Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T01:39:41.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The spatial context of organizations: A critique of ‘creative workspaces’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2017

Donatella De Paoli ,
Erika Sauer  and
Arja Ropo
Donatella De Paoli*
Affiliation:
Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Erika Sauer
Affiliation:
Amcham Finland Inc., New York City, NY, USA
Arja Ropo
Affiliation:
Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Donatella.d.paoli@bi.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines office design as a spatial context of organizations. Organizations increasingly invest in designing workspaces to support employee creativity, foster company innovation and communicate a positive company image. This paper takes a critical view of this ‘hype’ by describing and analysing images of the headquarters of allegedly ‘creative workspaces’ published on the internet across a broad range of industries and corporations. Our analysis shows how their design follows standardized or stereotypical approaches to nurturing creativity: playfully or artistically designed open spaces, environments reminiscent of home, sports and play, nature, past/future technologies, or culturally aligned symbols. We discern underlying connections between office spaces and creativity, suggesting that creativity flourishes in happy, relaxed and playful communities within close-knit teams. We then identify three contradictions in relation to the existing literature on creativity and workspaces: individually versus collectively produced creativity; professionally designed workspaces versus workspaces created through participation; and planned versus emerging creativity.

Keywords

creativityworkspacecreative spaceoffice designcritique

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 331 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allen, T. J., & Henn, G. W. (2007). The organization and architecture of innovation: Managing the flow of technology . London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential theory of creativity (Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 12-096), Oslo. Retrieved April 12, 2016 from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-096.pdf.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.Google Scholar
Appel-Meulenbroek, R. (2013). Managing intellectual capital through a proper building configuration. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I. (2011). An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), 122–135.Google Scholar
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 25(26), 1573–1601.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar
Bisadi, M., Mozaffar, F., & Hosseini, S. B. (2012). Future research centers: The place of creativity and innovation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 232–243.Google Scholar
Bilton, C. (2007). Management and creativity. From creative industries to creative management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Carlile, P., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts and materiality in organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlsen, A., Clegg, S., & Gjersvik, R. (Eds.). (2012). Idea work. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (Eds.). (2006). Space, organizations and management theory. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. In C. M. Ford, & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices (pp. 67–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12(5), 649–678.Google Scholar
Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). Spaces of organization and the organization of space. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2010). ‘All together, altogether better’: The ideal of ‘community’ in the spatial reorganization of the workplace. In A. van Marrewijk, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 19–40). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2015). Leadership and space in 3D: Distance, dissent and disembodiment in the case of a new academic building. In A. Ropo, P. Salovaara, E. Sauer, & D., De Paoli (Eds.), Leadership in spaces and places (pp. 217–241). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 193–237). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
De Paoli, D., Røyseng, S., & Wennes, G. (2017). Embodied leadership in a digital age – What can we learn from theatres? Organizational Aesthetics, 6(1), 99–115.Google Scholar
Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2013). The psychology of digital media at work. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12–20.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 81–224.Google Scholar
Emmitt, S., & Ruikar, K. (2013). Collaborative design management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it is transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, P. (Ed.). (1990). Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape. New York, NY: Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haner, U. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 288–298.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2004). Creative industries. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hennessay, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (2016). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.Google Scholar
Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kallio, T., Kallio, K., & Blomberg, A. J. (2015). Physical space, culture and organisational creativity: A longitudinal study. Facilities, 33(5/6), 389–411.Google Scholar
Kampschroer, K., & Heerwagen, J. (2005). The strategic workplace: Development and evaluation. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 326–337.Google Scholar
Kreiner, K. (2010). Afterword. Organizational spaces: From ‘matters of fact’ to ‘matters of concern’. In A. van Marrewijk, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 200–211). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89–96.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83.Google Scholar
Lindahl, G. (2004). The innovative workplace. Facilities, 22(9/10), 253–258.Google Scholar
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and problematizing in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1023–1062.Google Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. (2008). Making doubt: Generating rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.Google Scholar
Lundström, A., Savolainen, J., & Kostiainen, E. (2016). Case study: Developing campus spaces through co-creation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6), 409–426.Google Scholar
Maarleveld, M., Volker, L., & van der Voordt, T. J. M. (2009). Measuring employee satisfaction in new offices: The WODI toolkit. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(3), 181–197.Google Scholar
Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 315–325.Google Scholar
Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic support for creativity. Facilities, 29(1/2), 63–79.Google Scholar
McCoy, J. M. (2005). Linking the physical work environment to creative context. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 39(3), 169–191.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of organizational creativity. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–120.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.Google Scholar
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity. Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.Google Scholar
Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Space, place, and atmosphere: Peripheral perception in existential experience. In C. Borch (Ed.), Architectural atmospheres: On the experience and politics of architecture (pp. 18–41). Basel, Germany: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Panayiotou, A., & Kafiris, K. (2010). Firms in film: Representations of organizational space, gender and power. In A. van Marrewijk, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 174–199). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 91–112.Google Scholar
Ropo, A., Salovaara, P., Sauer, E., & De Paoli, D. (Eds.). (2015). Leadership in spaces and places. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ropo, A., Sauer, E., & Salovaara, P. (2013). Embodiment of leadership through material place. Leadership, 9(3), 378–395.Google Scholar
Sailer, K. (2011). Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities, 29(1/2), 6–18.Google Scholar
Salovaara, P. (2014). Video leadership in spaces and places. Organizational Aesthetics, 3(1), 79.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics of creativity. Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.Google Scholar
Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 17, 568–581.Google Scholar
Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
Styhre, A., & Sundgren, M. (2005). Managing creativity in organizations: Critique and practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
van Marrewijk, A. (2011). Aesthetic experiences of designed organisational space. Journal of Work Organization and Emotion, 4(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
van Marrewijk, A., & Yanow, D. (Eds.). (2010). Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Viljoen, M. (2010). Embodiment and the experience of built space: The contributions of Merleau-Ponty and Don Ihde. South African Journal of Philosophy, 29(3), 306–329.Google Scholar
Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Schneider-Yaacov, C. (2005). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of office design. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 533–551.Google Scholar
Vischer, J. C., & Zeisel, J. (2008). Process management: Bridging the gap between research and design. Design & Health Scientific Review: Evidence-Based Design. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779577351816/EBD%20Vischer%20Zeisel%20in%20WHD-08.pdf Google Scholar
Vithayathawornwong, S., Danko, S., & Tolbert, P. (2003). The role of the physical environment in supporting organizational creativity. Journal of Interior Design, 29(1/2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Warren, S. (2002). ‘Show me how it feels to work here’: Using photography to research organizational aesthetics. Ephemera, 2(3), 224–245.Google Scholar
Williams, A. (2009). Creativity syntax: An emerging concept for creativity in the workspace. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(5), 193–202.Google Scholar
Yanow, D. (2010). Giving voice to space: Academic practices and the material world. In A. van Marrewijk, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world (pp. 139–158). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

De Paoli et al supplementary material

De Paoli et al supplementary material 1

Download De Paoli et al supplementary material(File)
File 23.9 KB