Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Standing desks and motivation

Standing desks and motivation:
How does standing versus sitting affect task motivation and productivity?

Overview

Figure 1. Standing desk illustration Scenario Imagine you are a manager observing two employees, both employees work similar data entry tasks: Employee 1 works at a traditional sitting desk Employee 2 uses a standing desk Employee 2 consistently seems more motivated and productive when completing their tasks. You see the effect a standing desk can have on the workplace, this challenges your ideas on employee task orientated motivation and productivity. You are able to justify the investment into standing desks for your section and create a positive workplace culture in utilising standing desks, your employees now seem more productive and motivated to work.

This chapter focuses on the differences between standing versus sitting and the effect standing desks have on task motivation and productivity. Standing desks increase task engagement in reading comprehension and creativity tasks (Finch et al., 2017). A quasi-experimental study conducted by Chau et al. (2016), found a call centre using sit-stand desk had no significant changes in productivity between an intervention group (n = 16) and a comparison group (n = 15) (Chau et al., 2016, p. 68). The implication is that employee's are able to use a standing desk without decrease in productivity. Furthermore, it has been reported employee's perceive an increase in productivity and task motivation while utilising a standing desk (Wilkerson et al., 2024).

Previous literature into standing desks have focused on the potential health benefits in combating sedentary lifestyles (Haliburton et al., 2023; Resendiz et al., 2019; Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017). Sedentary lifestyles have been associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes (Haliburton et al., 2023). However, current research indicates long-term health benefits have not been associated with standing desks (Resendiz et al., 2019).

Focus questions What is the origin for motivation and why is it relevant for standing desks? What are the key theories associated with standing? How is productivity manipulated through standing? How does the use of a standing desk, compared to a sitting desk, influence an individual's task motivation? What are the perceived barriers or drawbacks to using a standing desk, and how do these factors influence an individual's motivation to use one consistently?

Finding the motivation to stand

Figure 2. Carrot and stick illustrating motivational factors

Office environments are pivotal for fostering organisational success including task motivation and productivity (Turner & Myerson, 1998, p. 1). Optimising these office environments become pivotal for managers to maximise organisational capability and production. The carrot and stick metaphor, is a classic way of visualising rewards for desired behaviour (carrot) and a punishment for non-desirable behaviour (stick), see Figure 2. Skinner's (1963) operant conditioning most famously demonstrates this concept through an experiment on rats.

Utilising an operant conditioning chamber, Skinner (1963) was able to suggest positive reinforcement (carrot) can influence desired behaviours by providing rewards. Conversely, he was also able to provide evidence for negative reinforcement (stick) by providing punishment for undesired behaviours. It is difficult to generalise Skinner's (1963) findings due to the testing being on rats (McLeod, 2025 & Hills, 2021, p. 357). Hills (2021, p. 356-357) described the major difference between rats and humans as the reward or punishment is required to be nuanced to the situation, this will then enable rewards and punishments to be a motivator.

Carrot and sticks in practice

To move beyond carrot and sticks, Schumann et al. (2025) conducted a qualitative study utilising Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to determine the motivational factors in health practitioners. The study focused on the role of intrinsic motivation which contrasts the carrot and sticks metaphor which is based on extrinsic motivation (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7-8). The results were conclusive enough to outline that intrinsic motivation was the primary driver for health practitioner's willingness to voluntarily enrol into professional development programs (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 9). This demonstrates that the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for employees can play a major role in affecting task motivation and productivity (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7).

Figure 3. Image of B.F. Skinner.

Standing with carrot and sticks

Standing desks provide a unique opportunity as managers are able to apply both intrinsic and extrinsic (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7-8; Hills, 2021, p. 356-357) motivation to increase task motivation and productivity (Tobin et al., 2016, p. 365; Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 261). To assess the baseline of current standing desk usage, a cross-sectional sample of participants (n = 680) in a primary desk-based occupation was conducted. The results found that only 16% (n = 108) of participants reported they had standing desk capability at their workplace (Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017, p. 4). Furthermore, only a half of participants (n = 54) regularly used their standing desk (Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017, p. 4). With evidence to suggest desk-based employees lack access to standing desks and the uptake of standing desks is limited for employees who possess the capability (Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017, p. 4). This highlights the knowledge gap of the benefits standing desks can provide and outlines the complexity of motivating the uptake in application (Finch et al., 2017; Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7).

Quiz What is a primary psychological benefit often associated with using a standing desk compared to sitting for long periods? Increased energy expenditure Increased alertness and engagement A greater feeling of physical relaxation Reduced stress

The theory of standing vs sitting

The benefits of using a standing desk has widespread theoretical underpinning, the benefits of understanding the background will prove beneficial for both managers and employees to increase task motivation and productivity.

Table 1. provides a high level overview of the theory name, key theorists and its affect on task motivation and productivity.

Goal setting theory

Figure 4. Goal setting difficulty and performance relationship.

Goal setting theory was founded from the idea that conscious goals affect actions (Ryan, 1970; Locke & Latham, 2002). Locke & Latham (2002, p. 706) through a meta-analysis provided evidence of a positive linear relationship that difficult goals provided greater effort and task productivity (see Figure 4). This was then transferred into an organisational setting which found consistency that difficult goals provided increased task motivation and productivity (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 706). Interestingly when try your best goals were introduced, the affect size reduced and thus task motivation and productivity (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 706). Furthermore, Dupont et al. (2024) conducted a mixed-method study which utilised active workstations (standing and cycling) to combat sedentary behaviours. The participants (n = 15) preferred the standing desk but most significantly 47% increased their active time to over two hours a day. This demonstrates if managers promote an active workplace through goal setting will see a greater increase in participation (Gorman et al., 2013) .

Self-regulation theory

Presented by Bandura (1991), self-regulation theory provides a theoretical framework to explain how people can manage their own behaviour, motivation and goals. With employees routinely self-reporting an increase in productivity after standing (Tobin et al., 2016, p. 365; Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 261), employees who can self-regulate a cycle between sitting and standing will lead to increased productivity overtime (Ren et al., 2024). This is because self-regulation is a finite resource and once depleted, the employee will become less resistant to the body's automatic functions, i.e. sitting (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Ren et al., 2024, p. 1).

Figure 5. Arousal graph depicting the bell curve with arousal levels.

Arousal Theory

The Arousal Theory of motivation promotes the idea individuals seek to maintain or increase their arousal level which can improve productivity and task motivation (Nickerson, 2023). Arousal theory can be pictured as a bell curve (see Figure 5) as low arousal is associated with boredom, high arousal associated with anxiety and medium arousal is theorised to be the optimum level (Nickerson, 2023). Extended periods of sedentary behaviour is likely to decrease task motivation and productivity (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2). Utilising a standing desk, the sedentary behaviour would be broken which moves an employee from low arousal back to the optimum level of arousal, thus enabling an increase in task motivation and productivity (Steenbergen et al., 2024).

Table 1.

Key Theories with brief explanation on its affect on task motivation and productivity.

Key theory	Theorist	Affect on task motivation and productivity
Goal setting	Edwin A. Locke and Gary Latham (2002)	Employees who set a difficult goal will increase task motivation and productivity (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 706). Managers who foster an environment where employees set goals to utilise their standing desks will in-turn also increase task motivation and productivity (Gorman et al., 2013).
Behaviorism	B.F. Skinner (1963)	Operant conditioning through both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement can increase task motivation and productivity if the reward or punishment is great enough (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7-8; Hills, 2021, p. 356-357).
Self-regulation	Albert Bandura (1991)	Employees who are able to self-regulate a cycle between sitting and standing will lead to increased productivity overtime (Ren et al., 2024).
Attachment	John Bowlby (1978)	Attachment styles are a reliable indicator for workplace behaviours, enabling managers the opportunity to tailor their managerial style to influence employees task motivation and productivity (Ren et al., 2024, p. 1).
Arousal	Henry Murray (1938), John Atkinson (1957), Robert Zajonc (1965)	Employees can effectively use standing to increase their arousal level which will positively affect the employee's task motivation and productivity (Steenbergen et al., 2024).
Self-determination	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000)	When motivation becomes more-determined, it will increase task motivation and increase behaviours such as standing (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2). Managers can focus on internal drivers to increase uptake on standing desks which will produce greater task motivation and productivity (Finch et al., 2017; Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7).

Motivating to reduce sedentary behaviours

Most traditional office environments make employees sedentary for the majority of the working day (Burns, et al., 2017, p. 1078). The physical effects of long periods of sitting have been well studied, having links to poor mental health, type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular diseases (Tobin et al., 2016, p. 359).

Figure 6. A woman using a sit-stand desk in its standing configuration.

Theory interplay

Psychologically, being sedentary can increase the likelihood of becoming amotivated which decreases task motivation and productivity (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2). Intrinsic motivation theories such as behaviorism (Schumann et al., 2025, p. 7), self-regulation (Tobin et al., 2016, p. 365) and SDT (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2) reduce the risk of amotivation due to standing being able to increase arousal to optimum level which in turn increases task motivation and productivity (Nickerson, 2023).

Ren et al. (2024) looked to integrate theoretical frameworks of attachment theory and self-regulation theory into the workplace. Noting Bowlby's (1978) attachment theory proves to be a reliable indicator for predicting workplace behaviours (Ren et al., 2024, p. 1). Combing Bowlby (1978) and Bandura's (1991) theories enables a unique and dynamic interplay that incorporates the finite resource of self-regulation with the attachment driven behaviours (Ren et al., 2024, p. 2). Ren et al. (2024, p. 5-6 & 8) proposes that work related traits can activate due to self-regulation and goal-setting theories. The attachment styles secure, avoidant and anxious when appropriately supervised by managers will increase the likelihood of employees utilising standing desks to improve task motivation and productivity (Ren et al., 2024) . Ren et al. (2024, p. 9) significantly contributed to furthering the literature by providing a theoretical framework for workplace attachment styles and underpin the framework with dynamic theoretic interplay.

Quiz What is a primary psychological benefit often associated with using a standing desk compared to sitting for long periods? Enhanced ability for deep, prolonged concentration Increased alertness and engagement A greater feeling of physical relaxation Reduced stress

Psychological states of standing, sitting and productivity

Figure 7. Cartoon man sitting on chair at a desk while lifting his right thumb to gesture an approval sign.

Noting employees are able to use standing desks without a reduction in productivity (Chau et al., 2016, p. 70-71). Wilkerson et al. (2024) convenience sampled of employees (n = 20) and applied an 8-week intervention program for standing desks to be utilised, a single focus group session was then recorded to determine the motivational factors in using standing desks. With a limited sample size, the preconceived benefits from the participants described perceived health benefits and if they had prior experience using a standing desk (Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 261). Interestingly, the participants reported perceived increase in productivity and task-based motivation (Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 261). Similar to Schumann et al. (2025), the results are based in qualitative data analysis which has a risk of subjective interpretations by researchers (Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 262).

Interventions can increase the chances of achieving goals and increase task motivation and productivity (Greenwood-Hickman et al., 2024; Laranjo, 2016). Standing is an affective intervention that can decrease sedentary behaviour and can assist in achieving goals (Greenwood-Hickman et al., 2024; Laranjo, 2016). In a pilot study conducted by Gilson et al. (2017), participants (n = 20) completed their work across different states including sitting, standing and walking. Attention for tasks was found to have increased the most when transitioning from sitting to standing, no significant differences was observed in the other states (Gilson et al., 2017, p. 793). With the increased in motivation and task productivity that come with challenging goals, standing provides an affective intervention that can further promote improved tasked motivation and productivity (Laranjo, 2016; Greenwood-Hickman et al., 2024).

Barriers for the standing desk

Figure 8. the Manager's mffice by charliesmudkips

With the theoretical underpinning (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2; Ren et al., 2024, p. 5-6 & 8) and evidence to suggest standing desks provide tangible increases in task productivity and productivity (Chau et al., 2016, p. 70-71), standing desks still face an uphill battle prior to being implemented in all office environments. Psychosocial barriers were identified such which includes fear of losing productivity and disturbing colleagues’ privacy (Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017, p. 7). Furthermore, Blom et al. (2021, p. 4) reported employee's perceived barriers in reducing sedentary behaviour 67% reported "sitting is a habit", 29% "standing is uncomfortable" and finally 24% identified "standing is tiring". Employees also believed standing desks to be costly which meant they were not willing to request investment into one (Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 259). All of these factors are likely to decrease task motivation and productivity due to the risk of amotivation setting in through sedentary behaviour (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2).

Historically, employees who utilise standing desks have an intrinsic motivator over concerns about health (Wilkerson et al., 2024). Subjects in Wilkerson et al. (2024) qualitative study reported a high number of perceived benefits from utilising a sit-stand desk. This includes being motivated to complete tasks faster because they could "reward themselves with a sitting break" (Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 260). Perceived productivity was also seen in Dupont et al. (2019, p. 291) mixed-method study which saw employees keyboard and mouse tasks increase in speed and accuracy. There's an increased demand on managers to foster an environment that can recognise the value a standing desk can play and tailor their managerial style to different attachment styles (Ren et al., 2024, p. 9-10 & 11). With the evidence to suggest standing desks can positively affect task motivation and productivity (Wilkerson et al., 2024), it is recommended low-cost mobile standing desks are implemented in office environments which have demonstrated value for money (Wilkerson et al., 2024, 264).

Quiz 2 Which of the following is not typically considered a barrier to using a standing desk in the workplace? The high cost of a standing desk The desire to increase motivation A manager's personal preference for traditional desks The lack of available space in a crowded office

Conclusion

The impact of standing desks on task motivation and productivity is evident, being able to manipulate motivation by the intervention of standing can counter the detrimental effects of sedentary behavior and increase productivity (Blom et al., 2021, p. 2; Nickerson, 2023; Wilkerson et al., 2024, p. 261). The interplay between motivational theories highlighted the psychological affects standing has on task motivation and productivity. In particular, arousal theory where standing effectively shifts the employee from the low arousal state (amotivation) back to an optimal level of alertness and engagement (Nickerson, 2023). This increased task motivation and productivity fosters self-regulation (Bandura, 1991), encouraging employees to actively manage this affect (Tobin et al., 2016, p. 365).

The current literature indicates productivity data remains nuanced, particularly for repetitive tasks (Chau et al., 2016, p. 68), the significant increase in perceived productivity and task motivation reported by users underscores the qualitative benefits. This is highlighted in attention for tasks increased during transitions from sitting to standing (Gilson et al., 2017, p. 793). Ultimately, the widespread adoption of standing desks hinges on managers addressing the core barriers which is the habit and discomfort of standing and psychosocial workplace fears. It is evident to empower managers to learn about their employees attachment styles and align their managerial style to suit their motivational goals (Blom et al., 2021). The standing desk which has been seen as a physical health tool (Haliburton et al., 2023; Resendiz et al., 2019; Wallmann-Sperlich et al., 2017), can play a large role in positively affecting workplace culture and increasing employee task motivation and behaviour (Wilkerson et al., 2024). Evidence has demonstrated the development of training courses suited for managers in attachment styles and goal setting could prove beneficial (Ren et al., 2024). To guide future research, longitudinal studies are required to assess how motivation is manipulated overtime by standing desks and more participants to provide further strength to qualitative data.

Check your knowledge: Provide responses from within the chapter to the below: How does an extended period of sitting affect an employee's psychological state? The chapter contrasts two types of motivation. What are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, and which one did the Schumann et al. (2025) study find was the primary driver for health practitioners' voluntary enrolment in professional development programs? Explain the concept of self-regulation theory in the context of standing desks. How do the qualitative findings from Wilkerson et al. (2024) regarding standing desks differ from the objective findings of the quasi-experimental study conducted by Chau et al. (2016)?

See also

• Goal-setting process (Wikiversity)
• Sedentary behaviour change (Book chapter, 2020)
• Self determination theory (Wikipedia)
• Self-regulated learning (Book chapter, 2018)
• Psychosocial (Wikipedia)

References

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6, Pt.1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-Regulation, Ego Depletion, and Motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.x

Blom, V., Drake, E., Kallings, L. V., Ekblom, M. M., & Nooijen, C. F. J. (2021). The effects on self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers of an intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviours in office workers: a cluster randomized control trial. BMC public Health, 21(1), Article 1048. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11083-2

Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, 6, 5–33.

Burns, J., Forde, C., & Dockrell, S. (2017). Energy Expenditure of Standing Compared to Sitting While Conducting Office Tasks. Human Factors, 59(7), 1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817719167

Chau, J. Y., Sukala, W., Fedel, K., Do, A., Engelen, L., Kingham, M., Sainsbury, A., & Bauman, A. E. (2016). More standing and just as productive: Effects of a sit-stand desk intervention on call center workers’ sitting, standing, and productivity at work in the Opt to Stand pilot study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 3, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.12.003

Dupont, F., Léger, P.-M., Begon, M., Lecot, F., Sénécal, S., Labonté-Lemoyne, E., & Mathieu, M.-E. (2019). Health and productivity at work: which active workstation for which benefits: a systematic review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 76(5), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105397

Dupont, F., Arabi Kugathasan, T., Reid, R. E. R., & Mathieu, M.-E. (2024). Active time at work following the introduction of a standing and a cycling workstation into worker’s office space. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 30(1), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2023.2284012

Finch, L., Tomiyama, A., & Ward, A. (2017). Taking a Stand: The Effects of Standing Desks on Task Performance and Engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080939

Gilson, N. D., Hall, C., Renton, A., Ng, N., & von Hippel, W. (2017). Do Sitting, Standing, or Treadmill Desks Impact Psychobiological Indicators of Work Productivity? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 14(10), 793–796. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2016-0712

Greenwood-Hickman, M. A., Arterburn, D., Cooper, J., Green, B., Holden, E., McClure, J., & Rosenberg, D. (2024). Understanding goal setting and bahavior change mechanics in older adult sitting reduction. Innovation in Aging, 8(Supplement_1), 1368–1368. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.4361

Gorman, E., Ashe, M. C., Dunstan, D. W., Hanson, H. M., Madden, K., Winkler, E. A. H., McKay, H. A., & Healy, G. N. (2013). Does an “Activity-Permissive” Workplace Change Office Workers’ Sitting and Activity Time?. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076723

Haliburton, L., Kheirinejad, S., Schmidt, A., & Mayer, S. (2023). Exploring Smart Standing Desks to Foster a Healthier Workplace. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 7(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3596260

Henk van Steenbergen, Wilderjans, T. F., Guido, & Nieuwenhuis, S. T. (2024). Boosting arousal and cognitive performance through alternating posture: Insights from a multi‐method laboratory study. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14634

Hills, L. (2021). Motivating Employees Without Carrots and Sticks. The Journal of Medical Practice Management, 37(1), 356–361.

Laranjo, L. (2016). Goal Setting Theory - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Www.sciencedirect.com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/goal-setting-theory

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: a 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

McLeod, S. (2025, March 17). Operant conditioning: What it is, how it works, and examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: a clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford University. Press.

Nickerson, C. (2023, September). Arousal Theory of Motivation: Definition, Examples, and Impact. Www.simplypsychology.org. https://www.simplypsychology.org/arousal-theory-of-motivation.html

Ren, Q., Topakas, A., & Patterson, M. (2024). Attachment and self-regulation in the workplace—a theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387548

Resendiz, M., Lustik, M. B., Conkright, W. R., & West, G. F. (2019). Standing desks for sedentary occupations: Assessing changes in satisfaction and health outcomes after six months of use. Work, 63(3), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-192940

Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional Behavior: An Approach to Human Motivation. New York: Ronald, 1970, 575 pp., L.C. 79-110391. American Behavioral Scientist, 14(1), 150–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764270014001111

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Schumann, M., Lehmann, M., & Peters, H. (2025). Beyond carrots and sticks. Exploring faculty motivation to join a digital health professions educator program. Frontiers in Medicine, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1554011

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant Behaviour. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045185

Tobin, R., Leavy, J., & Jancey, J. (2016). Uprising: An examination of sit-stand workstations, mental health and work ability in sedentary office workers, in Western Australia. Work, 55(2), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162410

Turner, G., & Myerson, J. (1998). New workspace, new culture : office design as a catalyst for change. Gower.

Wallmann-Sperlich, B., Bipp, T., Bucksch, J., & Froboese, I. (2017). Who uses height-adjustable desks? - Sociodemographic, health-related, and psycho-social variables of regular users. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0480-4

Wilkerson, A. H., McFadden, N. T., Elliott, C. R., & Nuha Abutalib. (2024). Exploring Employees’ Motivation and Perceived Benefits of Using a Mobile Standing Desk in the Flexible Work Environment: A Qualitative Study. American Journal of Health Education, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2023.2297285

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation: A solution is suggested for an old unresolved social psychological problem. Science, 149 (3681), 269-274

External links

• Do standing desks increase productivity? (updowndesk.com.au)
• Goal setting theory (sciencedirect.com)
• Attachment theory (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)