People + Process = Performance

5 Common Myths (Misconceptions) of Sit-Stand Workstations that Employers Make

Sit-stand workstations (SSW) are the hottest topic when it comes to the office these days.  I’ve dealt with employers who, on one end of the spectrum, have decided to bring SSWs to all of their office employees and with employers who remain ambivalent and/or unconvinced that SSW are worth it who will only provide SSWs for medical reasons.   Wherever you and/or your company fall along that spectrum, there are certain “myths” of SSWs that need to be addressed in order to have a successful, effective and sustainable (and safe!) SSW office implementation.  The following are 5 Common Myths of SSWs.   

 

  1. “One size fits all”:  The notion that one type of SSW is appropriate for every employee is just as true as a “one size fits all” shirt—There is no such thing!  I understand and appreciate the desire of companies to have a single SSW as a company standard as it makes things easier in many ways, such as ease of ordering, bulk purchasing discounts and streamlining installation/maintenance procedures.  Unfortunately reality happens—people and the work they perform are not all equal and therefore not all SSW options are appropriate.  Providing a SSW that doesn’t fit the person and/or their job functions will not only hurt their performance but could also negatively affect their health. 
  2. “Everyone wants and will use a SSW”:  Despite all the hype and attention to SSWs in the office, not every employee will want a SSW, and if provide one, they will not use it.  The result—expensive static SSWs with zero ROI for the company and employee.   Companies should be cognizant that not every employee wants a SSW and therefore should not be disappointed if they go unused. Obviously there are employees who have a very strong desire for SSW.  For example, I’ve done workstation assessment for employees who admit to stating they have discomfort just so they can get a SSW.  On the other hand, I have just as many employees who have discomfort who do not have any desire for a SSW even when offered as a potential solution and simply want their workstation to fit them in a seated position. 
  3. “Anti-fatigue mats are a required accessory for SSW”:  Anti-fatigue mats go completely against the purpose of SSWs which is to alter between sitting and standing frequently.  Anti-fatigue mats are appropriate and should be provided to employees who have no option to sit on the job, i.e. line workers, cashiers, etc.  In the office, employees are free to alter their position.  Providing anti-fatigue mats only serves to encourage prolonged static standing.  Prolonged standing has associated negative health effects just like prolonged sitting.  Employees should be taught to alter their position frequently.  A common sense guideline is if employees feel discomfort in their feet/legs from standing then they should sit for a while and/or move about the office.  This isn’t a reason to provide anti-fatigue mats!
  4. “Employees will naturally use SSW correctly”:  Oftentimes management is assumes employees will be satisfied and will use the SSWs appropriately once they are installed.  Unfortunately, that rarely happens.  Think about the office chair.  How many of your employees have taken the time to learn about all of the adjustments, what each lever does on their chair and then adjusted it to fit them correctly?  If you’re honest, the answer would be slim to none.  The same holds true for SSWs.  They are even simpler than task chairs but user issues still remain without training.  More and more studies have shown that training is needed in order to optimize the use of SSWs (i.e. so employees alternate frequently between sitting and standing) and so they make the proper adjustments to the workstation to fit them in sitting and standing.
  5. “SSWs will automatically lead to better employee health, engagement and productivity”:  If only SSWs were that magic bullet!  The studies on SSW’s to date have not definitively proven one way or the other the effects on employee health, engagement or productivity.  The best conclusion to date is that SSWs (when the right device is chosen for the individual and their work, and when used appropriately) do not negatively affect health and productivity.  The effect on employee engagement and morale has been the least studied and it most likely would be correct to assume that again, SSWs do not have a negative effect on those factors.  Now anecdotally, some employees and employers may experience very positive effects on all 3 of those factors after SSW implementation but there have been no long term studies with large populations to say that SSWs have positive correlations.