Office ergonomics has a problem: it puts the focus on the furniture, not the people.
When I worked in an office building, I was given an ergonomic mouse. I had the classic wrist tendinitis – that persistent pain familiar to anyone who spends hours using a computer mouse. The ergonomic mouse relieved the pain. But it didn’t solve it.
What got rid of my tendinitis for good was something completely different: learning to use my whole body differently. Not just that hand – both hands, the arms, the neck, the torso… And above all: taking regular, intentional breaks, mobilising the deeper muscles, and letting muscles designed for movement rest. In other words, developing a better awareness of what I was doing with my body – because I first had to notice that something wasn’t working before I could change it.
The problem with ergonomics
I see many people spending a fortune on expensive equipment that takes up a lot of space and which, at best, temporarily relieves a discomfort. At worst, it makes it worse: lumbar supports, headrests… all these devices do the work that our own musculature should be doing. And what isn’t used atrophies. In the long run, it’s a recipe for more back pain, more joint problems, more tendinitis.
I’m not the only one saying this. Even within the ergonomics profession itself there are critical voices. Joyce Stenstrom, former ergonomist at the Mayo Clinic, found in the Alexander Technique what was missing from her own speciality – to the point of starting to learn the Alexander Technique by taking lessons and declaring that “both the Alexander Technique and ergonomics are, at their core, about systems thinking.”¹
What actually works
The good news is that the most effective solution is also the cheapest: learning to use your own body differently. That means:
- Mobilising the support musculature – and developing it gradually through correct use
- Letting the movement musculature rest – with real, intentional breaks
- Using the whole body, not just the part that hurts
- Learning to adapt to any environment, rather than depending on the environment being perfect
A personal example: these days I prefer to work at the computer on a simple wooden chair, without cushioning. A few years ago I wouldn’t have tolerated it – I preferred comfortable office chairs in which I practically wanted to fall asleep. And that was part of the problem: a body that dozes off takes the mind with it. Mental performance is much better when the body is alert and present. Now that I’ve learnt to sit comfortably and healthily, “high-tech” chairs with all their supports and adjustments no longer appeal to me. A simple chair gives me exactly what I need: a firm surface from which I can move with greater freedom. The cushioning and supports do for me what my own musculature should be doing.
This doesn’t mean throwing the ergonomic chair out of the window. Some people have physical conditions that require additional support, and the right equipment can make a real difference. My point is a different one: it’s worth asking how much of the special equipment we use is truly necessary, how much is superfluous, and how much might be limiting our ability to move well in the long run. The answer is different for each person.
The best computer mice and office chairs are the ones you use properly. The same applies to any piece of furniture or equipment in your workspace.
This is exactly what I work on with the Alexander Technique: not educating the furniture, but the people who use it. With lasting results, and no problematic side effects – as far as I know.
¹ Stenstrom, J. – “Ergonomics and the Alexander Technique: A conversation with former Mayo Clinic Ergonomist Joyce Stenstrom”, alexandercenter.com. Available at: https://www.alexandercenter.com/teacherspage/index.html