A Conceptual Model for the Impact of Occupational Standing on Enterprise Outcomes Using an Inductive Content Analysis of California Lawsuits

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS In this paper, we provide a framework for practitioners when (re)designing tasks that historically have required standing in the workplace. While the goal is not to remove standing from all jobs, practitioners must work with management to align health and safety outcomes related to standing at work with the enterprise’s main outcomes. Practitioners should also be made aware that in many of these jobs, standing has been required because, in the enterprise’s judgment, it improves performance and customer service. Understanding common beliefs about customer interactions and job performance in the workplace will be vital to implementing changes that have previously been difficult to navigate. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background: Modern office workplaces promote standing to reduce occupational sitting time; however, workers have advocated for reducing occupational standing in the retail and service industries. Purpose: To create a conceptual framework for practitioners and researchers to use when examining the use of suitable seating in the workplace compared to standing. Methods: An inductive content analysis was used to analyze class-action lawsuits filed in California related to “suitable seating.” Themes were extracted and organized based on our conceptual model. Results: Justification for standing or the use of suitable seating was based on organizational policies and practices, requirements of the condition of work, health and safety, and enterprise outcomes. Conclusions: Practitioners and researchers should be aware of the business justification for standing in the workplace and the firmly held beliefs about customer service and performance implications. Future work must determine if adverse health and well-being outcomes from workplace standing negate the perceived benefits of standing.