Employee and Supervisor Perceptions of a Policy Promoting Standing in the Workplace: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Many employees have jobs that predominantly require sitting, and reducing sitting time to improve physical health has been a focus of health research. A widespread environmental design change is the incorporation of sit-stand desks. Since the workplace plays a large role in a person’s day-to-day activities, researchers and environmental designers must still assess how joint optimization can be reached to satisfy worker well-being and performance. We conducted a qualitative research study to determine how support and/or concern over a hypothetical policy to increase standing in a predominantly seated workplace would differ between those with and without job supervisory tasks. Employees saw the benefits of reducing their sitting time at work and welcomed the added autonomy. Others saw this as infringing their autonomy, uncertainty about how this would affect their tasks, if they would have appropriate equipment, and if the policy was inclusive to people with difficulty standing.

Background and Objectives

Many employees have jobs that predominantly require sitting (Prince et al., 2020), and reducing sitting time to improve physical health has been a focus of health research (i.e., Duran et al., 2023; Gale et al., 2023). A popular environmental design change is the incorporation of sit-stand desks that allow workers to alter their posture throughout the day; however, such changes aimed to increase physical activity show low returns on investment (Nguyen et al., 2023). Since the workplace plays a large role in a person’s day-to-day activities, researchers and environmental designers must still assess how joint optimization can be reached to satisfy worker well-being and organizational effectiveness outcomes. To do this, we conducted a qualitative research study to determine how support and/or concern over a hypothetical policy to increase standing in a predominantly seated workplace would differ between those with and without job supervisory tasks. This exploratory study examined if individuals are still interested in reducing their seated time at work and what aspects they would like and be concerned about regarding a hypothetical policy change at their current job. Given that the creation and implementation of policies related to well-being can be a source of tension for managers (Vakkayil et al., 2017), we hypothesized that employees with supervisory responsibilities would have different themes related to their likes and concerns about the hypothetical intervention since they could simultaneously be considering their well-being and their accountability to organizational effectiveness through their role and supervision of others.

Approach

The respondents for this study were recruited using Prolific (www.prolific.co) [November 2023]. Participants had to work full- or part-time in the United States at the time of the study, either from a central place of work or a mix of a central location and remote work. Surveys were completed through Qualtrics. Once the informed consent and verification questions were completed, respondents were asked if they held supervisory duties (yes/no) and if their day was spent with more time sitting or standing on a typical day. Participants were then asked to consider a hypothetical scenario: “Your workplace plans to introduce a new policy that would work by promoting standing to perform tasks instead of sitting. In other words, you could do some of your work while standing.” Respondents were asked to fill out open-answer questions about (i) “What do you like about the policy change, if anything?” and (ii) “What concerns do you have about the policy change, if any?” Participants then completed a series of survey questions about their perceptions of this policy (not reported in this abstract). We conducted a thematic data analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify themes in the likes and concern questions and then tabulated themes separately for supervisors and employees.

Findings

Based on the verification criteria, 680 potential participants opened the survey, and 482 were eligible for the study. Of the eligible participants who sat for most of their day, 155 were supervisors (S), and 133 were employees (E) without supervisory duties (total n = 288). Themes are presented using the percentage of supervisors or employees who discussed that theme.

Four of the top five main likes were similar across job roles. Respondents liked the idea of a policy that would benefit their well-being (S = 50.3%; E = 49.6%), the potential for autonomy in choosing their working position (S = 16.1%; E = 20.3%), that the policy demonstrated that their company valued them as an employee (S = 16.1%; E = 17.3%), and it signified a culture that promoted well-being (S = 7.1%; E = 10.5%). Supervisors also mentioned that it would positively impact performance (7.7%), while employees discussed the benefits of improving work design for standing (6.0%, i.e., standing desks).

Four of the five main concerns were also shared across job roles. There was a discussion that this policy would remove autonomy in choosing working posture (S = 25.2%; E = 27.1%), it would result in poor well-being (S = 17.4%; E = 16.5%), there would be potential implementation concerns (S = 9.7%; E = 12.8%), and there would be issues with inclusivity for those who have potential issues standing (S = 10.3%; E = 9.8%). Supervisors also discussed concerns about work design (13.5%) and if there would be reprimands for not following the policy (9.7%). Employees were unsure how it would affect their tasks (11.3%) and work performance (9.8%).

Conclusions

When provided with a hypothetical policy promoting standing, employees who report sitting for most of their day saw the benefits of reducing their sitting time while at work and welcomed the added autonomy, which aligns with previous work on job flexibility and job crafting. Despite this, other respondents saw this as an infringement of their autonomy and/or expressed uncertainty about how this would affect their tasks or if they would have appropriate equipment. For these workers, demonstrations of alternative solutions or participative approaches may help find ways for these individuals to be less sedentary but within tasks of their choosing.

Inclusivity was a final concern about this hypothetical policy, especially the uncertainty related to potential issues for those unable to stand. Research has shown that a multi-component approach, including a sit-stand desk, behavioral counseling, and cognitive behavioral therapy for pain management, demonstrated benefits without productivity loss for seated office workers with chronic low back pain (Barone Gibbs et al., 2018). Thus, inclusive initiatives should have multiple options and support for people who want to be less sedentary but are unsure how to achieve this goal.

Intervention research aimed to reduce sedentary seated work has mainly concentrated on the health value proposition, but to be more widely accepted, interventions should account for concerns related to potential job performance and organizational effectiveness outcomes. Organizations that want to promote a more active workplace must consider the potential apprehension toward work autonomy and job performance and offer inclusive support or alternatives.