I belie e ha he s a ing poin has o be good, bu no ixed and s a ic, and a human being he sel needs o be ac i e. She has o ge up, she has o each o hings, she has o s e ch in di e en di ec ions, and aise he legs up and o he hings as well. (Decembe 2009) In e es ingly, in his ex ac , he e gonomic quali y o a chai is no cons uc ed solely as a ea u e o he chai . Mo e emphasis is ac ually laid on he use o he chai . She has he obliga ion o ake esponsibili y o he e gonomics o he chai ; she has o s ay on he mo e and no expec ha he o ice u ni u e will ake ca e o he neck o hands. Conside ed om a ealis ic poin o iew, his is a easonable a gumen , bu when conside ed om a discu si e pe spec- i e, he s a emen aises se e al ques ions. Fi s , he con- s uc ion o an “old model” communica es a ision o o ice wo k consis ing o mono onous and epea ed asks, which eminds one o ac o y wo k. Thus, he new open o ices seem o p oduce mo e in e es ing wo k and du ies, whe eas sepa a e wo k ooms encou age mono onous wo k. The new open o ice and he u ni u e ha goes wi h he new o ice model also allow people o be mo e mobile and almos guide hem o be on he mo e. Consequen ly, he e gonomics o a wo king en i onmen becomes he esponsibili y o an indi- idual wo ke . A chai ’s ole in his new se ing is o encou - age wo ke s o be on he mo e. A chai needs o be good enough o si on bu no so good ha people would enjoy emaining sea ed o long pe iods o ime. The key elemen o wha migh be called “new e gonomics” is ac ually ha he chai needs o be bad enough o encou age i s use s o ge up. The o ice chai s ha ha e adi ionally been conside ed as e gonomic o ice chai s wi h hei adjus able a m es s, back es s, and head es s a e now ede ined as passi e chai s. Consequen ly, in he “new e gonomics” he ac i i y o pas- si i y o a chai is no a ea u e o he chai bu o he use . In he mee ings o he p ojec eam, he e gonomic quali y is e y a ely discussed o he han when e e ed o in an i onic manne as belonging o an old- ashioned iew on designing o wo k en i onmen s. Once a a p ojec mee ing, we go o si on he p o o ypes o he chai , and each o us had a chance o make a b ie commen on he expe ience. Mos ly he commen s could be in e p e ed as posi i e o neu al (“ e y nice” o “like i ” o jus “mmm”), he only excep ion being he echnical designe who claimed ha he chai did no i his body ype. Nobody esponded o his commen , no e en he designe . The e gonomic quali y o he chai is mos explici ly add essed in he ilm ha was p oduced in sp ing 2010 o “mo i a e he employees” who ake pa in he p oduc ion o ma ke ing o he chai . In he ilm, he designe desc ibes a ce ain ea u e o he chai ha is ypical o chai s he has designed, and adds ha his is “ i s o all, e gonomically e y well designed” and “enables good si ing posi ion and does no pu p essu e on he legs.” La e in he ilm, he designe announces ha he has hopes o how he p oduc s will be ma ke ed, and no es ha he wan s o say some hing mo e abou he e gonomics o he chai : “I chai s we e cho- sen by o e, he cus ome s would choose a chai ha enables only a passi e si ing posi ion.” He con inues ha hese chai s “would emind one o child en’s ca sea s, which eel sa e, bu in ha posi ion you canno eally mo e any hing bu you inge s.” He emphasizes he absu di y by ac ing as being squeezed in a ca sea in a posi ion in which he looks like he can only hold his hands abo e his shoulde s and mo e his inge s. Appa en ly he e gonomic quali y o a chai is some hing ha canno be e alua ed by he cus ome s. The example o a child’s ca sea , e en hough an anecdo e, shows ha cus om- e s’ opinions and knowledge o e gonomics a e qui e in an- ile, and he cus ome s make choices ha migh eel “sa e” o good. The e o e, he selle s ha e o gi e ad ice, so ha cus- ome s do no make hese easy mis akes. In o he wo ds, he cus ome s need o be di ec ed, so ha hey do no choose p oduc s ha eel good, bu om a designe ’s poin o iew, do no unc ion p ope ly in new o ice en i onmen s ha need mo e ac i e use s. The Embodimen o he New Vision o O ice Wo k The ac i e na u e o his speci ic chai is o en men ioned as i s mos impo an ea u e. In p ac ice, he chai is designed o be lexible in a sense ha i allows a iny amoun o mo emen . I is no en i ely i m and immobile, no a ocking-chai -like 8 SAGE Open objec , bu elas ic. This is cong uen wi h he isions ha con- cep ualized wo ke s who a e, abo e all, mobile and sha e elaxed con e sa ions. The chai i sel encou ages small mo emen . I is also consis en wi h he ision o mode n o ice spaces, in which employees do no ha e sepa a e wo k s a ions bu use wha e e ee space he e is in an o e all open- space o ice o ei he wo k on hei lap ops o ha e a cha wi h cowo ke s o cus ome s. In e es ingly, his lexibili y is ne e men ioned as e gonomically good e en hough i enables a i- ous si ing posi ions. In he business abs ac , he chai is desc ibed as “a uni- e sal chai ,” which will i e e y kind o si ua ion. Acco ding o he designe , he lexibili y o he chai enables i o be used o se e al pu poses: o wo k alone on he lap op, o ea lunch, o ha e a casual con e sa ion in a mo e elaxed si ing posi ion, o o ha e a mo e o mal mee ing. Also, he ac ha he chai is designed o esemble lounge u ni u e, as explained by he p ojec manage , in i es wo ke s o be on he mo e and no emain sea ed o long pe iods o ime. The designe a icula es in an indi idual in e iew and also in a p ojec mee ing in sp ing 2010 ha he design o he chai becomes mos appa en when he e a e many such chai s in he same space. The designe hen goes in o saying ha se e al o hese chai s oge he p oduce a “ce ain bal- anced hy hm.” The p ojec manage also e lec s ha i is a ea u e ha can e en be app ecia ed om a dis ance and om ou side he o ice building. Thus, he chai s compose a o m ha is mos dis inc i e only when iewed om a dis- ance, o example, h ough la ge pano ama windows. Because o his, he di ec o s decide ha se e al chai s mus be acked high up on a wall as he chai is p esen ed a he in e na ional S ockholm Fu ni u e Fai . O he wise, he “spe- cial hy hm” ha can only be p ope ly app ecia ed om a a would no be isible o he cus ome s. This ea u e seems o speci ically sui an open-space o ice. Thus, i i s in well in o ice buildings ha ha e glass walls and a e s aged o be iewed om ou side o inside. When he chai is in oduced a he ai , he company gi es ou a p ess elease in which hey s a e ha hey a e in oducing a new ision o mode n wo k li e. This is a new p ac ice, since be o e his he p ess eleases ha e jus in o- duced speci ic pieces o u ni u e. Now, he u ni u e is men- ioned only in b ie a he end o he p ess elease. In o he wo ds, now he company is selling a ision, and he u ni u e is in a seconda y posi ion. The ision is aking he leading ole. The chai is in oduced as an illus a ion o he ision, a ma e ializa ion o i . Wi h he p oduc ion o his chai , he company also es ab- lishes se e al o he new p ac ices. The di ec o s and he designe epo in indi idual in e iews ha in his speci ic p ojec , all he decision make s (i.e., he di ec o s and he designe ) me se e al imes e en be o e s a ing he coope a- ion o discuss he cha ac e is ics o he new b and and o de elop a sha ed unde s anding o he ision o new o ice en i onmen s and also o wha kind o special know-how hey expec ed he designe o b ing along. Acco ding o he in e iewees, i was unusual o hese mee ings o ake place mo e han a yea be o e any de ailed plans o he speci ic p oduc exis ed. The di ec o s explain ha hey wan ed o be su e ha he designe g asped hei whole ision. Then, he di ec o s made a deal wi h he designe ha he would be p esen in all he p ojec mee ings and would commi his ime o make a ilm whe e he would explain he s o y o he chai . These we e all new p ac ices. The p ojec manage explains he need o hese new p o- cedu es by saying ha i is impo an ha he chai is s ongly associa ed wi h he designe who has won se e al design p izes, and ha i would no be as con incing i he p ojec manage ins ead o he designe we e o explain he meaning o his chai and i s posi ion as pa o he new b and and ision o he enginee s and ma ke ing people. I is much mo e “mo i a ing” when he designe himsel akes pa in he mee ings and deli e s he s o y. “S o ies a e i al when you wan o make a p oduc sell,” cla i ies he p ojec man- age . Thus, you could say ha he di ec o s u ilize he designe as a b and managing ool who sells he idea o he new b and o hei employees. In he ilm, he designe explains he ision o changing wo k en i onmen s, and hus deli e s he main idea o he new b and o he employees. He desc ibes how he chai can be ecognized as a e lec ion o his ision. He also na a es how he chai can be iden i ied as his c ea ion, because i has ce ain de ails ha esemble some ea u es o no he n na u e and wild li e. Thus, he designe associa es he indi idual p oduc as pa o a la ge en i y o his en i e wo k as a designe , and he eby, indi idual chai s gain an iden i y as aes he ic design objec s ha ha e a his o y longe han he sepa a e p oduc as such. They a e no jus o ice chai s bu au hen ic design objec s o be app ecia ed as pa o a la ge en i y and a long his o y. The designe inco po a es au hen- ici y and o iginali y no only in o he p oduc bu also in o he new b and. Conclusion Wi h he help o his case s udy, he a icle was able o p o- ide insigh in o how ma e ial objec s come o ca y and media e “ideological meanings” (see Mazé & Reds öm, 2007) ha may ha e e y conc e e impac s on o ganiza ional p ac ices and cul u e, and e en on wo ke s’ heal h. In o he wo ds, he e o mula ion o e gonomics does no only mean new ideas and concep s bu also e y conc e e ma e ial e ec s on human bodies. Also, design is no only a ma e o aes he ics o usabili y bu i is also abou poli ics. The con ibu ion o his a icle is wo old. The a icle has demons a ed how in he p ocess o p oducing an o ice chai , he chai gains a s a us o an aes he ic objec . In addi- ion, he empi ical analysis p o ides insigh in o how so capi alism is g ounded in he e e yday p ac ices and dis- cou ses o he o ganiza ion. The a icle analyzes how he Pe e i 9 e o mula ion o e gonomics in he company is in e wined wi h a ision in line wi h he ideas o so capi alism. In he co e o ha ision is he aes he ic objec which has o “speak” he ision in i s ma e ialized o m. The objec s and a i ac s ha con ey he ision canno be jus any kinds o objec s: They ha e o ha e he s a us o an aes he ic design objec . Thus, es ablishing he ision as u h also means ele a ing and ennobling he iden i y o he objec as an aes he ic objec . The ac ha when he chai is p esen ed o he wide public o he i s ime, i is being acked up high on a wall abo e ou heads could, in a way, be seen as a e lec ion o i s ele- a ed cha ac e . The chai is abo e he e e yday li e, and hus, may e en p omise o aise us up and abo e he con- s ain s o he mundane. Despi e being small-scale and hus o some ex en es ic ed, he a icle cas s ligh on he p ocess o c ea ing s aging alue wi h all i s p ac ices, hings, and people who in e ac o c ea e his some hing mo e. The ision as a discu - si e o he o ical accomplishmen is accompanied by se e al p ac ices and a gumen s ha wo k o gi e he chai an iden- i y o an aes he ic objec and, hence, make i in o a ma e ial- ized o m o he ision. The con as a gumen wo ks o jus i y he ision on a discu si e le el; he esea ch p ojec helps u n he u opia in o a e lec ion o eali y; he mee ings be ween he company’s di ec o s and he designe solidi y he ision as a sha ed goal; he new p ess elease aises he ision in o a p ima y ole, and he designe ’s p esence a he mee ings and in ol emen in p oducing a “mo i a ional” ilm associa e he chai mo e s ongly wi h he ision and he designe , and so he chai gains a s a us o a c ea ion o an awa d-winning designe . Thus, he s a us o an aes he ic objec comes in o being as a esul o mul iple p ac ices and choices made by he di ec o s o he company, he designe , he ma ke ing people, he esea che s, and he consume s. As hose a o emen ioned p ac ices and discu si e means s i e o eeze he in en ions o he manu ac u es, his p o- cess can also be seen as domes ica ion o he ideas o so capi alism. The ision mani es s i sel h ough his uni e sal chai in con as wi h he Scandina ian o Swedish chai s and p ac ices emphasizing he local (as meaning he e es ic ed, passi e, and na ow) na u e o he “old” and adi- ional. No only is his new chai global o in e na ional in na u e bu pompously uni e sal as well. In his con ex , Scandina ian does no mean au hen ici y, pu i y, o equali y as in he ma ke ing s a egies o , o example, Ikea o some Scandina ian cosme ic b ands and clo hing companies. Acco ding o he ision, e gonomics belongs o he pas , and in he pas i was e y much he local way o pe cei e and design hings. E en hough he oo s o e gonomics a e no o iginally in Scandina ia, he ac ha e gonomics is so s ongly associa ed wi h he Scandina ian con ex is linked in he da a wi h he idea o Scandina ia as a p omised land o echnical enginee ing as well as he so-called social engi- nee ing. Howe e , he old way is ne e desc ibed in a ma e o ac way bu wi h i ony which could implica e ha he ision has no es ablished i sel as he dominan u h in Scandina ia since o he wise he e would be no eason o idicule he old way. Ra he , i could jus be p esen ed as a his o ical concep ion ha no longe p e ails. As said be o e, al hough policy make s and academics may sha e he opinion ha he impo ance o e gonomics is g owing, in he da a, e gonomics is cons uc ed as almos he keywo d o a bygone age and o old- ashioned ideas. E gonomics is passé and no e en ashionably e o. I is a mode nis d eam ha does no ake in o accoun he consum- e s’ supposed yea ning o colo , beau y, and mobili y. The jux aposi ion o e gonomics and he so-called humanism has i s oo s in he 1960s pos mode nism ha saw e gonomics as oo a ional an idea lacking pleasu e, play ulness, and lam- boyance. Needless o say ha hose we e no he o iginal aims o “e gonomics” as a de eloping idea and p ac ice a e he Wo ld Wa s. I was no de eloped o b ing in he un o wo kplaces bu o make hem mo e e icien and sa e. One migh hink ha e gonomics and good usabili y a e ixed and objec i e ac s, bu he a icle p o es how hey a e cul u ally and his o ically shaped. In so capi alism, he o ice u ni- u e needs o be e gonomically bad enough o encou age he use s o ake mo e esponsibili y o hei own heal h. The new ision is p esen ed as poli ically neu al and humane as i claims o o e mo e ee-spi i ed mee ings, casual and colo ul mee ing spaces in con as wi h he social democ a ic way ha p oduces g ay mass and g ay o ice wo ke s. Yes e day’s e gonomic chai s a e ede ined as pas- si e, and he new lounge-like u ni u e is p esen ed as he ideal. This “occasional chai ” o he day is de ined as mo e use iendly in a no el way: E gonomics ceases o be he esponsibili y o he designe and he manu ac u e , and becomes he esponsibili y o he new mobile wo ke , pa o he sel -discipline. I he Vic o ian age e used he basic ideas o e gonomics o demons a e sophis ica ion and will- powe , ou age e uses simila alues o demons a e he s aging powe o hings, mobili y, and indi iduali y o ideas and people as well as o sa e money. Lounge-like u ni u e goes wi h an open plan o ice ha will sa e squa e oo age and educe cos s. The di ec o s o he company also admi his o be he case. The e is no eason o hide i as i is con- side ed a na u al ac . The new ision aims a c ea ing a wo ld consis ing o people, objec s, and en i onmen s ha compose a uni y ha would “welcome” his p oduc as a na u al elemen wi h i s associa ions. The new ision is desc ibed as mo e demo- c a ic as i in i es an open o ice whe e e e y hing and e e yone a e in iew. The chai i sel is democ a ic in ha sense ha e e yone, ega dless o hei s a us in he com- pany, is sea ed in his e y same uni e sal chai . In o he wo ds, in his con ex democ acy does no mean one’s own pe sonal space and e gonomic u ni u e bu he same aes- he ic design u ni u e and isibili y o e e yone. Howe e , his uni e sal ision does no include e e y hing and e e y- body. The chai is sui able, o example, o wo king on a