Clicca qui per scaricare

An aesthetic account of space: A report on recent developments in organizational research
Titolo Rivista: STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI  
Autori/Curatori: Federica De Molli 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2019 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  26 P. 38-63 Dimensione file:  585 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SO2019-001002
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


Workspace affects organizational life and processes. The recent and growing academic interest in the topic shows its potential as a field of study. In particular, scholars have recognised the key role played by the aesthetic dimension of workspace in shaping organizational life; this has generated an extensive and diversified academic debate, which, however, remains highly fragmented, making the development of cumulative knowledge quite difficult. This article provides definitional clarity on the aesthetic debate on organizational space and an understanding of the current developments in the field, with the aim both of facilitating the development of cumulative knowledge, and of proposing an agenda for future research. I review the existing literature that analyses organisational space with an aesthetic lens and identify the main themes of research around which the debate has been developed, presenting the recent advances in these fields of research: (a) control, (b) workspace aestheticization, and (c) culture. With this work, I develop a comprehensive research framework and suggest possible directions for future research development.

L’articolo ha l’obiettivo di illustrare le caratteristiche della ricerca estetica sullo spazio organizzativo e i suoi sviluppi recenti, al fine di fornire agli studiosi un quadro completo sul dibattito in corso, dal quale partire per future ricerche e sviluppi. Negli ultimi decenni infatti, si è assistito ad un crescente interesse nello studio dello spazio organizzativo, visto come fattore in grado di influenzare l’agire organizzativo. Studi recenti inoltre, hanno sottolineato come non solo la dimensione fisica, ma anche quella estetica dello spazio abbia una grande influenza sulla vita organizzativa. Questa nuova consapevolezza ha generato un intenso e diversificato dibattito, che tuttavia rimane ad oggi molto frammentato, rendendo quindi difficile lo sviluppo di una conoscenza cumulativa. Questo articolo, dopo aver illustrato le particolarità della ricerca estetica sullo spazio organizzativo, esamina la letteratura empirica sull’argomento. Dalla revisione della letteratura, emerge che lo studio della dimensione estetica dello spazio organizzativo si è sviluppato principalmente attorno a tre tematiche: (a) controllo organizzativo, (b) esteticizzazione del luogo di lavoro e (c) cultura organizzativa. Viene quindi sintetizzato il dibattito in questi tre ambiti di ricerca e vengono ipotizzati possibili futuri sviluppi. Il quadro completo che emerge da questo lavoro vuole essere un utile strumento che gli studiosi interessati alla dimensione estetico-spaziale delle organizzazioni potranno usare sia per orientarsi nel dibattito, che come punto di partenza per future riflessioni e ricerche.
Keywords: Spazio organizzativo, estetica organizzativa, revisione della letteratura, esteticizzazione dello spazio, controllo, cultura.

  1. Alexandersson, A., Kalonaityte, V. (2018), “Playing to dissent: The aesthetics and politics of playful office design”, Organization Studies, 39(2-3): 297–317.
  2. Allen, T., Gunter, H. (2007), The Organization and Architecture of Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology, Routledge.
  3. Beyes, T., Steyaert, C. (2011), “Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space”, Organization, 19(1): 45–61.
  4. Biehl-Missal, B., Saren, M. (2012), “Atmospheres of seduction: A critique of aesthetic marketing practices”, Journal of Macromarketing, 32(2): 168–180.
  5. Bille, M., Bjerregaard, P., Sørensen, T. F. (2015), “Staging atmospheres: Materiality, culture, and the texture of the in-between”, Emotion, Space and Society, 15: 1–8.
  6. Bjerregaard, P. (2015), “Dissolving objects: Museums, atmosphere and the creation of presence”, Emotion, Space and Society, 15: 74–81.
  7. Böhme, G. (1993), “Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics”. Thesis Eleven, 36(1): 113–126.
  8. Böhme, G. (2016), The Aesthetics of Atmospheres, London: Routledge.
  9. Brighenti, A. M., Kärrholm, M. (2018), “Atmospheres of retail and the asceticism of civilized consumption”, Geographica Helvetica, 73(3): 203–213.
  10. Brown, A. D., Humphreys, M. (2006), “Organizational identity and place: a discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance”, Journal of Management Studies, 43(2): 231–257.
  11. Chugh, S., Hancock, P. (2009), “Networks of aestheticization: The architecture, artefacts and embodiment of hairdressing salons”, Work, Employment and Society, 23(3): 460–476.
  12. Czarniawska, B. (2008), A theory of organizing, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  13. Dale, K. (2005), “Building a social materiality: spatial and embodied politics in organizational control”, Organization, 12(5): 649–678.
  14. 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), Edward Elgar Publishing.
  15. De Alencar, Eunice, S., & De Bruno-Faria, M. F. (1997). “Characteristics of an organizational environment which stimulate and inhibit creativity”. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31: 271–281.
  16. De Vaujany, F.-X., Dandoy, A., Grandazzi, A., Faure, S. (2018), “Experiencing a New Place as an Atmosphere: A Focus on Tours of Collaborative Spaces”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, (October).
  17. Dovey, K. (1999), Framing Places. Mediating power in built form, London: Routledge.
  18. Dul, J., Ceylan, C. (2014), “The Impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6): 1254–1267.
  19. Dul, J., Ceylan, C., Jaspers, F. (2011), “Knowledge worker creativity and the role of the physical work environment”, Human Resource Management, 50(6): 715–734.
  20. Elsbach, K. D., Pratt, M. G. (2007), “The physical environment in organizations”, The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1): 181–224.
  21. Ewenstein, B., Whyte, J. (2007), “Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in design”, Organization Studies, 28(5): 689–708.
  22. Fayard, A.-L., Weeks, J. (2011), “Who moved my cube? Creating workspaces that actually foster collaboration”, Harvard Business Review, 89(7-8): 102–110.
  23. Fleming, P., Spicer, A. (2004), ““You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave”: Spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization”, Human Relations, 57(1): 75–94.
  24. Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
  25. Gagliardi, P. (1990a), “Artifacts as pathways and remains of organizational life”. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape (pp. 33–38), Berlin: De Gruyter.
  26. Gagliardi, P. (1990b), Symbols and artifacts: views of the corporate landscape, Berlin: De Gruyter.
  27. Gagliardi, P. (1999), “Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life”. In S. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying Organization: Theory & Method (pp. 701–724). Sage.
  28. Gherardi, S., Turner, B. (1987), “Real Men Don’t Collect Soft Data”. In Quaderno 13, Dipartimento di Politica Sociale (pp. 5–40), Università di Trento.
  29. Gieryn, T. F. (2000), “A space for place in sociology”, Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1): 463–496.
  30. Gieryn, T. F. (2002), “What buildings do”. Theory and Society, 31(1): 35–74.
  31. Guillet de Monthoux, P. (1998), Esthétique du management, Paris: L’Harmattan.
  32. Hancock, P. (2003), “Aestheticizing the world of organization–creating beautiful untrue things”. In A. Carr & P. Hancock (Eds.), Art and aesthetics at work (pp. 174–194). Palgrave Macmillan.
  33. Hancock, P. (2005), “Uncovering the semiotic in organizational aesthetics”, Organization, 12(1): 29–50.
  34. Hancock, P., Spicer, A. (2010), “Academic architecture and the constitution of the new model worker”, Culture and Organization, 17(2): 91–105.
  35. Hancock, P., Tyler, M. (2000), ““The Look of Love”: Gender and the organization of aesthetics”. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday, & H. Willmot (Eds.), Body and organization (pp. 108–129). London: Sage.
  36. Hatch, M. J. (1987), “Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(3): 387–399.
  37. Hatch, M. J. (1990), “The symbolics of office design: an empirical exploration”. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 129–135). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  38. Hernes, T., Bakken, T., Olsen, P. I. (2006), “Spaces as process: developing a recursive perspective on organisational space”. In S. Clegg & M. Kornberger (Eds.), Space, Organizations and Management Theory (pp. 33–63). Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.
  39. Irving, G. (2016), Collaboration in open-plan offices, University of Queensland Business School, Sydney.
  40. Julmi, C. (2017), “The concept of atmosphere in management and organization studies”, Organizational Aesthetics, 6(1): 4–30.
  41. Kerr, R., Robinson, S. (2016), “Architecture, symbolic capital and elite mobilisations: The case of the Royal Bank of Scotland corporate campus”, Organization, 23(5): 699–721.
  42. Kersten, A., Gilardi, R. (2003), “The barren landscape: reading US corporate architecture”. In A. Carr & P. Hancock (Eds.), Art and aesthetics at work (pp. 138–154). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  43. Kim, H.-C., Chua, B.-L., Lee, S., Boo, H.-C., Han, H. (2016), “Understanding airline travelers’ perceptions of well-being: The role of cognition, emotion, and sensory experiences in airline lounges”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(9): 1213–1234.
  44. Kingma, S. F., Dale, K., Wasserman, V. (2018). Organizational space and beyond. The significance of Henri Lefebvre for organizational studies. Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society.
  45. Kornberger, M., Clegg, S. R. (2004), “Bringing space back in: organizing the generative building”, Organization Studies, 25(7): 1095–1114.
  46. Lefebvre, H. (1974), The production of space (Ed. 1991.), Oxford: Blackwell.
  47. Linstead, S., Höpfl, H. J. (2000), The aesthetics of organization, London: Sage.
  48. Martin, P. Y. (2002), “Sensations, bodies, and the “spirit of a place”: aesthetics in residential organizations for the elderly”, Human Relations, 55(7): 861–885.
  49. McCoy, J., Evans, G. (2002), “The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4): 409–426.
  50. Meinel, M., Maier, L., Wagner, T. F., Voigt, K.-I. (2017), “Designing Creativity-Enhancing Workspaces: A Critical Look at Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Technology and Innovation Management, 1(1): 1–12.
  51. Mellini, B., Giorgi, S., Talamo, A. (2014), “Soglie, scene, spazi e artefatti come strumenti di conoscenza dell’organizzazione”. Studi Organizzativi, 1: 97–125.
  52. Michels, C., Steyaert, C. (2017), “By accident and by design: Composing affective atmospheres in an urban art intervention”. Organization, 24(1): 79–104.
  53. Minahan, S. (2017), The aesthetic turn in management. London: Routledge.
  54. Minervini, D., Scotti, I. (2017), “(Ri)produrre e (ri)mediare: pratiche di gestione e lavoro in un call center”, Studi Organizzativi, 1: 9–39.
  55. Montanari, F. (2011), Territori creativi: L’organizzazione delle politiche a supporto della creatività, Milan: EGEA.
  56. Mubi Brighenti, A. (2016), “Introduzione. L’etnografia e i sensi: una riflessione preliminare”, Etnografia E Ricerca Qualitativa, 1: 5–9.
  57. Peltonen, T. (2011), “Multiple architectures and the production of organizational space in a Finnish university”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(6): 806–821.
  58. Peñaloza, L. (1998), “Just doing it: A visual ethnographic study of spectacular consumption behavior at Nike Town”, Consumption Markets & Culture, 2(4): 337–400.
  59. Pepper, G. L. (2008), “The physical organization as equivocal message”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3): 318–338.
  60. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (2016), “Withdrawing from atmosphere: An ontology of air partitioning and affective engineering”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(1): 150–167.
  61. Rafaeli, A., Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004), “Emotion as a connection of physical artifacts and organizations”, Organization Science, 15(6): 671–686.
  62. Raffnsøe, S., Mennicken, A., Miller, P. (2019), “The Foucault Effect in Organization Studies”, Organization Studies, 40(2), 155–182.
  63. Ramírez, R. (2005), “The aesthetics of cooperation”, European Management Review, 2(1): 28–35.
  64. Rippin, A. (2013), “Putting The Body Shop in its Place: A Studio-based Investigation into the New Sites and Sights of Organization as Experience”, Organization Studies, 34(10): 1551–1562.
  65. Ropo, A., Sauer, E., Salovaara, P. (2013), “Embodiment of leadership through material place”, Leadership, 9(3): 378–395.
  66. Scapolan, C., Mizzau, L., Montanari, F. (2017), “Una proposta di dialogo tra studi organizzativi e geografico-economici sul tema dell’employee retention”, Studi Organizzativi, 1, 89–109.
  67. Schmitz, H. (2016), “Atmospheric spaces”, Ambiances. Environnement Sensible, Architecture et Espace Urbain: 1–11.
  68. Sewell, G., Taskin, L. (2015), “Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control and spatiotemporal scaling in telework”, Organization Studies, 36(11): 1507–1529.
  69. Shibata, S., Suzuki, N. (2004), “Effects of an indoor plant on creative task performance and mood”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(5): 373–381.
  70. Stokols, D., Clitheroe, C., Zmuidzinas, M. (2002), “Qualities of work environments that promote perceived support for creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, 14(2): 137–147.
  71. Stone, N. J., Irvine, J. M. (1994), “Direct and indirect window access, task type, and performance”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(1): 57–63.
  72. Strati, A. (1992), “Aesthetic understanding of organizational life”, Academy of Management Review, 17(3): 568–581.
  73. Strati, A. (1998), “Organizational symbolism as a social construction: a perspective from the sociology of knowledge”, Human Relations, 51(11): 1379–1402.
  74. Strati, A. (1999), Organization and aesthetics, London: Sage.
  75. Strati, A. (2000), “Estetica, conoscenza tacita e apprendimento organizzativo”, Studi Organizzativi, 2: 157–178.
  76. Strati, A. (2008), Estetica e organizzazione, Milano: Mondadori Università.
  77. Strati, A. (2016), “Aesthetics and design: an epistemology of the unseen”. In R. Mir, H. Willmott, & M. Greenwood (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies (pp. 251 – 259). New York: Routledge.
  78. Taylor, S., Hansen, H. (2005), “Finding form: looking at the field of organizational aesthetics”, Journal of Management Studies, 42(6): 1211–1231.
  79. van Marrewijk, A. (2009), “Corporate headquarters as physical embodiments of organisational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(3): 290–306.
  80. van Marrewijk, A. (2011), “Aesthetic experiences of designed organisational space”, International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 4(1): 61–77.
  81. van Marrewijk, A., Broos, M. (2012), “Retail stores as brands: performances, theatre and space”, Consumption Markets and Culture, 15(4): 374–391.
  82. van Marrewijk, A., Smits, K. (2014), “Projectscapes: the role of spatial settings in managing complex megaprojects”, International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management, 2(4): 278–292.
  83. van Marrewijk, A., van den Ende, L. (2018), “Changing academic work places: the introduction of open-plan offices in universities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(5): 1119–1137.
  84. Warren, S. (2008), “Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: towards a sensual methodology”, Organization Studies, 29(4): 559–580.
  85. Wasko, J. (2013), Understanding Disney: The manufacture of fantasy. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.
  86. Wasserman, V. (2012), “Open spaces, closed boundaries: transparent workspaces as clerical female ghettos”, International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5(1): 6–25.
  87. Wasserman, V., Frenkel, M. (2011), “Organizational aesthetics: Caught between identity regulation and culture jamming”, Organization Science, 22(2): 503–521.
  88. Wasserman, V., Frenkel, M. (2015), “Spatial work in between glass ceilings and glass walls: Gender-class intersectionality and organizational aesthetics”, Organization Studies, 36(11): 1485–1505.
  89. Wasserman, V., Rafaeli, A., Kluger, A. N. (2000), “Aesthetic symbols as emotional cues”. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 140–165). London: Sage.
  90. Weinfurtner, T., Seidl, D. (2018), “Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, (April 2017): 1–30.
  91. Yanow, D. (2006), “How built spaces mean”. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 349–366). M.E. Sharpe.

Federica De Molli, L’analisi estetica dello spazio organizzativo: una relazione sui recenti sviluppi nella ricerca in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 1/2019, pp. 38-63, DOI:10.3280/SO2019-001002

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche