Leaders are urged to “eliminate psychosocial risks.” In reality, many pressures are structural: lean teams, always‑on comms, calendar congestion, complex work. High demand isn’t going away. The more pragmatic question is: when demand can’t be eliminated, how do we design work so people can pace, recharge and sustain healthy performance?

Thesis in one line
When high demand is structural, ergonomics must manage load over time: keep mechanical load low and embed recovery resources in the cadence of work so capacity doesn’t erode.

The link: it’s physical and psychological
Psychosocial risks don’t just affect mood; they drive musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and amplify biomechanical load. EU‑OSHA’s evidence review concludes there is clear causal evidence that psychosocial risk factors contribute to MSDs at work—interacting with physical risks rather than acting in isolation [1]. Standards now reflect this reality. ISO 45003 embeds psychosocial risk management into OH&S systems explicitly to prevent work‑related injury and ill‑health, and WHO’s 2022 guidelines prioritise organisational interventions (work design, manager capability, job resources) alongside individual support [2,3].

Why posture‑only ergonomics stalls
You can optimise chairs, desks and screens and still see rising discomfort. Under sustained pressure – back‑to‑back meetings, interruptions, limited control over pace—people brace, breathe shallowly and hold static postures longer. Research on interruptions shows we often compensate by working faster, at the cost of higher stress, frustration and time pressure; short breaks between virtual meetings materially reduce stress and improve focus [4,5]. In short: posture reduces the load you can see; work design determines the load people carry all day.

Design for recoverability: when demand stays high
If you can’t lower demand, engineer recovery into the day—micro‑windows that reset the body and attention. A meta‑analysis shows micro‑breaks (≤10 min) reliably improve vigour and reduce fatigue, with small positive effects on performance—if they’re part of cadence, not just optional tips [6].

Evidence call‑outs

• EU‑OSHA: psychosocial risks have a causal role in MSDs and interact with physical risks [1].

• Micro‑breaks: ≤10 minutes reduces fatigue, modest performance gains [6].

• Back‑to‑back meetings: adding short breaks reduces stress and improves focus [5].

A dual‑adjustment model (under load)

1. Biomechanical fit (reduce mechanical load)

• Start at the bottom: heels supported → chair height → desk below elbow height → primary/secondary screens aligned to task flow.

• Hands/wrists: neutral angles; consider split/tented keyboards, alternative mice, and negative tilt to reduce extension.

• Movement baked in: sit/stand rhythm; micro‑pauses; dynamic stretches between bouts.

2. Work‑design fit (increase recovery resources)

• Cadence design: 25/50‑minute meetings by default; 5–10-minute buffers; no‑meeting focus blocks.

• Autonomy signals: explicit permission to stand/stretch; camera‑optional norms; clear response‑time expectations.

• Cognitive‑load hygiene: fewer parallel channels; notification batching; single‑topic meetings.

• Task variability: rotate keyboard‑heavy work with walking/think time to vary physical and cognitive load.

• Behavioural nudges: lightweight prompts for posture shifts, eye breaks and micropauses.

Why this also supports mental health
Designing cadence, autonomy and recovery into the day doesn’t just ease musculoskeletal strain; it also reduces cognitive overload and emotional fatigue. When people have more control over pace, clearer expectations, and protected recovery windows, they show lower stress, better mood regulation and reduced burnout risk [2,3,7]. These job resources—autonomy, recovery and social support – buffer high demands in the Job Demands–Resources model [7]. Treat buffers (25/50‑minute meetings), no‑meeting focus blocks, camera‑optional norms, clear response‑time expectations, and micro‑break nudges as organisational controls. They protect both musculoskeletal health and mental health while maintaining capacity under load.

Where technology helps (and where it doesn’t)

• Helps: calendar defaults (25/50 mins), auto‑inserted buffers, focus time, silence notifications, micro‑break prompts, ergonomic training and reminders.

• Doesn’t (on its own): wellness tips without control of the diary; new chairs and equipment without changing the pace of the day; policies that live on paper but not in practice.

Governance that matches reality
Treat cadence and recovery windows as controls you implement and monitor – just like any other risk control – aligned to ISO 45003 and WHO guidance. Make sure the same expectations travel with hybrid workers between office and home [2,3].

Boundaries and limits
Dual‑adjustment does not excuse chronic under‑resourcing. Where workload materially exceeds capacity over time, no cadence control will fully offset risk. Use these controls to buffer demand while you pursue structural fixes.

Bottom line
When work won’t slow down, design for demand: keep biomechanical loads low and embed recovery into the work itself. That’s how you protect health and sustain performance – without pretending modern work can be engineered to zero pressure.

References
[1] European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU‑OSHA). Work‑related musculoskeletal disorders: from research to practice (psychosocial risk factors and MSDs).
[2] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 45003:2021—Psychological health and safety at work—Guidelines for managing psychosocial risk.
[3] World Health Organization. Guidelines on mental health at work. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
[4] Mark G, Gonzalez VM, Harris J. No Task Left Behind?: Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work. CHI; 2005 / Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U. The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress. CHI; 2008.
[5] Microsoft Human Factors Lab. The effects of back‑to‑back virtual meetings on stress; 2021.
[6] Bosch C, Riedel N, et al. “Give me a break!” A systematic review and meta‑analysis on the efficacy of micro‑breaks on well‑being and performance. PLOS ONE. 2022.
[7] Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job Demands–Resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):273–285.