This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
P ocess s udies o o ganiza ional space
© Academy o Managemen , 2020
Published e sion
S ephenson, Ka hleen Ann; Kuismin, A i; Pu nam, Linda L.; Si unen, Anu
S ephenson, K. A., Kuismin, A., Pu nam, L. L., & Si unen, A. (2020). P ocess s udies o
o ganiza ional space. Academy o Managemen Annals, 14(2), 797-827.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5465/annals.2018.0146
2020
Academy o Managemen Annals
2020, Vol. 14, No. 2, 797–827.
h ps://doi.o g/10.5465/annals.2018.0146
PROCESS STUDIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE
KATHLEEN A. STEPHENSON
1
V ije Uni e si ei Ams e dam and Uni e si y o Li e pool Managemen School
ARI KUISMIN
Aal o Uni e si y School o Business
LINDA L. PUTNAM
Uni e si y o Cali o nia, San a Ba ba a
ANU SIVUNEN
Uni e si y o Jy ¨
askyl¨
a
The pas decade has expe ienced an inc ease in he numbe o s udies on o ganiza ional
space o whe e wo k occu s. A numbe o hese s udies challenge adi ional iews o
o ganiza ional space as a ixed, physical wo kspace because esea che s ail o accoun o
he spa ial dynamics ha hey obse e. New echnologies, shi ing employee–employe e-
la ions, and bu geoning expec a ions o he con empo a y wo k o ce blu bounda ies be-
ween home and wo k, connec people and hings ha his o ically could no be linked, and
ex end wo kspaces o nea ly e e ywhe e, no jus o ice buildings. Resea ch on hese
ans o ma ions calls o inco po a ing mo emen in o he physicali y o wo k. Thus, o -
ganiza ional schola s ha e u ned o p ocess s udies as ways o examine he dynamic
ea u es ha c ea e and al e spa ial a angemen s. Howe e , he apidly g owing wo k in
his a ea lacks in eg a ion and heo e ical de elopmen . To add ess hese conce ns, we
e iew and classi y he o ganiza ional li e a u e ha cas s space as a p ocess, ha is, dy-
namically as mo emen s, pe o mances, lows, and changing ou ines. This e iew yields
i e o ien a ions o o ganiza ional space schola ship ha we label as de eloping, an-
si ioning, imb ica ing, becoming, and cons i u ing. We discuss hese o ien a ions, examine
how hey ela e o key cons uc s o o ganiza ional space, and show how his wo k o e s
oppo uni ies o heo izing abou o ganiza ions.
Wi hin o ganiza ion and managemen s udies, he
esea ch on space has mo ed om a inge a ea o a
pi o al conce n o o ganiza ional heo izing. O ga-
niza ional space e e s o he buil en i onmen s
ha eme ge om o ganiza ional ac i i ies, objec s, a -
angemen s, and social p ac ices2(Beyes & S eyae ,
2012; Cunli e & Luchman, 2013). This mo e has
ushe ed in he ea men o space as bo h enabling and
cons aining ac ions a he han unc ioning as
a neu al, s able con aine (Dale & Bu ell, 2008;
Taylo & Spice , 2007). I also c osses i al issues
in managemen s udies, o example, how space in-
e aces wi h s a egic wo k (Hydle, 2015; Ja zabkowski,
Bu ke, & Spee, 2015; Lancione & Clegg, 2013), how
physical a angemen s play a ole in main aining ins i-
u ions (Siebe , Wilson, & Hamil on, 2017), and how
new wo king a eas allow employees o implemen o -
ganiza ional changes (Kellogg, 2009).
O ganiza ional space is pi o al o s udies o iden-
i y (Decke , 2014; de Vaujany & Vaas , 2014; Liu &
G ey, 2017), oles (Hal o d & Leona d, 2005), gen-
de dynamics (Tyle & Cohen, 2010; Wasse man &
F enkel, 2011), leade ship (C e ani, 2018a; Ropo,
Saue , & Salo aa a, 2013), en ep eneu ship (Hjo h,
2005), ela ionships among cowo ke s (Khazanchi,
Sp inkle, Mas e son, & Tong, 2018), and inno a ion
(Fu na i, 2014). Resea ch also shows how o ganiza-
ional space in luences o mal and in o mal wo k
We a e g a e ul o Elizabe h Geo ge and he expe
guidance h ough he de elopmen o his p ojec , and
Se on Beggs who helped us wi h he di icul ask o isu-
ally ep esen ing space as a p ocess.
1
Co esponding au ho .
2
Thus, we do no examine s udies o i ual spaces,
pla o ms, o dis ibu ed en i onmen s (e.g., Saunde s,
Ru kowski, an Genuch en, Vogel, & Molina O ego, 2011)
because hey occu wi hin o as an ou pu o o ganiza ional
spaces.
797
Copy igh o he Academy o Managemen , all igh s ese ed. Con en s may no be copied, emailed, pos ed o a lis se , o o he wise ansmi ed wi hou he copy igh holde ’s exp ess
w i en pe mission. Use s may p in , download, o email a icles o indi idual use only.
in e ac ions (Faya d & Weeks, 2007; Hi s , 2011), os e s
he de elopmen o us (Nilsson & Ma es, 2015; S u dy,
Schwa z, & Spice , 2006), shapes posi ions in go e -
nance (McNul y & S ewa , 2015), embodies powe e-
la ions (Hi s & Humph eys, 2013; Zhang & Spice , 2014),
and con ols wo ke s while o e ing oppo uni ies o
esis ance (Ba nes, 2007; Cou passon, Dany, & Delb idge,
2017; Iedema, Rhodes, & Schee s, 2006).
In addi ion, ecen in e es in o ganiza ional space
examines he “p ocessual and pe o ma i e ac ions”
ha cons i u e i (Beyes & S eyae , 2012: 48) a he
han ea ing i as “ ixed, dead and immobile”(Taylo
& Spice , 2007: 325). Be o e his shi , schola s con-
cei ed o o ganiza ional space as a s able, physical
en i onmen ha manage s and a chi ec s could de-
sign o achie e pa icula goals (Elsbach & P a , 2007).
Howe e , his wo k neglec ed he inhe en mo emen
o space, including how indi iduals ea anged, ex-
ended, o epu posed space wi hin a single day. In
e ec , ecen esea ch ocuses on momen - o-momen
p ocesses o inhabi ing and p ac icing o ganiza ional
space as well as a ending o spa ial design.
E en hough “p ocess s udies”o o ganiza ional
space ha e exis ed o o e a decade, he li e a u e is
widely dispe sed, encompasses an a ay o di e en
opics, and emb aces di e gen heo e ical lenses. As
o ye , schola s ha e no syn hesized his g owing
body o wo k. Wi hou such a e iew, i is di icul (1)
o a icula e wha o ganiza ional space is and does,
(2) o iden i y how p ocess app oaches build o
each o he and depa om mo e adi ional hinking
abou space, and (3) o explica e how p ocess ap-
p oaches o space enac o ganiza ion and o ganizing.
Add essing hese challenges is essen ial because wo k
is no longe limi ed o se o ice spaces, a he i is pe -
o med e e ywhe e. This is e iden as con empo a y
wo kspaces cons an ly shi om homes, o ca es, o
cowo king spaces, and du ing commu es. Consequen ly,
schola s need oexamine hema e ialaspec so space
in conjunc ion wi h he ongoing ac i i ies, p ac ices,
and wo k ela ionships o o ganiza ional p ocesses.
The pu pose o his e iew is o syn hesize and
in eg a e esea ch on o ganiza ional space as a p o-
cess, o b ing concep ual cohe ence o his a ea and
o sugges a di ec ion o u u e s udies. We do his in
ou s eps. Fi s , we show how schola s ha e mo ed
om examining space as a physical con aine o in-
es iga ing i as a changing and e ol ing p ocess.
Second, we o e a heo e ically g ounded ypology o
i e p ocess o ien a ions—de eloping, ansi ioning,
imb ica ing,becoming,andcons i u ing— ha e-
sea che s use in his a ea and ha e eal di e en
assump ions abou space and o ganizing. Thi d,
we iden i y and elabo a e on ou cons uc s—
mo emen ,bounda y,assemblage,andscaling— ha
span ac oss he p ocess o ien a ions and ha a e es-
sen ial o explo ing how space is cons i u ed and
enac s o ganizing. Fou h, we discuss he insigh s
and limi a ions o p ocess s udies on o ganiza ional
space and sugges a enues o u he esea ch.
O e all, his e iew aims o help esea che s unde -
s and wha space is and does in o ganizing as well as
o g ound hei s udies in heo e ically cohe en
ways. This e iew is impo an and imely, especially
because echnology, globaliza ion, and changing
employmen ela ions make space a mo e salien
opic in managemen esea ch.
HISTORICAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE
The o ganiza ion o space has been a conce n o
managemen schola s since he ou se o he disci-
pline. Beginning wi h Taylo (1911) who measu ed,
calcula ed,and a anged ac o y loo plans o op imal
e iciency, space was i s concep ualized as a s able,
physical en i onmen ha manage s could manipu-
la e and con ol o accomplish pa icula goals. To
de elop gene alizable explana ions, esea che s ook
“snapsho s”o ce ain spa ial ea u es, such as o ice
buildings and layou s so ha hey and hei e ec s
could be eplica ed ac oss con ex s.
Since hen, esea ch in e es on o ganiza ional
space ebbed and lowed and pa alleled he pa adig-
ma ic u ns in managemen schola ship, pa icula ly
as ep esen ed in h ee heo e ical iews: objec i e,
subjec i e, and c i ical (Elsbach & P a , 2007; Ha ch
& Cunli e, 2013; Taylo & Spice , 2007). S udies on
he ins umen al design o space ook an “objec i e
iew” o help manage s p omo e wo kplace e iciency
and p oduc i i y (e.g., Sunds om & Sunds om, 1986).
Resea ch on o ganiza ional aes he ics and symbol-
ism ook a “subjec i e iew” o examine he mean-
ings, in e p e a ions, and emo ional clima es linked
o wo king spaces (e.g., Gaglia di, 1990). Finally,
schola s wi h a “c i ical iew”examined how physical
s uc u es ma e ialized ela ions o dominance and
submission in o ganiza ions (e.g., Dale & Bu ell, 2008).
In s udying o ganiza ional space, esea che s ypi-
cally w o e om wi hin hei p e e ed pa adigm and
bo owed concep s, me apho s, and heo ies om
o he disciplines o explain hei obse a ions. Us-
ing bo owed concep s o e ed ich and no el ways
o examine o ganiza ional space, bu hey ypically
led o compa men alizing esea ch in o di e en
camps o manage ial a enas, as is e iden in pas
798 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
e iews (Taylo & Spice , 2007). To unde s and bes
whe e he p ocess s udies o o ganiza ional space
eme ged, we in eg a ed hese silos by d awing on
commonali ies ac oss he his o ical li e a u e. These
commonali ies e ealed ou building blocks ha
su aced om esea ch ac oss he li e a u e, ones
ha would e en ually os e he de elopmen o
he p ocess s udies o space. Thus, hese building
blocks o med he concep ual ounda ion o e-
sea che s o mo e away om iewing space as a
con aine o ea ing i as a p ocess.
To de elop his common zone, we examined six
p e ious e iews o o ganiza ional space (Da is,
1984; Elsbach & P a , 2007; Ha ch & Cunli e, 2013;
Hua, Lo ness, K au , & Powell, 2010; Taylo &
Spice , 2007; Wein u ne & Seidl, 2019) and lis ed
all cen al concep s abou o ganiza ional space in
abula and g aphic o m. We hen compa ed and
con as ed concep s and hei de ini ions o de e -
mine ca ego ies and ela ionships be ween hem.
We de ined building blocks as ounda ional con-
cep s ha o med he co e on which o ganiza ional
space was concei ed. Some concep s, such as isi-
bili y, openness, o p i acy, cha ac e ized ypes o
spaces bu we e no conside ed a de ining ea u e
o space. Th ough his p ocess, we iden i ied ou
concep s in he his o ical li e a u e—physical s uc-
u e,dis ance,wo kplace a angemen s,andspa ial
scale—as he key building blocks o o ganiza ional
space. In he nex sec ion, we discuss each building
block and demons a e how i su aced in esea ch
ha c ossed di e en heo e ical pe spec i es.
Physical S uc u e
The ea lies esea ch on o ganiza ional space cen-
e ed on he physical s uc u e o he designed en i-
onmen o wo kspaces, including ba ie s such as
doo s and walls, pa i ions such as cubicles o book-
shel es, and physical bo de s (Da is, 1984; Elsbach &
P a , 2007; Ha ch & Cunli e, 2013). Ini ially, schola s
s udied physical s uc u e o inc ease e iciency and
p oduc i i y in o ganiza ions. Taking an objec i e
pe spec i e, hey measu ed he leng h and heigh
o physical s uc u es, ea ed hem as independen
a iables, and es ed he likelihood o hei e ec s
on ou comes such as job sa is ac ion (Oldham &
Ro ch o d, 1983; Zalesny & Fa ace, 1987) and pe -
o mance (Sunds om, Bu , & Kamp, 1980). F om a
subjec i e pe spec i e, esea che s began o s udy
how space use s’in e p e a ions o pa icula ea u es
o physical s uc u es, such as he size and openness
o a building, a ec ed hei subsequen beha io s
(Be g & K eine , 1990; La sen & Schul z, 1990; Van
Ma ewijk, 2011).C i ical esea che s u he showed
how hese s uc u es acili a ed manage ial con ol by
b inging wo ke s oge he and c ea ing sepa a ions
be ween manage s and employees (Hal o d, 2008;
Kelly, 1980). O e all, esea che s examined physical
s uc u es as p eexis en and as comp ising s a ic
bounda ies ha dema ca ed physical a eas. In hese
his o ical s udies, meanings, aes he ic quali ies, and
ea u es o physical s uc u eo enchanged,bu space
i sel emained a s a ic con aine shaped by ixed
ba ie s and bo de s.
Dis ance
Closely ela ed o physical s uc u e, dis ance e-
e ed o he measu able space ha o med a physical
sepa a ion be ween wo poin s (Ha ch & Cunli e,
2013; Taylo & Spice , 2007). I di e ed om physi-
cal s uc u e by cen e ing on p oximi y “be ween a
pai o indi iduals a a poin in ime...de e min[ed]
by he linea dis ance be ween he wo pe sons”
(Monge & Kenne h, 1980: 110). F om an objec i e
iew, dis ance eme ged as a geog aphic concep
ha ocused on he dis ibu ion o people, objec s,
and ac i i ies, such as he e ec s p oximi y had on
a ious kinds o in e ac ion (Allen, 1977; Pelz &
And ews, 1966). Resea che s who adop ed a sub-
jec i e app oach a gued ha pe cei ed p oximi y
was as impo an as he measu ed physical space
(Amin & Cohende , 2004; Wilson, O’Lea y, Me iu, &
Je , 2008). Thei s udies coun e ed indings om he
objec i e app oach by showing ha dis ance was a
social and psychological concep , no jus a cha ac-
e is ic o physical p oximi y (Wilson e al., 2008).
F om a c i ical iew, dis ance became a way o coe ce
and con ol employees h ough cen alized wo k
p ocesses ha enac ed and enabled su eillance
p ac ices (Bald y, 1999; Hal o d, 2008; Ko nbe ge &
Clegg, 2004). O e all, his his o ical li e a u e ea ed
dis ance as a ela i ely s able concep ha ei he
os e ed o cons ained o ganiza ional ac ions and
ou comes.
Wo kplace A angemen s
In addi ion o physical s uc u e and dis ance, e-
sea che s examined wo kplace a angemen s o he
display, o ien a ion, and alignmen o ma e ial ob-
jec s, a i ac s, and s imuli in o ganiza ional space
(e.g., u ni u e, machines, and equipmen ) (Da is,
1984; Elsbach & P a , 2007). Schola s who emb aced
an objec i e iew ocused on he ways ha cubicles
2020 799S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
and open-plan o ices in luenced o ganiza ional ambi-
ance, os e ed ypes o in e ac ions, and shaped wo k-
low (Ha ch, 1987; Jewell & Rei z, 1981; Sunds om
e al., 1980). F om a subjec i e iew, hey e ealed
how wo kplace a angemen s c ea ed symbolic mean-
ings in addi ion o hei p ac ical use (Gaglia di, 1990;
Olins, 1978; S a i, 1999; Van Ma ewijk & Yanow,
2010). C i ical s udies, in u n, showed how hese a -
angemen s egula ed employee mo emen s, beha -
io s, and iden i ies (Dale & Bu ell, 2008; Hancock &
Spice , 2011); aligned employees’expec a ions wi h
ce ain p ac ices in he labo ma ke (Fleming &
Spice , 2004); and shaped ins i u ional no ms and
hie a chies (Hal o d & Leona d, 2005). Thus, as a
hi d building block, wo kplace a angemen s became
mo e luid and mobile, bu he o ganiza ional spaces in
which hese a angemen s occu ed in his o ical e-
sea ch emained s able and ixed.
Spa ial Scales
Looking beyond a single o ganiza ional en i on-
men , schola s in es iga ed spa ial scale as he size
and le el o bundled spaces in which di e en o -
ganiza ional ac i i ies occu ed, ypically in a nes ed
hie a chy o dis inc bu ixed geog aphic scopes
(e.g., local, egional, na ional, and global) (O’Reilly,
Allen, & Reedy, 2018). Ac i i ies ha occu ed wi hin
an o ganiza ion’s buil -en i onmen cons i u ed he
mic oscale, ones ha ook place be ween o ganiza-
ional spaces unc ioned as he mesoscale, and ac-
i i ies ha eme ged in egions and s a es ex e nal o
hem c ea ed he mac oscale (Bu ell & Dale, 2014;
Taylo & Spice , 2007). F om an objec i e pe spec-
i e, esea che s examined how he each o an o -
ganiza ion om he local o global scales and ce ain
e i o ies (e.g., egions) os e ed pa icula ou comes
(Chini z, 1961; Mulle & Mo gan, 1962; Swyngedouw,
1996). Schola s who adop ed a subjec i e iew dem-
ons a ed how ac o s expe ienced hese scales, o en in
con as ing ways (Spice , 2006). F om a c i ical ap-
p oach, s udies ocused on he powe e ec s o do-
mes ic ope a ions on global o ganiza ions in e ms o
social ela ions, egula ions, and capi al accumula ion
(Ha ey, 1990; Massey, 2005; Zelle , 2000). Ye , he
his o ical esea ch on geog aphic scopes o o ganiza-
ions con inued o ea space as mo e-o -less s able and
hie a chically o ganized ac oss scales.
The In oduc ion o Space as a P ocess
These ou building blocks (Table 1) laid he oun-
da ion o adi ional esea ch on o ganiza ional
space. Mo e ecen ly, and eme ging om he objec-
i e, subjec i e, and c i ical app oaches, esea che s
began o sugges ha space was mo e luid han had
been p e iously concei ed (Dale & Bu ell, 2008;
Ko nbe ge & Clegg, 2004). They sugges ed ha space
was no a ixed con aine o o ganiza ional ac i i-
ies bu was p ac iced and modi ied, o en in di e -
en ways hanwasini ially planned(Mengis, Nicolini,
& Go li, 2018). These sugges ions led o examining
space as a p ocess ha was p oduced no only
h ough planning bu also how o ganiza ional mem-
be s inhabi ed, occupied, and e en imagined i .
In his shi , schola s d ew on Hen i Le eb e
(1991), a F ench sociologis who ocused on space
as socially p oduced h ough h ee p ocesses: con-
cei ing, o how people concep ualized, designed,
planned, and ep esen ed i ; pe cei ing,which
encompassed how people in e p e ed and ga e
meaning o i ; and li ing, o how indi iduals enac-
ed i h ough ac i i ies in hei e e yday li es
(Cai ns, McInnes, & Robe s, 2003; Kingma, Dale, &
Wasse man, 2018; Wa kins, 2005). These h ee
p ocesses push and pull on each o he in a dia-
lec ical ela ionship. Resea che s d ew on his
amewo k o heo ize space in complex, mul i-
ace ed ways (Gio annoni & Qua one, 2018; Liu
& G ey, 2017; Ra ne , 2019; Taylo & Spice , 2007).
Fo example, McNul y and S ewa (2015) used
Le eb e’s amewo k o examine how boa d unc-
ioning was p oduced wi h go e nance space. They
a gued ha i e a i e ecu ing beha io s di ec ed
co po a ions h ough he ac i i ies o sec e a ies and
boa d membe s who planned and go e ned designs
and he physical and empo al p ac ices ha enac ed
hem.
Dale and Bu ell (2008) u he ex ended Le eb e’s
amewo k h ough examining how space con olled
o ganiza ional p ocesses. They a gued ha o gani-
za ional space emplaced people and hings in pa -
icula loca ions, enchan ed people wi h pa icula
meanings and emo ions, and cons ained how peo-
ple enac ed wo kplaceac i i ies.Toillus a e, Siebe
e al. (2017) obse ed ha he buildings o he Pa lia-
men House and he Ad oca es Lib a y ep oduced
he s a us o de o he Sco ish legal sys em by
assigning ac o s o pa icula ooms, e oking emo-
ional esponses h ough speci ied d´
eco , and p e-
sc ibing mobili y pa e ns in he wo kplace.
In Le eb e’s (1991) o iginal wo k, space eme ged
om ac i i ies si ua ed in a pa icula momen in
ime as a holis ic, nego ia ed phenomenon a he
han a lis o sepa a e pa s (Soja, 1998). Ye , he as
majo i y o o ganiza ional schola s who d ew on his
800 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals

TABLE 1
Building Blocks and Key Cons uc s o Space
His o ical Pe spec i es P ocess Pe spec i es
De ini ion Resea ch Topics Ci a ions De ini ions Resea ch Topics Ci a ions
Physical
S uc u e
The physical design
and dema ca ion
o space; he buil
en i onmen
Enclosu es—ba ie s
(walls and doo s);
pa i ions
(cubicles); physical
bo de s; isibili y
and openness o
space—p i acy,
densi y, and
accessibili y
Dale & Bu ell
(2008), Foucaul
(1977), Hal o d &
Leona d (2005),
Ha ch (1987),
Oldham &
Ro ch o d (1983),
Sunds om e al.
(1980)
Bounda y Ac i i ies, p ac ices,
and ma e ial
ea u es ha
sepa a e, ma k,
dissol e, o
nego ia e space
Bounda y wo k
(e o s o shape
bounda ies);
egula ing low
and mo emen o
bounda ies;
app op ia ing
spaces; ma king
and dis up ing
bounda ies
Boon (2007), Ca el
e al. (2019), de
Vaujany & Vaas
(2014), Dumez &
Jeunemai e
(2010), Fleming &
Spice (2004),
Panayio ou
(2015), Sage e al.
(2016)
Dis ance Physical sepa a ion
be ween wo
poin s; he
amoun o space
ha sepa a es
people,
ho izon ally and
e ically
Measu emen —
p oximi y; social
dis ance;
pe cei ed
p oximi y;
cen aliza ion; co e
and pe iphe y
loca ions;
placemen and
dis ibu ions in
space
Allen (1977), Bain &
Taylo (2000),
Hal o d (2008),
Monge & Kenne h
(1980), Oldham &
F ied (1987),
Wilson e al.
(2008)
Mo emen Flows ha come
oge he o enac
spaces; he doing
o space;
app op ia ing and
enac ing spa ial
pe o mances
Changes ha make
wo kplaces
lexible; lows ha
ca e ou space;
embodied
mo emen s;
speed and
hy hms o lows;
modes o o de ing
space;
collabo a i e
pe o mances o
spacing
Bald y & Ba nes
(2012), Bes &
Hindma sh
(2018), Hi s &
Schwabenland
(2018), Mun o &
Jo dan (2013),
Nash (2020),
Nilsson & Ma es
(2015), Ropo &
Salo aa a (2019)
Wo kplace
a angemen s
The display,
o ien a ion, and
alignmen o
a i ac s,
u ni u e, and
objec s
Layou s; u nishings;
a mosphe e
and wo k
su oundings;
symbolic a i ac s
(deco a ions and
physical s imuli)
Be g & K eine
(1990), Jewell &
Rei z (1981), Olin
(1978), Van
Ma ewijk (2009,
2011)
Assemblages Fo ming
associa ions,
ne wo ks, and
con igu a ions o
ela ionships
among en i ies
ha de ine space
De eloping
ne wo ks o
ela ionships;
enac ing home
and wo kspaces;
associa ions o
hings, ex s, and
humans as hyb id
ac o s ha shape
space
B ennan e al.
(2002), Coo en,
Fox, Robichaud, &
Talih (2005),
Jakonen e al.
(2017), Knox e al.
(2015), Pel onen
(2011), V´
asquez &
Coo en (2013)
Spa ial scales Nes ed hie a chies
o bounded
spaces; p e o med
and s able a enas
o scope and
di e en sizes,
e.g., local,
egional, na ional,
and global
Mic o-, meso-, and
mac ospaces;
nes ed spa ial
ela ions o
di e en sizes;
spa ial le els o
powe ; geopoli ical
spaces; e i o y
(geog aphic a eas)
Bald y (1999),
Bu ell & Dale
(2014), Lei ne
(1997), Sheppa d
& McMas e
(2004), Spice
(2006), Taylo &
Spice (2007),
Zelle (2000)
Scaling The each o spa ial
con igu a ions;
he dynamics o
scaling-up o
down in space;
ac i i ies ha
expand and
sh ink spaces
Ac i i ies ha
modi y,
ep oduce, o
al e scale;
local–dislocal
p ac ices; i ual
a enas ha al e
he each o space
Fu na i (2014),
Dobson (2012),
Hi s &
Humph eys
(2013), Ra ne
(2019), V´
asquez
(2016), Wilson
e al. (2008)
2020 801S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
amewo k ea ed i as a heu is ic o di e en e-
sea ch pe spec i es (Taylo & Spice , 2007) o em-
b aced only one o he h ee p ocesses. O he
p oblems ha esul ed om piecemeal ea men s o
Le eb e’s amewo k included o e emphasizing
he human aspec s o space, sepa a ing he social
om he physical na u e o i , and ei ying he dy-
namic day- o-day ac ions ha p oduced space
(Beyes & S eyae , 2012; V´
asquez, 2016). Despi e
hese sho comings, schola s who emb aced Le eb e’s
(1991) wo k ushe ed in a new gene a ion o esea ch in
which space eme ged, e ol ed, and ans o med
h ough social p oduc ion and ep oduc ion (He nes,
Bakken, & Olsen, 2006).
To depic space as a p ocess and dis inguish i
om adi ional app oaches, schola s used he ge -
und spacing a he han he noun space (Beyes &
S eyae , 2012; V´
asquez & Coo en, 2013) and p i i-
leged eme gence a he han he p eexis en quali y
o space. Simila o Weick’s (1974) use o he e m
o ganizing, he e m spacing emphasized he e en s,
p ac ices, and ongoing ac i i ies ha enac ed he
social and physical ea u es o space, such as mo e-
men s ha shaped new bounda ies, spa ial pe o -
mances, and physical a angemen s. The apid g ow h
o schola ship on p ojec -based asks, elewo king,
and collabo a i e en ep eneu ship con ibu ed o he
ise o p ocess s udies on o ganiza ional space.
This shi in esea ch calls o a comp ehensi e
e iew o p ocess s udies ha ocuses on he gene -
a i e ac i i ies o space in o ganizing (Langley, 1999;
Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). P ocess wo k in o ganiza-
ional s udies is well-es ablished, as e iden by he
numbe o books, con e ences, special issues, and
handbooks on his opic (Helin, He nes, Hjo h, & Hol ,
2014; He nes, 2014; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, &
Van de Ven, 2013; Langley & Tsoukas, 2017). In gen-
e al, he li e a u e dis inguishes be ween weak and
s ong p ocess pe spec i es (Bakken & He nes, 2006).
Resea ch ha emb aces a weak p ocess pe spec i e
cen e s on changes in a ela i ely s able subs ance ha
emains in ac in i s iden i y o e ime (Tsoukas &
Chia, 2002). Change, hen, occu s in s ages, cycles, o
episodes ha de elop o e ime.
By con as , schola s who adop a s ong p ocess
pe spec i e con end ha he wo ld is cons an ly
changing and e ol ing; change is no some hing ha
happens a a speci ic poin in ime, a he changing
p ac ices and ac i i ies b ing o ganiza ional phe-
nomena in o exis ence (Langley & Tsoukas, 2017).
This wo k emb aces a becoming on ology, highligh s
ongoing p ac ices and pe o mances, and ea s o -
ganizing as a con inual accomplishmen . Al hough
o en cas as a dicho omy, weak and s ong p ocess
pe spec i es exis on a con inuum o a ying de-
g ees. We emb ace his con inuum in his e iew o
examine how p ocess-based s udies o o ganiza-
ional space a e posi ioned wi hin i . In his way, we
ea hese di e en posi ions as p ocess o ien a-
ions. We begin his jou ney by desc ibing how we
conduc ed he li e a u e e iew on p ocess s udies o
o ganiza ional space.
REVIEW METHOD
Sampling
Fo his a icle, we ollowed wo complemen a y
p ocedu es o sampling. Fi s , we used he e ms
space,spacing,p ocess, and o ganiza ion o conduc
an EBSCO da abase sea ch o a icles published on
he opic o o ganiza ional space. This sea ch p o-
duced a lis o 308 a icles om 51 di e en man-
agemen and o ganiza ional jou nals. A e c ea ing
his lis , we ead each abs ac o ensu e ha o ga-
niza ional space was he cen al ocus o he s udy
and hen we selec ed he a icles ha emb aced a
p ocess pe spec i e.
We de ined a p ocess pe spec i e as any s udy ha
examined space “dynamically—in e ms o mo e-
men , ac i i y, e en s, change, and empo al e olu ion”
(Langley, 2007: 271). P ocess could en ail a ia ions in
objec s, a angemen s, and o he ma e ial ea u es, bu
he esea ch i sel had o cas o ganiza ional space as
changing o being changed h ough mo emen , ac i -
i y, ongoing e en s, o de elopmen s o e ime. In
sampling he li e a u e, we ocused on p ocess s udies
ha cap u ed he physicali y o space and excluded
ones ha ea ed space me apho ically, o example,
esea ch on psychological spaces (Wein u ne & Seidl,
2019). I we we e unsu e whe he space was he cen al
phenomenon o whe he he s udy emb aced a p ocess
pe spec i e, wo o mo e coau ho s examined he a -
icle and eached a consensus as o whe he o include
o exclude i . We also used a e e ence lis checking
echnique (G eenhalgh & Peacock, 2005) in which we
scanned he e e ences o each a icle o addi ional
p ocess s udies o space ha we e no included in ou
sample. These wo s eps na owed ou o iginal se o
308 a icles o 163 a icles ha me ou c i e ia in con-
duc ing his e iew (Table 2).
Analysis
To de e mine he ype o p ocess s udy, we ead
each a icle and iden i ied how he au ho s de ined
802 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
space, inco po a ed concep s, posed esea ch ques-
ions, d ew on pa icula heo is s, selec ed esea ch
se ings, used pa icula pa adigms, epo ed ind-
ings, and d ew conclusions. Nex , we clus e ed he
kinds o spa ial p ocesses ha he au ho s iden i ied
based on hei ea men and assump ions abou
p ocess. Fi s , we classi ied hem in o he ca ego ies
o weak e sus s ong p ocess esea ch, as desc ibed
ea lie (Bakken & He nes, 2006; Langley & Tsoukas,
2017). To do his, we elied on wo ds ha he au ho s
used in depic ing hei esea ch, o example, o weak
p ocess pe spec i es, wo ds such as s age,phase,pe-
iodic,e olu iona y,o e ime,cycles,clock ime,and
ch onological de elopmen su aced in he esea ch,
whe eas o s ong p ocess pe spec i es, au ho s used
such e ms such as ongoing,un olding,con inual,
becoming,du a ion,gene a i e,pe o ma i e,e en -
d i en,po en ial,andexpe ien ial ime.
Ca ego izing A icles
A e so ing he a icles in o weak and s ong
p ocess pe spec i es, we compa ed how he e-
sea che s concei ed o o ganiza ional space i sel .
On he one ex eme, esea che s ea ed space as an
endu ing, p e-gi en objec ha exis ed indepen-
den ly om o ganiza ional ac i i ies, and on he
o he end, hey concei ed o space as e ol ing and
eme ging based on he ela ionships be ween ac o s
and objec s. To make his de e mina ion, we elied
on he analy ical oci and de ini ions o space o
each a icle. Resea che s who ea ed space as a
TABLE 2
Key Re e ences o Re iew
Spacing P ocess Re e ences
De eloping (n511) Bald y & Ba nes (2012), B ennane al. (2002), Ca mona, Ezzamel, & Gu i´
e ez (1997), Co adi e al. (2015), Dobson
(2012), Maaninen-Olsson & M¨
ulle n (2009), McEl oy & Mo ow (2010), Nilsson & Ma es (2015), Saile (2011),
Skogland & Hansen (2017), Zalesny & Fa ace (1987)
T ansi ioning (n535) Buche & Langley (2016), Ca el e al. (2019), Clegg, Cunha, & Rego (2012), Cos as (2013), Cou passon e al. (2017),
De ksen, Blomme, de Caluw´
e, Rupe , & Simons (2019), Elmhold e al. (2018), Fu na i (2014), Ha dy &
Magui e (2010), Hjo h (2005), Howa d-G en ille, Golden-Biddle, I win, & Mao (2011), Iedema & Ca oll
(2011), Iedema & Rhodes (2010), Jansen (2008), Jones (2018), Kellogg (2009), Kocia kiewicz & Kos e a (2011,
2015), Lee e al. (2020), Lewis (2008), Mai & Hehenbe ge (2014), Michaud (2014), Ome o, Gegenube , Win e
& G eenwood (2019), Pe kmann e al. (2019), P¨
oyh¨
onen (2018), Rao & Du a (2012), Reinecke (2018), Sho
(2015), S u dy e al. (2006), Vacca o & Palazzo (2015), Vesala & Tuomi aa a (2018), Wilhoi (2017), Wilne ,
Ch is opoulous, & Al es (2017), Zhang, Spice , & Hancock (2008), Zie sma & Law ence (2010)
Imb ica ing (n536) Alonso Gonz´
alez (2016), Ba -Le & Vi ne (2011), Be i, Simpson, & Clegg (2018), Boon (2007), B own & O’Ha a
(2003), Dale (2005), Decke (2014), de Vaujany & Vaas (2014), Dumez & Jeunemai e (2010), E ns (2017),
Faya d & Weeks (2007), Fleming & Spice (2004), Gande (2015), Gie yn (2000), Hi s (2011), Hi s &
Schwabenland (2018), Hislop & Ax ell (2009), Hydle (2015), Ja zabkowski e al. (2015), Kingma (2019),
Ko nbe ge & Clegg (2004), Liu & G ey (2017), Mun o (2018), Mun o & Jo dan (2013), Pel onen (2011), Pe ani &
Mengis (2016), Raule -C ose & Bo zeix (2014), Siebe e al. (2017), Spice (2006), Tie ze (2005), Tyle & Cohen
(2010), Wais ell (2006), Wapsho & Malle (2011), Wasse man & F enkel (2011, 2015), Zhang & Spice (2014)
Becoming (n539) Allen & B own (2016), Bazin & Naccache (2016), Beyes (2010), Beyes & Michels (2011), Beyes & S eyae (2012),
Biehl (2019), Biehl-Missal (2016), Bo ch (2009), Cai ns (2002), Cai ns e al. (2003), Dash ipou & Rumens
(2018), Daskalaki & Kokkinidis (2017), Daskalaki, S a a, & Imas (2008), Fabb i (2016), Gio annoni & Qua one
(2018), Jakonen e al. (2017), Jones (2014), Ka ila e al. (2019), Knox, O’Dohe y, Vu dubakis, & Wes up (2007),
Knox e al. (2015), K ¨
upe s (2015), Lucas (2014), Ma echal e al. (2013), Mengis e al. (2018), Michels & S eyae
(2017), Molli, Mengis, & an Ma ewijk (2019), Panayio ou (2015), Paque e & Lacassagne (2013), Ra ne
(2019), Riach & Wilson (2014), Ropo & H¨
oykinpu o (2017), Ropo & Salo aa a (2019), Ropo e al. (2013), Sewell
& Taskin (2015), Skoglund & Hol (2020), S eyae (2010), Thanem (2010, 2012), Ve duyn (2015)
Cons i u ing (n542) Bes & Hindma sh (2018), Callahan (2013), Cnossen & Benche ki (2019), Cohen (2010), Coo en & Fai hu s
(2004), C e ani (2018a, 2018b), Cza niawska (2004), D’Mello & Sahay (2007), Fahy, Eas e by-Smi h, & Le ik
(2014), Hansen (2004), He od, Rainnie, & McG a h-Champ (2007), Hi s & Humph eys (2013), Hoskin (2004),
Hus ed & Plesne (2017), Jones, McLean, & Qua one (2004), Kingma (2016), Kompo ozos-A hanasiou,
Thompson, & Fo kai (2018), Ko nbe ge & Clegg (2003), Knox e al. (2008), Lancione & Clegg (2013), McNul y &
S ewa (2015), Nash (2018, 2020), Oi inen (2018), Papazu & Nelund (2018), Pel onen (2012), Richa dson
& McKenna (2014), Rodge s e al. (2016), Sage e al. (2016), Simpson, T acey, & Wes on (2018), Si unen &
Pu nam (2019), V˚
aland & Geo g (2018), Van Ma ewijk & Van den Ende (2018), V´
asquez (2016), V´
asquez,
B ummans, & G oleau (2012), V´
asquez & Coo en (2013), Ve meulen (2011), Vidaille & Bousalham (2020),
Wilhoi (2018), Wilhoi & Kisselbu gh (2015), Yeung (1998)
2020 803S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
subs ance o a con aine ha changed o e ime
concei ed o i as analy ically ixed (Callon & Law,
2004), whe eas schola s who iewed space as eme g-
ing om he ela ionships among mul iple ac o s and
hings cen e ed on ac i i ies and p ac ices ha cons i-
u ed space a a gi en momen in ime. This p ocedu e
unco e ed i e ela ed bu dis inc p ocess o ien a ions
o o ganiza ional space, he labels o which we de i ed
om he a icles hemsel es.
Two o ien a ions—de eloping and ansi ioning—
ea ed space as a conc e e, p e-gi en subs ance. The
de eloping o ien a ion pa alleled his o ical s udies
because esea che s concei ed o space as a subs ance
and ook a weak p ocess pe spec i e o explain how
episodic spa ial changes led o a ious o ganiza ional
ou comes. O he 163 a icles included in his e iew,
we classi ied only 11 o hem in he de eloping o i-
en a ion. The ansi ioning o ien a ion also ea ed
space as an in ac subs ance, bu changes occu ed
h ough ansi ioning be ween spaces, such as lobbies
and hallways as ac i i y-based and episodic o ms o
o ganizing. In his e iew, 35 a icles ell in o he
ansi ioning o ien a ion.
Th ee addi ional p ocess o ien a ions eme ged
om di e en unde lying assump ions in which e-
sea che s ea ed space as eme ging h ough con-
inuously changing ela ionships be ween humans
and ma e ial elemen s; hus, hese s udies e ealed a
s ong p ocess pe spec i e. Imb ica ing ocused on
ongoing ac i i ies ha b ough di e en spa ial ele-
men s oge he o de elop pa icula a o dances o
app op ia ions. This o ien a ion consis ed o 39 a -
icles. The o ien a ions o becoming and cons i u ing
(39 o becoming and 42 o cons i u ing) ea ed
space as con inuously p oduced om ongoing, open-
ended pe o mances. Whe eas becoming s udies
concen a ed on si ua ed pe o mances ha in es ed
space wi h di e en meanings, cons i u ing s udies
ocused on how ce ain spaces gained hei o m and
s abili y o e ime. Du ing ou analysis, we obse ed
ha he s ong p ocess o ien a ions, pa icula ly be-
coming and cons i u ing, eme ged mo e ecen ly
han did he weak p ocess ones. Howe e , he i e
o ien a ions did no e lec a ch onological p og es-
sion because each o hem included ecen ly pub-
lished a icles. In he nex sec ion, we elabo a e on
and illus a e hese i e dis inc o ien a ions.
A TYPOLOGY OF PROCESS ORIENTATIONS
The i e o ien a ions o he s udy o o ganiza-
ional space—de eloping, ansi ioning,imb ica -
ing,becoming,andcons i u ing— e eal impo an
di e ences in assump ions, heo e ical ounda ions,
me hods, and ypes o indings. Mo eo e , as Table 3
no es, di e ences in key cons uc s subsumed unde
each o ien a ion o e oppo uni ies o ad ancing
heo y on o ganiza ional space, pa icula ly in mo -
ing away om ei ying spaces as con aine s (Beyes &
S eyae , 2012).
Fi e O ien a ions o P ocess S udies o
O ganiza ional Space
O ien a ion I: De eloping. The de eloping o i-
en a ion pa alleled adi ional iews o o ganiza ional
space by ocusing on he physical en i onmen and
ea ingi aschanging inepisodic ways.Thes udiesin
his o ien a ion cas space as a ela i ely s able phe-
nomenon ha manage s, designe s, and a chi ec s
could change o e ime, o en in con olled ways.
Resea che s p esumed ha space could be quan i ied,
gene alized, and ep esen ed. In pa icula , s udies o
spa ial eno a ions, epu posing, and ea angemen s
examined in e en ions in wo kspace changes. In-
spi ed by en i onmen al psychologis s (Oldham &
B ass, 1979; Sunds om e al., 1980), schola s who
emb aced his o ien a ion iewed space as a sepa a e
phenomenon ha in luenced pa e ns o o ganizing.
Speci ically, esea che s examined how changes in
wo kspaces in luenced indi idual beha io s, pe cep-
ions, ways o ela ing and in e ac ing, and o ganiza-
ional ou comes. They ocused on how he emo al o
ba ie s, he manipula ion o dis ance, and al e a ions
in o ice layou s changed isibili y, accessibili y, p i-
acy, and p oximi y. Fo ins ance, Co adi, Heinzen,
and Bou ellie (2015) showed how he emo al o
pa i ions s imula ed c oss- unc ional communica-
ion and enhanced o ganiza ional lea ning and inno-
a ion. Nilsson and Ma es (2015) illus a ed how
b inging geog aphically dispe sed eams oge he in
ace- o- ace mee ings be o e beginning a p ojec p o-
mo ed us among membe s. McEl oy and Mo ow
(2010) in es iga ed how o ice designs ha mo ed
om a 1970s cubicle a angemen o an open o ice
plan led o posi i e pe cep ions o he o ganiza ion’s
cul u e and inc eased commi men o he i m.
In e ec , s udies ha ell in o he de eloping o i-
en a ion examined he a iance be ween pas and
new spa ial designs. Wi h he aim o gene alizabili y,
mos in es iga ions concen a ed on ou comes a he
han on he enac men o hese designs.
O ien a ion II: T ansi ioning. T ansi ioning as
he second p ocess o ien a ion cen e ed on he dy-
namics o inhabi ing new spaces, ypically ones in
which he o ganiza ional no ms we e empo a ily
804 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
s eam o ac ions and in e ac ions ha c ea e pa -
e ns mani es ed as lows, hy hms, p ac ices, and
ajec o ies. Resea che s ace, o example, he luid
ansi ion o speci ic ac i i ies and spaces ha gen-
e a e s a egic episodes (Ja zabkowski e al., 2015).
They cap u e hy hmic a ia ions in ac i i ies ha
in es space wi h ce ain meanings, such as s a up
en ep eneu ship (Ka ila e al., 2019). Th ough ex-
amining agg ega ed p ac ices, esea che s explain
how collec i es and spaces come oge he h ough
pa icula ways o wo king ha endu e o e ime
(Alonso Gonz´
alez, 2016; Wilhoi & Kisselbu gh,
2015). They also ace he ajec o ies o ails o
un olding e en s ha p oduce o ganiza ional di ec-
ion (C e ani, 2018b). Thus, in he o ien a ions ha
emb ace a s ong p ocess pe spec i e, mo emen
cen e s on he p oduc ion and e ec s o he ongoing
o ganizing o space. Mo emen is he basis o con-
cei ing o space as con inuous, ongoing, and un old-
ing in ac ions and in e ac ions ha enac bounda ies,
assemblages, and scaling.
Bounda y
Mo emen makes he cons uc o bounda y a dy-
namic, ongoing p ocess a he han a ixed ba ie o
bo de . Bounda y, p oduced h ough bounda y wo k,
e e s o he ma e ial and empo al dema ca ions o
space among indi iduals, g oups, and o ganiza ions
(Langley, Lindbe g, Mø k, Nicolini, Ra iola, & Wal e ,
2019). I d aws om he building block o physical
s uc u e used in he adi ional o ganiza ional space
li e a u e, bu i highligh s luid bo de s a he han
ixed pa i ions and enclosu es. Thus, adop ing a p o-
cess lens shi s he emphasis o nego ia ing bounda ies
a he han ocusing on he p esump ion o ixed bo -
de s (Dumez & Jeunemai e, 2010; Panayiou ou, 2015).
Bounda y wo k ac i ely engages in o ming, sepa a -
ing, blu ing, and expanding spaces.
S udies o space and bounda y wo k c oss weak and
s ong p ocess o ien a ions included in his e iew. In
weak p ocess s udies, bounda ies exis “ou he e”as
ma ke s ha indica e whe e an o ganiza ion’sspace
FIGURE 1
Key Cons uc s o O ganiza ional Space as P ocess
Assemblage
The con igu a ion o human ac o s, p ac ices, and ma e ial
ea u es cha ac e is ic o an o ganiza ional space.
Scaling
The each o he ex ensi eness o a spa ial con igu a ion.
Mo emen
The ongoing lows, ajec o ies, and shi s ha enac changes.
Bounda y
The ma e ial and empo al dema ca ions o space among
indi iduals, g oups, and o ganiza ions.
2020 811S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen

begins and ends. E en hough bounda ies change and
e ol e, space emains in ac wi hin bo de s and gains
o educes in size depending on how membe s use
bounda ies o ma k o , egula e, open and close, and
con ol access o spaces (Ca el e al., 2019; Fleming &
Spice , 2004; Langley e al., 2019). Changes o bound-
a ies a e cons uc ed inc emen ally and delibe a ely
based on he capabili ies o o ganiza ional uni s and
he deg ee o which ac o s con es he placemen o
ma ke s (Dumez & Jeunemai e, 2010). Thus, in weak
p ocess s udies, bounda y wo k eo ganizes wha has
p e iously been inside o ou side o an o ganiza ion
(Fleming & Spice , 2004), while keeping hese o gani-
za ional spaces ela i ely s able.
In s ong p ocess s udies, o ganiza ional membe s
join ly cons i u e space by cons uc ing bounda ies
ha shape wha is and wha is no pa o o ganiza-
ional space. Bounda y wo k c ea es space by o m-
ing sepa a ions o spa ial dis inc ions ha di ec
ongoing o ganiza ional ac ions and in e ac ions.
Sepa a ions occu h ough physically mo ing, posi-
ioning ma e ial a i ac s and people (Mun o &
Jo dan, 2013), and epea ing pas bounda y p ac-
ices (Hi s , 2011). Bounda y wo k also en ails blu -
ingdis inc ionsby so eningandme ging p e iously
enac ed sepa a ions and leading o “inde e mina e”
bounda ies ha hold he po en ial o new dema ca-
ions. Th ough hese ac i i ies, ce ain p ac ices,
ma e ials, people, a ec s, and discou ses a e b ough
oge he , whe eas o he s a e kep apa (Langley e al.,
2019). S udies examining bounda y wo k high-
ligh how i o ms space (Clegg & Ko nbe ge , 2006)
h ough shi s in social and ma e ial ansac ions and
ambigui y as o whe e bounda ies eside (Si unen &
Pu nam, 2019). These unexpec ed and unp edic -
able occu ences a e key o unde s anding space as
o ming new pa e ns o o ganizing and o ganiza ion.
Assemblage
Bounda y wo k also occu s h ough shi s in he
assemblage o space. This key cons uc e e s o
changing he con igu a ions o human ac o s, o ga-
nizing p ac ices, and ma e ial ea u es ha enac
o ganiza ional spaces (Beyes & S eyae , 2012;
Mu doch, 2006). Assemblage esembles wo kplace
a angemen s in he his o ical iew o space, bu a
p ocess pe spec i e ocuses on i s eme gence in
o ming space. S udies ha adop a weak p ocess
pe spec i e ea assemblage as gene ally s able and
hus ocus on shi s ha occu o e ime. Fo exam-
ple, ea anging he o ice, implemen ing u ni u e
upg ades, eloca ing o ganiza ions (B ennan, Chugh,
& Kline, 2002; Co adi e al., 2015; McEl oy &
Mo ow, 2010; Saile , 2011), o a eling o a di e -
en si e o pa icipa e in mee ings wi h new people
(Nilsson & Ma es, 2015) en ail new combina ions o
people and hings. Assemblage con ibu es o open-
ing up spaces h ough connec ing bodies, physical
se ings, o emo ing people om dominan a eas
(Iedema & Rhodes, 2010; Sho , 2015; S u dy e al.,
2006; Vesala & Tuomi aa a, 2018).
By con as , a s ong p ocess pe spec i e con-
cei es o assemblage as luid and con inuously
changing con igu a ions ha shape wha space is
and how i is s uc u ed (Knox e al., 2015; Pel onen,
2011; Skoglund & Hol , 2020). Resea che s examine
how a ious ma e ial objec s, bodies, and a ec i e
expe iences connec wi h o he s o collec i ely pe -
o m space. This ongoing assembling gi es space i s
unique o m, one ha is o en di icul o con ol
(Jakonen e al., 2017; Michels & S eyae , 2017).
Schola s also show how echnologies media e as-
semblage h ough connec ing geog aphically dis an
pa icipan s in he o ma ion o space (Hydle, 2015).
O he schola s ocus on he ypes o ela ionships in
an assemblage and show, o example, how con lic s
equi e al e a ions in o ice spaces (Kingma, 2019;
Van Ma ewijk & Van den Ende, 2018) o how emo-
ional esponses eme ge among space use s (Biehl,
2019). Thus, spa ial assemblages do no exis “ou
he e,” a he hey eme ge h ough in e connec ing
an a ay o human and ma e ial elemen s ha o en
pe sis h ough epea ing o ganiza ional p ac ices
o e ime and se ings (V´
asquez & Coo en, 2013).
They come in o being h ough connec ing mul iple
ac o s, o ming a ec ela ionships, and shi ing he
p ominence o spa ial ea u es.
Scaling
Assemblages o spa ial con igu a ions ha e scal-
ing, de ined as he each o he ex ensi eness o
space (Massey, 2005; Mu doch, 2006). Scaling as a
cons uc depa s om he his o ical building block
o spa ial scales by ocusing on he dynamic quali ies
o space, such as ac i i ies ha scale up o down. A
p ocess pe spec i e, hen, challenges he no ion o
scale as p ede ined and nes ed in hie a chies o di -
e en sizes. Ins ead, scaling highligh s ela ionships,
p ac ices, ac i i ies, and lows ha expand o sh ink
he spa ial each o e ime. This cons uc also em-
phasizes how nea o a , up o down, and in ima e o
dis an ce ain social o ma e ial elemen s o space
a e (Sewell & Taskin, 2015; V´
asquez, 2016; V´
asquez
& Coo en, 2013).
812 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
Scaling appea s as a key cons uc in weak and
s ong p ocess pe spec i es o space. In weak ones,
scaling and space a e dis inc phenomenon ha can
in luence each o he bu unc ion sepa a ely. Fo
example, he p ac ices o changing scale, i e-
spec i e o space, can al e an o ganiza ion’s each
h ough capi al accumula ion, egula ion, and a ic-
ula ion o discou se (Spice , 2006; Taylo & Spice ,
2007). To ex end i s scale, o ganiza ions o en c ea e
p o ec ed spaces, such as empo a y expe imen al
se ings, whe e new ways o doing a e sa egua ded
and sha ed, he eby inc easing an o ganiza ion’s
each in inc emen al and con olled ways (Buche &
Langley, 2016; Ca el e al., 2019; Reinecke, 2018).
In s ong p ocess s udies, howe e , scaling and
space a e in e dependen and become mu ually de-
ining. Spaces bo h expand and sh ink in scale
depending on he each o un olding o ganiza ional
ac ions and in e ac ions. Expanding occu s, o ex-
ample, when communica ion echnologies ex end
locales (B own & O’Ha a, 2003; Hislop & Ax ell,
2009), when o ganiza ions “scale up”(Cnossen &
Benche ki, 2019), o when co po a ions acqui e o
me ge (Zelle , 2000). By con as , o ganiza ional
scaling sh inks when space educes h ough con-
s ic ing he magni ude and ange in which ce ain
o ganiza ional ac i i ies once ope a ed. F om a
s ong pe spec i e, he scaling o an o ganiza ion is
cons an ly enego ia ed based on he con igu ing o
se e al shi ing ac o s. Fo example, Ra ne (2019)
shows how he spa ial ju isdic ion o a school p in-
cipal expands and sh inks depending on he scale o
a pupil’s misdeeds (e.g., uancy e sus bullying and
d ug dealing), he a ailabili y o police, and he
public’s complain s. Thus, bo h space and scaling
eme ge, expand, and sh ink amid con igu ing space.
The Eme gences o O ganiza ional Space
Wha is cha ac e is ic o p ocess s udies o o -
ganiza ional space is hei ocus on mo emen s
o ac i i ies ha p oduce space and engage in
o ganizing simul aneously. Ins ead o measu ing
physical s uc u es, p ocess esea che s desc ibe
bounda y wo k o he ac i i ies ha make bound-
a ies by dema ca ing ma e ial and empo al dis-
inc ions o space among indi iduals, g oups, and
o ganiza ions. In place o iden i ying di e en ypes
o physical a angemen s, schola s examine o ga-
nizing ac i i ies ha econ igu e human ac o s,
p ac ices, and ma e ial ea u es in o assemblages o
space. As opposed o limi ing analyses o a pa ic-
ula scale, p ocess necessi a es a nuance o scaling
as he ac i i ies ha expand o sh ink he each o an
o ganiza ion’s spa ial con igu a ions o e ime (see
Figu e 1).
A shi o s udying hese spa ial ac i i ies chal-
lenges he idea ha space is a ixed con aine and
u ges esea che s o conside i ins ead as eme gen
h ough he ongoing p oduc ion o bounda ies, as-
semblage, and scaling. Th ough un olding o gani-
za ional e en s, spa ial ac i i ies pu he elemen s o
space in o new ela ionships wi h each o he , con-
cu en ly cons i u ing space and o ganizing. All o
he key cons uc s need o be enac ed o cons i u e
space; howe e , one spa ial ac i i y (i.e., bounda y
wo k, assembling, and scaling ac ions) migh be
mo e dominan o p ominen han ano he a a gi en
momen . Figu e 2 depic s he in e ace o he ongoing
spa ial ac i i ies ha enac space. E en hough i
pu s e en s in a sequen ial o de , hey ypically oc-
cu simul aneously and can be sepa a e and dis-
connec ed e en s. In e ec , he e en s a e no
cumula i e no e olu ional; hey ep esen how he
key cons uc s and spa ial ac i i ies come oge he o
cons i u e space a a gi en momen in ime.
In Figu e 2, Box A emphasizes he spa ial ac i i y
o bounda y wo k. In he mo emen om E en 1 o
E en 2, new bounda y wo k ac i i ies exe in lu-
ence in cons i u ing space. Because his bounda y
wo k inco po a es di e en con igu a ions o p ac-
ices, people, and ma e ial a i ac s han in E en 1,
he spa ial ac i i ies o assembling and scaling ac-
ions also change as pa o bounda y wo k nego ia-
ions. To illus a e, Vacca o and Palazzo (2015)
examined how bounda y wo k as a dominan spa ial
ac i i y igge ed di e en pa e ns o assembling
and scaling ac ions. They showed how a g oup o
an i-Ma ia ac i is s used bounda y wo k nego ia-
ions, such as including some ac o s and excluding
o he s, o o m a he e ogeneous coali ion o “pow-
e less ac o s” ha sh unk he scaling ope a ions o
he Ma ia, o example, hei wide-sp ead p ac ices
o paying p o ec ion money.
Box B po ays assembling as a dominan ac-
i i y. Assembling ac i i ies con igu e spa ial e-
la ions among human ac o s, ma e ial ea u es,
and o ganiza ional p ac ices. When assembling is
he mos pe asi e ac i i y, con igu a ions shape
bounda y wo k and scaling ac ions. E en 3 shows
how new assembling ac i i ies o m con igu a ions
ha shape bounda y wo k and scaling ac ions.
Ha dy and Magui e (2010) demons a ed how he
coloca ion o he e ogeneous ac o s and ma e ial
ea u es con igu ed mul iple o ganiza ional spaces
ha al e ed bounda y wo k and scaling ac ions.
2020 813S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
This con igu a ion o ged close collabo a ions ac oss
di e en o ganiza ions and al e ed he scale o pa -
icula o ganiza ional ac i i ies.
Box C accen ua es scaling ac ions ha expand/
educe o ex end/sh ink he in luence o o ganiza-
ional space. As he each o space changes, so does
bounda y wo k and assembling ac i i ies. Fo ex-
ample, Papazu and Nelund (2018) showed how he
scaling ac ions o an o cha d’s sus ainable p ac ices
sh unk space when manage s e used o adap ag i-
cul u al p ac ices o o ganic egula ions equi ed o
he na ional o ganic goods ne wo k. In doing so, he
o cha d was excluded om he ne wo k (bounda y
wo k) “con ining hem”(assembling) o “a mo e
pe iphe al exis ence”(p. 262).
An awa eness o how hese spa ial ac i i ies in-
e ac o b ing he key cons uc s o o ganiza ional
space in o being p o ides i m g ounding o a
p ocessual iew. In wha ollows, we discuss some
key ea u es (see Figu e 3) ha esea che s should
keep in mind when doing u u e esea ch on o ga-
niza ional space as p ocess.
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This e iew ocuses on p ocess s udies o space
published in he o ganiza ional and managemen
li e a u e. I shows how au ho s build on i e con-
cep ually dis inc o ien a ions o examine space:
de eloping, ansi ioning,imb ica ing,becoming,
and cons i u ing. De eloping s udies o eg ound
space as a physical se ing ha changes o e ime in
phases, s ages, o episodes, o example, h ough
eno a ions, epu posing, and spa ial ea ange-
men s. These changes in oduce new beha io s and
in e ac ion pa e ns among o ganiza ional membe s.
T ansi ioning s udies examine how people inhabi
new spaces ha a e in-be ween o ou side he o mal
o ganiza ion. These new spaces os e al e na i e
FIGURE 2
Eme gences o O ganiza ional Space O e Time
E en 1 E en 2 E en 3 E en 4
Bounda y wo k
Ac i i ies ha dema ca e
spaces o o ganiza ional
p ac ices and ela ions.
Dema ca ions as in E en 2
shape spa ial con igu a ions
and de ine scaling ac ions.
Assembling
Ac i i ies ha exe in luence
h ough con igu ing spa ial
ela ionships. Con igu a ions
o elemen s in E en 3 exe
p ominence h ough shaping
bounda ies and eo ien ing
scaling ac ions.
Scaling ac ions
Ac i i ies ha expand o
sh ink spa ial each. The
p ominence o scaling
ac ions in E en 4 in luences
assembling ac i i ies and
al e s bounda y wo k.
P ima y spa ial ac i i y
p ominen ac oss e en s
ABC
814 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
ways o o ganizing ha mo e beyond es ablished
ules and no ms. Imb ica ing s udies ocus on how
indi iduals in es space wi h signi icance in day- o-
day p ac ices. The ole o space in o ganiza ional
phenomena, hus, depends on he p ac ices in which
i is enac ed. Becoming s udies ea space as pe -
pe ual mo emen h ough bodily hy hms, low, and
a ec s. These s udies show how space is quali a-
i ely di e en in e e y momen and how i enac s
changes in o ganizing. Finally, cons i u ing s udies
conside how he social, symbolic, and ma e ial el-
emen s o space a e cons an ly o de ed in ela ion o
each o he . This o de ing b ings space in o being and
makes o ganiza ions du able.
Th ough de eloping his ypology, we con ib-
u e o p ocess esea ch on o ganiza ional space by
deciphe ing wha space is and how i o ganizes.
This ypology also adds cohe ence o a line o e-
sea ch ha has hus a seemed sca e ed and unsys-
ema ic. In depic ing how esea che s use di e en
p ocess o ien a ions, we show why mo ing away
om a con aine iew equi es adop ing new analy ic
cons uc s o s udy o ganiza ional space, namely,
mo emen ,bounda y,assemblage, and scaling. In
he emainde o his sec ion, we d aw on his e iew
o discuss h ee obse a ions ha unde lie p ocess
s udies o o ganiza ional space. In discussing hem,
we sugges key oppo uni ies o u u e p ocess
s udies o space.
Space as O ganizing
A i s and cen al obse a ion om his e iew
is ha o ganiza ional space needs o be o ganized
and ha spa ial ac i i ies unc ion as a o m o o -
ganizing. Fi s , s udies in his e iew show how
space needs o be o ganized, o example, h ough
eno a ions and modi ica ions (e.g., McEl oy &
Mo ow, 2010); day- o-day app op ia ions and dis-
app op ia ions (e.g., de Vaujany & Vaas , 2014); o
lows o in e ac ion among humans, echnologies,
and ma e ial a i ac s (e.g., V´
asquez, 2016). The
s udies ha emb ace ansi ioning, imb ica ing,
becoming, and cons i u ing o ien a ions illus a e
how e e yday wo k ac i i ies o ganize space as a
mundane ongoing accomplishmen .
Second, his e iew e eals how space i sel enac s
o ganizing h ough wha i is “doing,”how i does i ,
and wha his means o o ganiza ional membe s. To
illus a e, p ocess s udies show how space connec s,
sepa a es, and so s wo ke s (e.g., Dale, 2005); encou -
ages and discou ages pa icula beha io s (e.g., Faya d
& Weeks, 2007); assigns asks and ac i i ies (e.g., Tyle
& Cohen, 2010); and acili a es esis ance among o ga-
niza ional membe s (e.g., Cou passon e al., 2017). Ye ,
he ways in which space enac s o ganizing o p oduce
hese p ac ices emain unclea . Thus, p ocess s udies o
o ganiza ional space a ely o eg ound space as o ga-
nizing; consequen ly, we know ela i ely li le abou
how space shapes o ganiza ion.
To add ess his empi ical gap, schola s need o
s udy he “spa ial ac i i ies” ha simul aneously
enac space and o ganizing, ha is, esea che s need
o in en o y and ca ego ize hese ac i i ies and
cen e on wha hey do. Speci ically, schola s migh
in es iga e bounda y wo k pe o mances, assem-
bling ac i i ies ha b ing mul iple social and ma e-
ial elemen s oge he , and scaling ac ions ha ex end
o sh ink o ganiza ional each. Fo example, Rodne ,
Roule , Ke igan, and Vom Lehn (2019) iden i y
blu ing and ma king as ac i i ies i al o he bound-
a y wo k o a is s and he go e nmen who ied o
con olling Venezuela’s A Wo ld. Oi inen (2018),in
u n, shows how he linking and a anging o em-
bodied ac ions, such as gaze, hand ges u es, and
body posi ions, o ganize mee ing spaces ha bo h
enable and cons ain common unde s andings. Finally,
Sewell and Taskin (2015) demons a e how s a
membe s use elewo k ac i i ies as scaling ac ions by
ex ending he each o o ganiza ions in o homes and
simul aneously sh inking nonwo king spaces.
Resea ch ha ocuses on spa ial ac i i ies dem-
ons a es how space and o ganizing a e in ica ely
FIGURE 3
Cen al Obse a ions o Fu u e Resea ch on
O ganiza ional Space as P ocess
Cen al Obse a ions
O ganiza ional space is no a p e-exis en s a ic
con aine , i is pe o ma i e in he sense ha i
comes in o being h ough ongoing e en s.
1. Th ough e en s, mo emen in e sec s wi h
o he cons uc s o enac spa ial ac i i ies
as new ela ionships ha cons i u e space
and o ganizing.
2. To cons i u e space, all hese spa ial
ac i i ies need o be in play; howe e , one
migh be mo e dominan han ano he in
enac ing space o a gi en e en o ime.
3. Space always has a physicali y. I is a
hyb id phenomenon made o mul iple
ac o s ha a e bo h human and ma e ial.
2020 815S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
in e connec ed (Cnossen & Benche ki, 2019; Mengis
e al., 2019). This wo k sheds new ligh on a a ie y o
opics in o ganiza ional s udies, such as ins i u ional
wo k. The adi ional esea ch on space and ins i-
u ions ypically iewed physical buildings as
“s ong ma e ial ancho s” ha main ained ins i u-
ions (Mon ei o & Nicolini, 2014: 4). Fu u e esea ch,
howe e , migh adop a p ocess o ien a ion o exam-
ine he spa ial ac i i ies h ough which his main e-
nance occu s. To illus a e, Kellogg (2009) shows how
bounda y wo k os e s di e en ypes o spaces ha
lead o di e gen condi ions o ins i u ional change.
Simila ly, Ha dy and Magui e (2010) demons a e
how ce ain physical spaces (e.g., co ido s, plena y
sessions, and i ual spaces) coloca ecombina ionso
ac o s and ins i u ional discou ses in o assembling
ac i i ies ha con es dominan ins i u ional o de s.
These discou ses e en ually scale-up o change an
ins i u ional ield (scaling ac ions).
In addi ion o ins i u ional wo k, examining spa-
ial ac i i ies can help esea che s unco e new
o ms o o ganiza ional con ol and esis ance. Re-
sea ch on his opic has ypically ea ed space as a
physical con aine ha ei he enabled o cons ained
o ganiza ional con ol, speci ically, how ac o ies,
o ices, and o he physical spaces se ed as o ms o
manage ial su eillance and con ol (Bald y, 1997;
Dale & Bu ell, 2008). Howe e , when wo k occu s
e e ywhe e, adi ional no ions o space as con aine s
a e less e ec i e in exe ing con ol o enac ing esis-
ance. Techniques, such as emo e moni o ing and
algo i hmic managemen , ex end con ol and esis-
ance in o homes and public spaces, ypically beyond
he pu iew o physical o ice buildings. Examining
bounda y wo k and scaling ac ions could help e-
sea che s unde s and hese echniques as ypes o
spa ial ac i i ies. Speci ically, online mee ings and
lex wo k can blu bounda y wo k, such as ma king
onesel online when a wo ke is empo a ily absen o
engaged in mul i asking (Richa dson & McKenna,
2014). Scaling ac ions also ex end he each o local
con ol/ esis ance h ough “scaling up”o making
spa ial ac i i ies indi ec ly applicable o global
con ex s. Fo example, wo k alloca ion algo i hms
enac spa ial cons ain s by allowing only a ew
manage s o o e see housands o geog aphically
dispe sed wo ke s, such as Ube and Deli e oo
d i e s. Reconcep ualizing space as p ocess hen
becomes essen ial o unde s anding how con ol
and esis ance su ace in new o ms o o ganizing.
To build heo y on how space o ganizes, u u e
s udies need o de elop a lexicon o a common ax-
onomy o he concep s aligned wi h p ocess iews o
o ganiza ional space. E en hough p ocess s udies
o space ha e g own in he pas decade, as p e i-
ously no ed, hey a e widely di used, highly a i-
able, and no well in eg a ed. Speci ically, schola s
o en d aw on a su ei o concep s impo ed om
o he li e a u es a he han building on exis ing
wo k. Fo example, esea che s examine concep s
such as “ ime space”(Hydle, 2015), “social space”
(Sewell & Taskin, 2015), “ ela ional space”(Hi s &
Humph eys, 2013), “hyb id wo kspace”(Mun o &
Jo dan, 2013), “liminal space”(Sho , 2015), “iden-
i y space”(Daskalaki, Bu le , & Pe o ic, 2016), and
“he e o opia”(Beyes & Michels, 2011), o en wi hou
ying hem o exis ing li e a u e on he same ideas. As
a esul , esea ch has become agmen ed, idiosyn-
c a ic, and some imes isola ed om o ganiza ions
and o ganizing.
Disag eemen s ega ding he de ini ions o space
and place also con ound knowledge in his a ea.
As such, schola s o en ski heo e ical assump-
ions abou wha space is, wha i does, and how i
con ibu es o o ganizing (Beyes & S eyae , 2012;
Van Ma ewijk & Yanow, 2010). These issues
poin o he need o a common, heo e ically- oo ed
axonomy ha encompasses mul iple p ocess ap-
p oaches o o ganiza ional space. This axonomy
could aid in heo y building and help schola s
classi y esea ch indings, dis inguish among ap-
p oaches, and consolida e knowledge abou key
cons uc s. The p ocess o ien a ions, key cons uc s,
and spa ial ac i i ies ha emana e om his e iew
lay he g oundwo k o de eloping his common
axonomy.
Space as Pe o ma i e
Closely ela ed o o ganizing, a second obse a ion
ha s ems om his e iew is ha space is pe o -
ma i e and hus, ipe wi h possibili ies. A p ocess
iew o space means ha wo k and o ganizing come
in o being concomi an ly a he han sequen ially in
p ede ined buildings, s ee s, and loca ions (G egson
& Rose, 2000). In e ec , c ea ing, main aining, and
ans o ming space occu s h ough he complex
ways in which spa ial ac i i ies pe o m. To illus-
a e, ansi ioning s udies highligh how spa ial in-
e en ions pe o ma i ely c ea e new condi ions o
inno a ions h ough assembling language, human
in e ac ions, and ma e ial a i ac s, such as walls,
windows, and u ni u e (e.g., Beyes & Michels, 2011;
Fu na i, 2014). Imb ica ing s udies ocus on how
hese elemen s become en angled in he p oduc ion
o space (e.g., P¨
oyh¨
onen, 2018) and becoming s udies
816 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals

examine how hese elemen s and spa ial ac i i ies
a ec each o he (e.g., Beyes & S eyae , 2012). Con-
s i u ing s udies illus a e how assemblages and
ne wo ks pe o m o gi e space sense and signi i-
cance (e.g., Hi s & Humph eys, 2013).
Focusing on pe o ma i i y could help esea che s
examine he dialec ics o concei ed, pe cei ed, and
li ed space (Le eb e, 1991) as ongoing ac i i ies
a he han as spa ial p oduc s. In his way, i could
eanima e Le eb ian schola ship h ough ea ing
he h ee spa ial ypes as ongoing pe o mances (see
also Beyes & S eyae , 2012). Fo example, he spa ial
ac i i y o assembling could help schola s examine
how concei ed space (e.g., a chi ec u al discou ses
and designs) becomes en angled wi h pe cei ed
space (e.g., meanings and expe ien ial pe cep ions o
space use s) and wi h li ed space (e.g., embodied
p ac ices and ou ines in using space) in changing
o ganiza ional o ms. Resea che s could also s udy
how indi iduals o ganize pa icula elemen s o con-
cei ed, pe cei ed, and li ed spaces in o pe o ma i e
con igu a ions and wo k en i onmen s, such as a
“well- unc ioning wo kspace.”In his way, schola s
could use cons uc s ha anima e o ganiza ional
space and, hus, en ich Le eb ian s udies.
In addi ion, esea che s need o conduc addi-
ional s udies on how he social and ma e ial ele-
men s o space become in e mingled. Al hough
p ocess s udies o space ha e mo ed in his di ec ion
(Knox e al., 2015, 2008; V´
asquez, 2016; Wilhoi ,
2018), schola s con inue o p i ilege he social o e
he ma e ial elemen s; hence, u u e s udies need o
emb ace socioma e iali y in a mo e comple e way.
Socioma e iali y (O likowski, 2007) e e s o he
dynamic and in e connec ed ways ha ma e ial el-
emen s, such as walls, a i ac s, and echnologies,
become enmeshed in human ac i i y in he p oduc-
ion o space, o example, in wo k ans o ma ions.
In es iga o s hen migh examine how wo ke s in he
so-called “gig economy,”use spa ial ac i i ies o as-
semble social and ma e ial pla o ms, o ganiza ions,
clien s, and a i ac s (such as anspo a ion ehicles,
mobile phones, algo i hms, and digi al mechanisms)
ha enac ansi o y wo kspaces.
P oduc ion o Space and Agency
A hi d obse a ion ha eme ges om his e iew
is ha o ganiza ional space and agency a e in e -
wined. Speci ically, ea ing space as a p ocess o
o ganizing in i es schola s o ocus on he agency o
space i sel , no jus how agen s p oduce space. Fi s ,
se e al s udies in his e iew show how indi iduals
and g oups exe cise agency by o ganizing space in
pa icula ways (e.g., Beyes & Michels, 2011; Sho ,
2015), o example, in e ms o s a us (Zhang &
Spice , 2014) o gende (e.g., Hi s & Schwabenland,
2018). Second, s udies ha examine how space i sel
exe cises agency (e.g., Cnossen & Benche ki, 2019;
V´
asquez & Coo en, 2013) mo e away om a de e -
minis ic, causal iew be ween spa ial a angemen s
and human beha io . Ins ead, he ela ionships be-
ween space and o ganiza ional ac o s unde lie he
condi ions ha enable o cons ain possible ac ions.
To illus a e, s udies in he becoming and he con-
s i u ing o ien a ions ea agency as a hyb id o
mul iple human and ma e ial ac o s a he han
s ic ly a human p ope y (e.g., Knox e al., 2015;
V´
asquez, 2016). Thus, he agency o space s ems
om he con igu a ions among hese mul iple hu-
man and ma e ial agen s.
D awing om hese o ien a ions, u u e esea ch
on he agency o space could ocus on he dynamic
in e connec ions among indi iduals and echnology
in p oducing con empo a y wo king spaces. E en
hough adi ional s udies iew space as in ima ely
in e wined wi h echnology (e.g., B own & O’Ha a,
2003; Hislop & Ax ell, 2009; Knox e al., 2015;
Nilsson & Ma es, 2015), he li e a u e ypically cas s
his ela ionship as s a ic, o example, s udying
moni o ing sys ems (Ba nes, 2007) and copy ma-
chines (Faya d & Weeks, 2007) as s able ac o s ha
shape o ganiza ional p ac ices. Howe e , p ocess
s udies e eal how echnologies assemble people
and a i ac s in cowo king spaces (Fabb i, 2016;
Jakonen e al. 2017), shape o ganizing in semipublic
spaces such as ai po s (Knox e al. 2008), and ans-
o m physical spaces in o dynamic ac i i y sys ems
h ough i ual wo k (Si unen & Pu nam, 2019).
Fu u e esea ch could cen e on he spa ial ac i i ies
o pa icula echnologies, such as sma phones, lap-
ops, and ne wo k in as uc u es ha exe agency
o expand o sh ink o ganiza ional scale. They could
also show how mobile de ices in e ac wi h shi ing
loca ions o econs i u e space h oughou he day.
Examining wha echnology does in bounda y wo k
could show how Wi-Fi connec ions ans o m public
and p i a e a eas in o wo kspaces and blu bounda ies
be ween wo k and li e. Mo eo e , schola s could
s udy how adi ional echnologies, such as bells,
memo boa ds (Fabb i, 2016), and ex e nal displays
(Jakonen e al., 2017), exe agencies h ough c ea ing
assemblages ha os e new ypes o o ganiza ion.
Ad anced echnologies, such as en e p ise social
media sys ems and collabo a ion ools, also exe
agency h ough ex ending scaling ac ions ac oss
2020 817S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
o ganiza ional si es, coun ies, and con inen s (Ellison,
Gibbs, & Webe , 2015). Thus, ocusing on agency by
d awing on key cons uc s de eloped in his e iew
aids in deciphe ing how wo kspaces eme ge ac oss
di e en si es and loca ions—a home, co ee shops,
and on he go.
Me hodological Challenges and Oppo uni ies
These sugges ions o u u e esea ch call o in-
no a i e me hods and echniques o cap u e spa-
ial ac i i ies such as bounda y wo k, assembling
mul iple social and ma e ial elemen s, and enac -
ing scaling. E en hough e hnog aphic me hods
play an impo an ole in o ganiza ional space e-
sea ch, schola s ha e no ealized he ull po en ial
o “spa ial e hnog aphy.”Speci ically, s udying
space as a p ocess en ails complemen ing con en-
ional obse a ion-based app oaches wi h o he
e hnog aphic me hods ha cap u e un olding mo e-
men s, such as au o-e hnog aphic (Cunli e, 2011)
and shadowing (Cza niawska, 2014). Video e h-
nog aphy (LeBa on, Ja zabkowski, P a , & Fe ze ,
2018) o e s p ecision in in es iga ing he de-
ailed p ocesses o bounda y wo k and assembling,
and global e hnog aphy (Ja zabkowski, Bedna ek,
& Caban ous, 2015) aids in explo ing scaling ac-
ionsaso ganiza ionsex end and educe hei
each.
In gene al, any esea ch p ojec needs o bo h
“zoom in and ou ”(Nicolini, 2009), ha is, i should
ocus on he si ua ed, mic o-le el enac men s o
space as well as he b oad consequences o i s p o-
duc ion. To illus a e, Bes and Hindma sh (2018)
use ideo- eco ded in e ac ions in museums o
examine how he mic o-le el beha io s o ou
guides enac mac o-le el o ganiza ional spaces.
Also, Mun o and Jo dan (2013) use mobile e hnog-
aphy o ack he mic o-le el ac ics o s ee a is s
a he Edinbu gh Fes i al F inge. Th ough cha ing
hei mo es and coun e mo es, he au ho s show
how s ee a is s c ea e empo a y wo kspaces ha
challenge he ci y’s dominan spa ial o de . Bo h
s udies ely on objec s, sounds, and ac ions o ace
he p ocessual na u e o space and o deciphe he
in si u p ac ices o o ganizing. Mo eo e , hese
s udies demons a e how p ocess schola s who
s udy space can cap u e he “aha”momen s ha
su ace in he mundane, day- o-day ac i i ies o
o ganizing (Ja zabkowski, Lˆ
e, & Spee, 2017). O e -
all, u u e s udies need o use c ea i e me hodo-
logical app oaches o cap u e wha space is and
does and how i pe o ms o ganizing.
CONCLUSION
This a icle syn hesizes and in eg a es p ocess e-
sea ch on o ganiza ional space. As such, i e eals
he di e si y o heo e ical app oaches ha schola s
use, he key cons uc s ha hey p i ilege, and he
spa ial ac i i ies ha eme ge om hese in es iga-
ions. Despi e and pa ly because o hese de elop-
men s, p ocess esea ch on o ganiza ional space is
widely dispe sed, incommensu able, and some imes
disconnec ed om o ganiza ions and o ganizing.
To add ess hese issues and os e heo y building,
we sugges ha u u e s udies d aw on a common,
heo e ically- oo ed axonomy, one ha p omo es
sys ema ic esea ch and a oids ideological silos. To
ad ance his goal, his a icle se s o h a ypology,
key cons uc s, and spa ial ac i i ies g ounded in he
s udy o o ganiza ional space as p ocess. I shows
how hese cons uc s c oss di e en p ocess o ien-
a ions and how hey ela e o each o he . These
cons uc s also o m a ub ic o de eloping o gani-
za ion heo y in u u e esea ch.
In addi ion, by making o ganiza ional space he
igu e o cen al oci o esea ch, schola s can de elop
no el ideas o ad ance in es iga ions o ins i u ional
wo k, con ol and esis ance, and echnology. The
complexi y o con empo a y o ganiza ional li e in
which bounda ies a e luid, people and echnologies
a e en angled, and he spa ial each o o ganiza ions
con inually g ows calls o concep ual and heo e ical
sophis ica ion o unde s and space. Using a common
axonomy ha encompasses mul iple app oaches has
he po en ial o en ich p ocess esea ch on o ganiza-
ions w i la ge as well as on space.
REFERENCES
Allen, M., & B own, S. D. 2016. Memo ial meshwo k: The
making o he commemo a i e space o he Hyde Pa k
7/7 Memo ial. O ganiza ion, 23(1): 10–28.
Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing he low o echnology.
Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess.
Alonso Gonz´
alez, P. 2016. The o ganiza ion o commem-
o a i e space in pos colonial Cuba: F om Ci ic Squa e
o Squa e o he Re olu ion. O ganiza ion, 24(1): 47–70.
Amin, A., & Cohende , P. 2004. A chi ec u es o knowl-
edge: Fi ms, capabili ies, and communi ies. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Amin, A., Massey, D., & Th i , N. 2003. Decen e ing he
na ion: A adical app oach o egional inequali y.
London: Ca alys .
Aug´
e, M. 1995. Non-places: In oduc ion o an an h o-
pology o supe mode ni y. London: Ve so.
818 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
Bain, P., & Taylo , P. 2000. En apped by he ‘elec onic
panop icon’? Wo ke esis ance in he call cen e.
New Technology, Wo k and Employmen ,15(1):
2–18.
Bakken, T., & He nes, T. 2006. O ganizing is bo h a e b
and a noun: Weick mee s Whi ehead. O ganiza ion
S udies, 27(11): 1599–1616.
Bald y, C. 1997. The social cons uc ion o o ice space.
In e na ional Labou Re iew, 136(3): 365–378.
Bald y, C. 1999. Space- he inal on ie . Sociology, 33(3):
535–553.
Bald y, C., & Ba nes, A. 2012. The open-plan academy:
Space, con ol and he unde mining o p o essional
iden i y. Wo k, Employmen & Socie y, 26(2):
228–245.
Ba -Le , S., & Vi ne , G. 2011. Pe o ming a c isis: Ins i u-
ional poli ics and he cons uc ion o (i ) esponsibil-
i y. O ganiza ion, 19(6): 667–684.
Ba nes, A. 2007. The cons uc ion o con ol: The
physical en i onmen and he de elopmen o e-
sis ance and accommoda ion wi hin call cen es.
New Technology, Wo k and Employmen , 22(3):
246–259.
Bazin, Y., & Naccache, P. 2016. The eme gence o he e o-
opia as a heu is ic concep o s udy o ganiza ion.
Eu opean Managemen Re iew, 13(3): 225–233.
Be g, P. O., & K eine , K. 1990. Co po a e a chi ec u e:
Tu ning physical se ings in o symbolic esou ces. In
P. Gaglia di (Ed.), Symbols and a i ac s. New Yo k:
Aldine de G uy e .
Be i, M., Simpson, A., & Clegg, S. 2018. Making a place ou
o space: The social imagina ies and eali ies o a
Business School as a designed space. Managemen
Lea ning, 49(2): 168–186.
Bes ,K.,&Hindma sh,J.2018.Embodiedspa ialp ac ices
and e e yday o ganiza ion: The wo k o ou guides and
hei audiences. Human Rela ions,72(2):248–271.
Beyes, T. 2010. Uncon ained: The a and poli ics o
econ igu ing u ban space. Cul u e and O ganiza-
ion, 16(3): 229–246.
Beyes, T., & Michels, C. 2011. The p oduc ion o educa-
ional space: He e o opia and he business uni e si y.
Managemen Lea ning, 42(5): 521–536.
Beyes, T., & S eyae , C. 2012. Spacing o ganiza ion: Non-
ep esen a ional heo y and pe o ming o ganiza-
ional space. O ganiza ion, 19(1): 45–61.
Biehl, B. 2019. “In he mix”: Rela ional leade ship ex-
plo ed h ough an analysis o echno DJs and dance s.
Leade ship, 15(3): 339–359.
Biehl-Missal, B. 2016. Filling he “emp y space”: Si e-
speci ic dance in a echno club. Cul u e and O ga-
niza ion, 25(1): 16–31.
Boon, B. 2007. Room a endan s in he ho el gues oom
space. Jou nal o Managemen and O ganiza ion,
13(2): 160–174.
Bo ch, C. 2009. O ganiza ional a mosphe es: Foam, a ec
and a chi ec u e. O ganiza ion, 17(2): 223–241.
Bou dieu, P. 1977. Ou line o a heo y o p a ice. Cam-
b idge, UK: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
B ennan, A., Chugh, J., & Kline, T. 2002. T adi ional e sus
open o ice design: A longi udinal ield s udy. En i-
onmen and Beha io , 34(3): 279–299.
B own, B., & O’Ha a, K. 2003. Place as a p ac ical conce n
o mobile wo ke s. En i onmen and Planning A,
35(9): 1565–1587.
Buche , S., & Langley, A. 2016. The in e play o e lec i e
and expe imen al spaces in in e up ing and eo -
ien ing ou ine dynamics. O ganiza ion Science,
27(3): 594–613.
Bu ell, G., & Dale, K. 2014. Space and o ganiza ion s udies. In
P.Adle , P.du Gay, G.Mo gan, & M.Reed (Eds.), The
Ox o d handbook o sociology, social heo y, and o -
ganiza ion s udies. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Cai ns, G. 2002. Aes he ics, mo ali y and powe : Design as
espoused eedom and implici con ol. Human Re-
la ions, 55(7): 799–820.
Cai ns, G., McInnes, P., & Robe s, P. 2003. O ganiza ional
space/ ime: F om impe ec panop ical o he e o-
opian unde s anding. Epheme a, 3(2): 126–139.
Callahan, J. 2013. Space, he inal on ie ? Social mo e-
men s as o ganizing spaces o applying HRD. Human
Resou ce De elopmen In e na ional, 16(3): 298–312.
Callon, M., & Law, J. 2004. In oduc ion: Absence—
P esence, ci cula ion, and encoun e ing in complex
space. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y and
Space, 22(1): 3–11.
Ca mona, S., Ezzamel, M., & Gu i´
e ez, F. 1997. Con ol
and cos accoun ing p ac ices in he Spanish Royal
Tobacco ac o y. Accoun ing, O ganiza ions and
Socie y, 22(5): 411–446.
Ca el, M., Boxenbaum, E., & Agge i, F. 2019. Jus o un!
How expe imen al spaces s imula e inno a ion in ins i-
u ionalized ields. O ganiza ion S udies, 40(1): 65–92.
Chini z, B. 1961. Con as s in agglome a ion: New Yo k
and Pi sbu gh. Ame ican Economic Associa ion,51(2):
279–289.
Clegg, S., Cunha, M., &Rego, A. 2012. The heo y and p ac ice
o u opia in a o al ins i u ion: The pineapple pan-
op icon. O ganiza ion S udies, 33(12): 1735–1757.
Clegg, S., & Ko nbe ge , M. (Eds.). 2006. O ganizing space.
Space, o ganiza ions and managemen heo y. Oslo,
No way: Libe & Copenhagen Business School P ess.
2020 819S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen
Cnossen, B., & Benche ki, N. 2019. The ole o space in he
eme gence and endu ance o o ganizing: How inde-
penden wo ke s and ma e ial assemblages cons i u e
o ganiza ions. Human Rela ions, 72(6): 1057–1080.
Cohen, R. 2010. Re hinking ‘mobile wo k’: Bounda ies o
space, ime and social ela ion in he wo king li es o
mobile hai s ylis s. Wo k, Employmen and Socie y,
24(1): 65–84.
Coo en, F. 2006. The o ganiza ional wo ld as a plenum o
agencies. Communica ion as o ganizing: Empi ical
and heo e ical app oaches o he dynamic o ex
and con e sa ion. Mahwah, NJ: E lbaum.
Coo en, F., & Fai hu s , G. 2004. Speech iming and spac-
ing: The phenomenon o o ganiza ional closu e. O -
ganiza ion, 11(6): 793–824.
Coo en, F., Fox, S., Robichaud, D., & Talih, N. 2005. A -
gumen s o a plu i ied iew o he social wo ld:
Spacing and iming as hyb id achie emen s. Time &
Socie y, 14(2-3): 265–282.
Co adi, A., Heinzen, M., & Bou ellie , R. 2015. A longi u-
dinal s udy o wo kspace design o knowledge ex-
plo a ion and exploi a ion in he esea ch and
de elopmen p ocess. C ea i i y & Inno a ion Man-
agemen , 24(1): 55–71.
Cos as, J. 2013. P oblema izing mobili y: A me apho o
s ickiness, non-places and he kine ic eli e. O gani-
za ion S udies, 34(10): 1467–1485.
Cou passon, D., Dany, F., & Delb idge, R. 2017. Poli ics o
place: The meaning ulness o esis ing places. Human
Rela ions, 70(2): 237–259.
C e ani, L. 2018a. Is he e leade ship in a luid wo ld?
Explo ing he ongoing p oduc ion o di ec ion in o -
ganizing. Leade ship, 14(1): 83–109.
C e ani, L. 2018b. P i ilege in place: How o ganisa ional
p ac ices con ibu e o meshing p i ilege in place.
Scandina ian Jou nal o Managemen , 35(2): 101035.
Cunli e, A. L. 2011. C a ing quali a i e esea ch: Mo gan
and Smi cich 30 yea s on. O ganiza ional Resea ch
Me hods, 14(4): 647–673.
Cunli e, A. L., & Luchman, J. T. 2013. Key concep s in
o ganiza ion heo y. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub-
lica ions L d.
Cza niawska, B. 2004. On ime, space, and ac ion ne s.
O ganiza ion, 11(6): 773–791.
Cza niawska, B. 2014. Obse a ion on he mo e: Shad-
owing. In B. Cza niawska (Ed.), Social science e-
sea ch: F om ield o desk:43–56. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Dale, K. 2005. Building a social ma e iali y: Spa ial and
embodied poli ics in o ganiza ional con ol. O gani-
za ion, 12(5): 649–678.
Dale, K., & Bu ell, G. 2008. The spaces o o ganisa ion
and he o ganiza ion o space: Powe , iden i y
and ma e iali y a wo k. Basings oke, UK: Palg a e
MacMillan.
Dash ipou , P., & Rumens, N. 2018. En ep eneu ship, in-
cong uence and a ec : D awing insigh s om a Swedish
an i- acis o ganisa ion. O ganiza ion, 25(2): 223–241.
Daskalaki, M., Bu le , C. L., & Pe o ic, J. 2016. Somewhe e
in-be ween : Na a i es o place, iden i y, and ans-
local wo k. Jou nal o Managemen Inqui y, 25(2):
184–198.
Daskalaki, M., & Kokkinidis, G. 2017. O ganizing solida i y
ini ia i es: A socio-spa ial concep ualiza ion o esis-
ance. O ganiza ion S udies, 38(9): 1303–1325.
Daskalaki M., S a a A., & Imas, M. 2008. The “pa kou o -
ganisa ion”: Inhabi a ion o co po a e spaces. Cul u e
and O ganiza ion, 14(1): 49–64.
Da is, T. R. V. 1984. The in luence o he physical en i-
onmen in o ices. The Academy o Managemen
Re eiw, 9(2): 271–283.
Decke , S. 2014. Solid in en ions: An a chi al e hno-
g aphy o co po a e a chi ec u e and o ganiza ional
emembe ing. O ganiza ion, 21(4): 514–542.
de Ce eau, M. 1984. The p ac ice o e e yday li e.
Be kley, MI: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
Deleuze, G., & Gua a i, F. 1987. A housand pla eaus: Cap-
i alism and schizoph enia, ol. 2. London: A hlone.
De ksen, K., Blomme, R., de Caluw´
e, L., Rupe , J., &
Simons, R. 2019. B eaking he pa adox: Unde s and-
ing how eams c ea e de elopmen al space. Jou nal o
Managemen Inqui y, 28(3): 366–380.
de Vaujany, F., & Vaas , E. 2014. I hese walls could alk:
The mu ual cons uc ion o o ganiza ional space and
legi imacy. O ganiza ion Science, 25(3): 713–731.
D’Mello, M., & Sahay, S. 2007. “I am kind o a nomad
whe e I ha e o go places and places”... Unde -
s anding mobili y, place and iden i y in global
so wa e wo k om India. In o ma ion and O gani-
za ion, 17(3): 162–192.
Dobson, S. 2012. Cha ac e izing he e olu ion o com-
me cial o ganiza ional spaces. In e na ional Jou nal
o O ganiza ional Analysis, 20(3): 309–322.
Dumez, H., & Jeunemai e, A. 2010. The managemen o
o ganiza ional bounda ies: A case s udy. M@n@
gemen , 13(3): 152.
Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Webe , M. S. 2015. The use o
en e p ise social ne wo k si es o knowledge sha ing
in dis ibu ed o ganiza ions: The ole o o ganiza-
ional a o dances. Ame ican Beha io al Scien is ,
59(1): 103–123.
Elmhold , K., Clausen, R., & Madsen, M. 2018. Seduc i e
a mosphe es: Using ools o e ec ua e spaces o
820 JulyAcademy o Managemen Annals
Wasse man, V., & F enkel, M. 2011. O ganiza ional aes-
he ics: Caugh be ween iden i y egula ion and cul-
u e jamming. O ganiza ion Science, 22(2): 503–521.
Wasse man, V. & F enkel, M. 2015. Spa ial wo k in be-
ween glass ceilings and glass walls: Gende -class
in e sec ionali y and o ganiza ional aes he ics. O -
ganiza ion S udies, 36(11): 1485–1505.
Wa kins, C. 2005. Rep esen a ions o space, spa ial p ac ices
and spaces o ep esen a ion: An applica ion o Le eb e’s
spa ial iad. Cul u e and O ganiza ion, 11(3): 209–220.
Weick, K. E. 1974. Amendmen s o o ganiza ional heo izing.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 17(1): 487–502.
Wein u ne , T., & Seidl, D. 2019. Towa ds a spa ial pe -
spec i e: An in eg a i e e iew o esea ch on
o ganisa ional space. Scandina ian Jou nal o
Managemen ,35(2):1–30.
Wilhoi , E. 2017. “My d i e is my sac ed ime”: Commu -
ing as ou ine liminali y. Cul u e and O ganiza ion,
23(4): 263–276.
Wilhoi , E., & Kisselbu gh, L. 2015. Collec i e ac ion
wi hou o ganiza ion: The ma e ial cons i u ion o
bike commu e s as collec i e. O ganiza ion S udies,
36(5): 573–592.
Wilhoi , E. D. 2018. Space, place, and he communica i e con-
s i u ion o o ganiza ions: A cons i u i e model o o gani-
za ional space. Communica ion Theo y,28(3):311–331.
Wilne , A., Ch is opoulous, M., & Al es, M. 2017. The
online unmanaged o ganiza ion: Con ol and esis-
ance in a space wi h blu ed bounda ies. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 141(4): 677–691.
Wilson, J., O’Lea y, M., Me iu, A., & Je , Q. 2008. Pe cei ed
p oximi y in i ual wo k: Explaining he pa adox o
a -bu -close. O ganiza ion S udies, 29(7): 979–1002.
Yeung, H. W. C. 1998. The social-spa ial cons i u ion o
business o ganiza ions: A geog aphical pe spec i e.
O ganiza ion, 5(1): 101–128.
Zalesny, M., & Fa ace, R. 1987. T adi ional e sus open
o ices: A compa ison o socio echnical, social ela-
ions, and symbolic meaning pe spec i es. Academy
o Managemen Jou nal, 30(2): 240–259.
Zelle , C. 2000. Rescaling powe ela ions be ween ade
unions and co po a e managemen in a globalising
pha maceu ical indus y: The case o he acquisi ion
o Boeh inge Mannheim by Ho man - La Roche.
En i onmen and Planning A, 32(9): 1545–1567.
Zhang, Z., & Spice , A. 2014. “Leade , you i s ”: The e -
e yday p oduc ion o hie a chical space in a Chinese
bu eauc acy. Human Rela ions, 67(6): 739–762.
Zhang, Z., Spice , A., & Hancock, P. 2008. Hype -
o ganiza ional space in he wo k o J. G. Balla d. O -
ganiza ion, 15(6): 889–910.
Zie sma, C., & Law ence, T. B. 2010. Ins i u ional wo k in
he ans o ma ion o an o ganiza ional ield: The in-
e play o bounda y wo k and p ac ice wo k. Admin-
is a i e Science Qua e ly, 55(2): 189–221.
Ka hleen A. S ephenson ([email p o ec ed]) is an As-
sis an P o esso o O ganiza ion S udies wi h he School
o Business and Economics a he V ije Uni e si ei
Ams e dam, he Ne he lands. He esea ch in e es s in-
clude o ganiza ional space, o ganiza ional change and
main enance, and powe . He cu en esea ch examines
how indi idual hy hms and mobili y ela e o s a egic
changes and aims.
A i Kuismin ([email p o ec ed]) is a Pos doc o al Re-
sea che a Aal o Uni e si y School o Business, Finland.
His esea ch ocuses on changing o ms o wo k and o ga-
nizing, especially om he pe spec i es o o ganiza ional
space, empo ali y, and poli ics. His empi ical s udies a e
based on e hnog aphic esea ch me hods. He is cu en ly
wo king on p ojec s ha deal wi h employee expe ience
and wellbeing a wo k.
Linda L. Pu nam ([email p o ec ed]) is a Dis in-
guished Resea ch P o esso Eme i a a he Uni e si y o
Cali o nia, San a Ba ba a. He esea ch in e es s include
ensions and pa adoxes, o ganiza ional space, nego ia ion
and con lic managemen , and discou se s udies. She is he
co-edi o o ele en books, a o me Academy o Manage-
men Boa d Membe , and a Fellow/Dis inguished Schola
o h ee associa ions.
Anu Si unen ([email p o ec ed]) is a P o esso in he
Depa men o Language and Communica ion S udies a
Uni e si y o Jy ¨
askyl¨
a, Finland. He esea ch ocuses on
communica ion echnologies and o ganiza ional knowl-
edge sha ing, global eams and o he dis ibu ed wo k a -
angemen s, as well as o ganiza ional space. He wo k has
appea ed in jou nals om a a ie y o disciplines.
2020 827S ephenson, Kuismin, Pu nam, and Si unen