↓ Skip to main content

“Could you sit down please?” A qualitative analysis of employees’ experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
51 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“Could you sit down please?” A qualitative analysis of employees’ experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198483
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Mansfield, Jennifer Hall, Lee Smith, Molly Rasch, Emily Reeves, Stephen Dewitt, Benjamin Gardner

Abstract

Office workers spend most of their working day sitting, and prolonged sitting has been associated with increased risk of poor health. Standing in meetings has been proposed as a strategy by which to reduce workplace sitting but little is known about the standing experience. This study documented workers' experiences of standing in normally seated meetings. Twenty-five participants (18+ years), recruited from three UK universities, volunteered to stand in 3 separate, seated meetings that they were already scheduled to attend. They were instructed to stand when and for however long they deemed appropriate, and gave semi-structured interviews after each meeting. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. Four themes, central to the experience of standing in meetings, were extracted: physical challenges to standing; implications of standing for meeting engagement; standing as norm violation; and standing as appropriation of power. Participants typically experienced some physical discomfort from prolonged standing, apparently due to choosing to stand for as long as possible, and noted practical difficulties of fully engaging in meetings while standing. Many participants experienced marked psychological discomfort due to concern at being seen to be violating a strong perceived sitting norm. While standing when leading the meeting was felt to confer a sense of power and control, when not leading the meeting participants felt uncomfortable at being misperceived to be challenging the authority of other attendees. These findings reveal important barriers to standing in normally-seated meetings, and suggest strategies for acclimatising to standing during meetings. Physical discomfort might be offset by building standing time slowly and incorporating more sit-stand transitions. Psychological discomfort may be lessened by notifying other attendees about intentions to stand. Organisational buy-in to promotional strategies for standing may be required to dispel perceptions of sitting norms, and to progress a wider workplace health and wellbeing agenda.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Sports and Recreations 7 8%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 34 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2023.
All research outputs
#372,360
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,296
of 220,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,197
of 342,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#100
of 3,270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.