This small change at work significantly improves productivity

Employees with sit-stand desks logged about 43 more minutes of active computer time each day than colleagues with fixed desks, according to an analysis of records from a California company. The gap appeared early and persisted over a year. What it means for the amount of work people got done is harder to tell.

Tricia Salzar and Mark Benden of Texas A&M University analyzed employee surveys and computer records. Their study in Theoretical and Applied Ergonomics compared 3,404 workers who reported using adjustable workstations with 6,741 who reported using traditional desks. It adds a large workplace dataset to research on how desk design relates to workers’ daily habits.

The adjustable-desk group averaged 3.66 hours of active computer use a day, compared with 2.95 hours for the fixed-desk group. Because the researchers looked back at existing records, they could identify a difference between the groups. They could not determine how much of it came from the desk.

The study raises a question familiar from research on remote work. When the setting changes, how can employers distinguish a change in work habits from a change in performance? Computer logs give one answer about activity, while the value of that activity depends on the job.

The records came from a corporate wellness program. Researchers used employees who first completed the survey between 2012 and 2014 and had a full year of usable data. Employees who changed workstation type during the study period were excluded. The analysis therefore compared groups who kept their desk type over the observation period.

The wellness program paired the activity logs with a survey about desk setup and discomfort. The survey provided information a keyboard logger could never capture, such as whether an employee felt sore at work. The logs, in turn, gave the researchers a way to compare recorded computer use with the desk type each employee reported.

The software recorded activity when workers used a mouse or keyboard. If 30 seconds passed without an input, the clock stopped counting active time. The logs also tracked measures such as keystrokes and words typed. That definition captures a specific kind of computer use, with direct measurements of what people did at their devices.

It misses many other parts of office work. An employee can read a document, review a design, think through a problem or talk to a colleague without generating keyboard or mouse activity. A long stretch of typing could produce valuable work or a draft that later needs revision. Studies of employee productivity can reach different conclusions depending on which outcomes they count.

The gap was already about 40 minutes a day during the first month. The yearlong averages put it at about 43 minutes. Adjustable-desk users also logged more words and keystrokes. The records show a difference across several measures of interaction with a computer, though none evaluates the quality of what an employee produced.

The researchers extended the daily difference across a standard work year and estimated about 171.5 additional hours of activity. At an hourly pay rate of $52.04, those hours carry an estimated wage value of about $8,925. The calculation assumes the extra time has value at that rate. It does not show that the company’s revenue rose or that its costs fell.

The estimate would also change with the wage used and the number of workdays assumed. Even at the same wage, a company that pays a fixed salary would need to show how a change in activity affected what it delivered. The analysis did not track that step.

A purchasing decision would require more information, including installation and maintenance costs and whether workers with new desks perform differently on measures that matter to their jobs. In one setting, that might be cases resolved. In another, it might be the accuracy of a review. The distinction also comes up when evaluating workplace changes or comparing office setups.

A height-adjustable desk gives workers a way to change position while staying at the same workstation. The company records identified who reported using one, but they did not show how many times employees raised it or how long they stood.

A person who rarely adjusted the desk would be grouped with someone who alternated often. That matters because research on time spent standing asks a different question from research on access to an adjustable surface.

The two desk groups reported similar discomfort overall. At one month, a slightly larger share of fixed-desk workers reported no discomfort, and that difference narrowed over the year. The authors judged the practical differences small. Other research on workstation types has measured posture and movement directly, which can help researchers connect what people do at a desk with what they report about it.

Separate randomized studies have examined whether programs that provide adjustable desks can reduce time spent sitting. That evidence can help answer a question the company records leave open. Whether less sitting changes the quality or quantity of an employee’s work requires its own measures.

The analysis also lacked detailed job and demographic information linked to individual records. Job duties could explain some of the gap. Someone who handles calls or writes reports may interact with a computer more than someone who spends much of the day in meetings. Researchers also could not establish why a worker chose or received a particular desk.

One approach would be to assign adjustable desks by chance among workers with comparable duties and measure what changes from their starting levels. Tracking time spent in each position would help distinguish access from actual use. A test could also ask whether any changes in activity persist after employees get used to the new setup.

A follow-up could also collect daily records. The original analysis relied on averages, making it hard to see whether busy periods, absences or changing assignments accounted for part of the gap. Daily information could help separate changes in desk use from those shifts.

The outcomes could include completed tasks, errors that matter to the job and employee comfort. That combination would make it easier to judge whether an increase in computer activity accompanied an improvement in work. It would also pick up changes the original logs could miss, including time spent on work outside the office or shifts in employee well-being.

The size of the dataset makes the activity gap worth investigating. A trial designed around the desk change could show whether the same employees work differently when given a choice of posture, and whether that change shows up in the work they complete.

Device-measured stationary behaviour and cardiovascular and orthostatic circulatory disease incidence
This observational study uses activity monitors to examine the relationship between sitting, standing and circulatory outcomes. (International Journal of Epidemiology, October 2024)

Does the type of workstation you use make a difference in your health and productivity?
Texas A&M describes an earlier comparison of workstation types that included direct movement measurements. (Texas A&M University, July 2024)

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time in office workers
A randomized trial tests a program to reduce sitting, with and without a height-adjustable desk. (The BMJ, August 2022)

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work
This review evaluates the evidence for sit-stand desks and other ways to change workplace sitting time. (Cochrane, December 2018)

Effectiveness of the Stand More AT Work intervention
A randomized workplace trial tests a program that combined adjustable workstations with feedback and support. (The BMJ, October 2018)

Research findings are available online in the journal Theoretical and Applied Ergonomics.

The original story "This small change at work significantly improves productivity" is published in The Brighter Side of News.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.