Abstract
Although discussion and perspectives in organization studies, management, industrial sociology, and geography have expanded the overall understanding of the spatial context and location of learning organizations, little is known about the microsettings and architectural configuration of spaces that promote collective action. Exploring this aspect of the relation between space and organizations, the author examines knowledge-intensive work processes in a German research institution to identify how architectural space (a building’s spatial configuration) relates to collective action and organizational learning. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies, including a space syntax analysis of spatial configuration, are used to document spatial configuration, space usage, and patterns of interaction and knowledge-sharing in relation to other knowledge-intensive work environments. A narrative of life in the organization depicts physical space as a factor of organizational learning. The author considers the effects of spatiality and transpatiality on organizational behavior to challenge the common association between geodeterminism and the study of physical space.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This lack of interdisciplinary communication has been criticized by Price (2007):
[Concerning] business performance[, there is] … little hard evidence for the effect of physical space in office settings; … Such evidence as could be located, especially in managerial journals, was largely anecdotal. Property economists were adept at considering buildings from an investment perspective and building management research covered the technical issues, but the evidence from a business, or even just an individual occupier’s, perspective was missing. The literature has discourses on organizations and workspaces whose proponents largely ignore each other. (p. 104).
- 2.
- 3.
The main research areas of the institute were quantum physics of condensed matter, nonlinear phenomena and dynamics, and biophysics. The physicists interviewed for this project regarded their institute as very “interdisciplinary,” even though they had all studied the same subject. Nonetheless, the focus and methodologies used varied significantly.
- 4.
A benchmark of 11 knowledge-intensive organizations from the public sector (universities and research institutions) and the private sector (media businesses) whose members had all studied with a similar methodology and setup was available to me through involvement in a collaborative research project entitled “Effective Workplaces” conducted by University College London and Spacelab Architects, London. (Some of the results are published in Sailer, Budgen, Lonsdale, Turner, & Penn, 2009.) The benchmark consisted of syntactical features of space (visibility, metric integration of the building) and survey data on interaction and collaboration patterns of the organizations (interaction frequency and the intensity of collaboration).
- 5.
“Man braucht schon den sozialen Kontakt, und den Austausch, was andere Leute machen, was man von wem lernen kann bevor man das Rad neu erfindet, ja, so kann man Wege abkürzen. Der Erkenntnisgewinn geht sicher schneller in der Gruppe oder in der Wechselwirkung der Systeme, als wenn die Leute sich isolieren.”
- 6.
“Dieses Gästeprogramm ist schon was Besonderes, dass die Leute hier kommen und gehen, ohne dass man die Chance hat, da mitzukommen. Dass wenig permanente Leute da sind, das verleiht dem Ganzen schon eine besondere Dynamik. Es kommen viele Leute vorbei, mit denen kann man dann diskutieren, und dann diskutiert man halt mit denen und je nachdem wer da wäre, würde die Arbeit vielleicht auch einen ganz anderen Kick bekommen.”
- 7.
“Was ich schon gerne hätte, ist dass die Gruppe, also dass die Laufwege im Institut ingesamt geringer wären, also mein Chef sitzt noch eine Etage tiefer, das geht noch, aber wenn ich zu den postdocs gehe, mit denen ich zu tun habe, das ist am Ende des A-Flügels und das ist dann schon ein Stück Weg… Ich würde die Gruppen halt raumtechnisch … verändern, also die Wege innerhalb einer Gruppe möglichst kurz halten, das ist zumindest bei uns in der Gruppe noch zu lang.”
- 8.
“Der Nachteil der Flügel ist, der [S], der sitzt 100 m in diese Richtung oder 80, das ist eine Distanz, da geht man nicht einfach so hin. Weil … es dauert einfach, dann kann man noch irgendwo festhängen, weil man Leute trifft.”
- 9.
Version control systems are commonly used in relatively complex software development projects, specifically for collaborative or joint programming to monitor changes that different people make in the code at different times.
- 10.
“Also in Bezug auf unsere Arbeitsgruppe, es war ja so, dass zumindest drei Leute quasi das gleiche gemacht haben und wir hätten also das gleiche Programm benutzen können, nur auf verschiedene Art und Weise, da wären nur winzige Dinge drumherum zu schreiben gewesen, die uns betreffen. Und es hat relativ lange gedauert, bis wir uns endlich dazu entschieden haben, das mal zusammenzuwerfen und jetzt funktioniert es auch viel besser… Die Idee kam von mir beziehungsweise sie kam kontinuierlich [schmunzelt] und letztendlich habe ich den Anlass gegeben, das so zu tun.”
- 11.
For an introduction to extreme programming and pair-programming, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_programming (both documents retrieved in 2008).
- 12.
“Für die Projektreffen haben wir das Ende des A-Flügels … genutzt. Der sonnige Platz war sehr schön für die Statustreffen, die im Stehen abgehalten werden. Nach den Treffen fanden sich oft kleine Teams, die sofort mit der Detailplanung begannen. Die sind dann im Büro veschwunden oder haben einige Details auf den Rückweg im Gang geklärt.”
- 13.
“Der Erfolg unserer Organisation, den sehe ich hauptsächlich darin, ein Klima zu erzeugen, das richtige Klima zu erzeugen, wo neue Ideen und neue Entwicklungen eine möglichst hohe Chance haben, dass sich neue Dinge entwickeln, über die Erzeugung eines Klimas. Das ist natürlich gekoppelt mit Verhaltensmustern. Ein wichtiger Punkt ist Großzügigkeit. Das ist sehr wichtig. Und möglichst frühzeitige Delegation von Verantwortung, da wo es möglich ist. Man muss den Initiativen der Einzelnen möglichst viel Spielraum lassen.”
- 14.
“Durch die neuen Kaffeemaschinen, da kommen sehr viel mehr Diskussionen zusammen, weil man sich da einfach trifft.”
- 15.
“Ich mag die Großzügigkeit, ich komm hier jeden Morgen in das Haus rein und sage: toll. Die Treppe, die großen Fenster, es ist alles sehr hell. Irgendwie bringt es einen dazu, dass man mit Leuten kommuniziert in den weiten Flächen, dass man auch mal stehen bleibt, sich anlehnt, und sagt, oh, jetzt kommt jemand, den wolltest du mal was fragen oder mit dem hattest du eh was zu besprechen und dann bleibt man stehen.”
References
Ackermann, M. (2005). Systemisches Lernen: Individuelle und organizationale Lernprozesse in Kommunikationsarchitekturen [Systemic learning: Individual and organizational learning processes in communication architectures]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
Allen, T. J., & Fustfeld, A. R. (1975). Research laboratory architecture and the structuring of communications. R&D Management, 5, 153–164.
Allen, T. J., & Gerstberger, P. G. (1973). A field experiment to improve communications in a product engineering department: The non-territorial office. Human Factors, 15, 487–498.
Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37, 353–369.
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Becker, F. (1981). Work space: Creating environments in organizations. New York: Praeger Publishers Inc.
Becker, F., & Sims, W. (2001, October). Offices that work: Balancing communication, flexibility and cost [Electronic Version]. Ithaca, NY: International Workplace Studies Program, Cornell University. Retrieved from http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu/file_uploads/offices1_1238256905.pdf. Also available at: http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/07/27/10/IWS_0002.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf
Boje, A. (1971). Open plan offices. London: Business Books.
Boyce, P. R. (1974). Users’ assessment of a landscaped office. Journal of Architectural Research, 3(3), 44–62.
Brookes, M. J., & Kaplan, A. (1972). The office environment: Space planning and effective behavior. Human Factors, 14, 373–391.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). (2005). The impact of office design on business performance. London: The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
Carey, A. (1967). The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32, 403–416.
Chawla, S., & Renesch, J. (Eds.). (1995). Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Clearwater, Y. (1980). User’s assessment of a landscaped office. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA.
Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 430–459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dilworth, R. (1995). The DNA of the learning organization. In S. Chawla & J. Renesch (Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace (pp. 243–255). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 75–123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Faulconbridge, J. R. (2006). Stretching tacit knowledge beyond a local fix? Global spaces of learning in advertising professional service firms. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 517–540.
Fayard, A.-L., & Weeks, J. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28, 605–634.
Fischer, G. N. (1997). Individuals and environment: A psychosocial approach to workspace. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., Butterbach, E. B., & Sassenberg, K. (2005). Automatic effects of deviancy cues on creative cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 345–359.
Gertler, M. S. (1997). Between the global and the local: The spatial limits to productive capital. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 45–63). New York: The Guilford Press.
Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 75–99.
Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31, 35–74.
Granath, J. A., Lindahl, G. A., & Adler, N. (1995, June). Organizational learning supported by design of space, technical systems and work organization: A case study from an electronic design department. Paper presented at the 5th international conference of Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM), Stuttgart, Germany.
Hanson, A. (1978). Effects of a move to an open landscape office. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(6), 3046B.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook on organizational design (Vol. 1, pp. 3–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heerwagen, J., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K., & Loftness, V. (2004). Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research and Information, 32, 510–528.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1987). Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour, 3, 233–250. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/101/. See also http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/101/1/hillier-etal-1987-creating-life.pdf
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115.
Hundert, A. T., & Greenfield, N. (1969). Physical space and organizational behavior: A study of an office landscape. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 4, 601–602.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Random House.
Ives, R. S., & Ferdinands, R. (1974). Working in a landscaped office. Personnel Practice Bulletin, 30, 126–141.
Kampschroer, K., & Heerwagen, J. (2005). The strategic workplace: Development and evaluation. Building Research and Information, 33, 326–337.
Kampschroer, K., Heerwagen, J., & Powell, K. (2007). Creating and testing workplace strategy. California Management Review, 49(2), 119–137.
Kelter, J. (2006). Office-Excellence-Check: Ergebnisse der Zwischenauswertung zur Orgatec 2006 [Office excellence check: Results of the interim analysis at Orgatec 2006]. Stuttgart, Germany: Fraunhofer Institut Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation.
Kelter, J. (2007, September). Office Excellence: Konzepte, Messung, Bewertung [Office excellence: Concepts, measurement, evaluation]. Paper presented at the A+A Congress, 30th international congress on Occupational Health and Safety, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Kelter, J., & Kern, P. (2006, March). Office Excellence—Kennzahlen für Büroqualität [Office excellence—Quality benchmarks for office]. Paper presented at the 52nd Congress of the Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft, Stuttgart, Germany.
Klein, L. (1999). Lebensfähige Strukturen der lernenden Organization: Beispiel Human Resource Management [Viable structures of the learning organization as exemplified by human resource management]. In M. Schwaninger (Ed.), Intelligente Organizationen: Konzepte für turbulente Zeiten auf der Grundlage von Systemtheorie und Kybernetik, Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialkybernetik vom 2.–4. Oktober 1997 in St. Gallen, Schweiz (pp. 177–188). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.
Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 89–96.
Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Organizational adaptation and environmental selection-interrelated processes of change. Organization Science, 2, 140–145.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1996). Organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 516–540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 73–83.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifacet model of organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 78–98.
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34, 429–449.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2, 1–13.
Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 167–185.
Massey, D. (1999). Power-geometries and the politics of space-time. Hettner-Lecture: Vol. 2. Heidelberg, Germany: Department of Geography, Heidelberg University.
Meusburger, P. (1999). Subjekt−Organisation−Region: Fragen an die subjektzentrierte Handlungstheorie [Subject−organization−region: Questions for subject-centered action theory]. In P. Meusburger (Ed.), Handlungszentrierte Sozialgeographie: Benno Werlens Entwurf in kritischer Diskussion (pp. 95–132). Erdkundliches Wissen: Vol. 130. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner.
Meusburger, P. (2008). The nexus of knowledge and space. In P. Meusburger, M. Welker, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion (pp. 35–90). Knowledge and Space: Vol. 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Meusburger, P. (2009). Milieus of creativity: The role of places, environments, and spatial contexts. In P. Meusburger, J. Funke, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Milieus of creativity: An interdisciplinary approach to spatiality of creativity (pp. 97–153). Knowledge and Space: Vol. 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Muschiol, R. (2006, March). Begegnungsqualität in Bürogebäuden [The quality of encounters in office buildings]. Paper presented at the 52nd Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft, Stuttgart, Germany.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 267–284.
Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1999). The space of innovation: Interaction and communication in the work environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 193–218.
Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Bajaj, R., Bromberg, J., Congdon, C., Rashid, M., et al. (2007). Designing space to support knowledge work. Environment and Behavior, 39, 815–840.
Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. London: Macmillan.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Prange, C. (1999). Organizational learning: Desperately seeking theory? In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. G. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 23–43). London: Sage.
Price, I. (2007). Lean assets: New language for new workplaces. California Management Review, 49(2), 102–118.
Probst, G. J. B., & Büchel, B. (1998). Organisationales Lernen. Wettbewerbsvorteil der Zukunft [Organizational learning: The competitive advantage of the future] (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Sailer, K. (2007). Movement in workplace environments: Configurational or programmed? In A. S. Kubat, Ö. Ertekin, Y. I. Güney, & E. Eyüboglu (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international space syntax symposium: Vol. 2 (pp. 068-01–068-14). Istanbul, Turkey: ITU Faculty of Architecture.
Sailer, K. (2010). The space-organisation relationship: On the shape of the relationship between spatial configuration and collective organisational behaviours. Doctoral dissertation, Technical University Dresden, Dresden. Retrieved from http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/3842/Sailer_PhD_final_print.pdf
Sailer, K., Budgen, A., Lonsdale, N., Turner, A., & Penn, A. (2008, July). Evidence-based design: Theoretical and practical reflections of an emerging approach in office architecture. Paper presented at the Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield, UK.
Sailer, K., Budgen, A., Lonsdale, N., Turner, A., & Penn, A. (2009, June). Comparative studies of offices pre and post: How changing spatial configurations affect organisational behaviours. Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, Stockholm.
Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2007, May). The performance of space: Exploring social and spatial phenomena of interaction patterns in an organization. Paper presented at the International Architecture + Phenomenology Conference, Haifa, Israel.
Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2009, June). Spatiality and transpatiality in workplace environments. Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, Stockholm.
Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2010, May). Towards an architectural theory of space and organisations: Cognitive, affective and conative relations in workplaces. Paper presented at the 2nd workshop on Architecture and Social Architecture, EIASM, Brussels, Belgium.
Sitkin, S. B. (1996). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 541–577). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 713–740.
Steele, F. I. (1973). Physical settings and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R. K., & Brown, D. W. (1982). Privacy and communication in an open plan office: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 14, 379–392.
Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1987). Characteristics of work stations as potential occupational stressors. The Academy of Management Journal, 30, 260–276.
Toker, U., & Gray, D. O. (2008). Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in U.S. university research centers. Research Policy, 37, 309–329.
Tomlin, B., & Allen, T. J. (1977, June). Organizational structure and inter-location communication in an R&D organization (Working Paper No. 940-77). Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/1930/SWP-0940-03581816.pdf?sequence=1
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weichhart, P. (1999). Die Räume zwischen den Welten und die Welt der Räume. Zur Konzeption eines Schlüsselbegriffs der Geographie [The spaces between the worlds and the world of spaces: On the inception of a key concept of geography]. In P. Meusburger (Ed.), Handlungszentrierte Sozialgeographie: Benno Werlens Entwurf in kritischer Diskussion (pp. 67–94). Erdkundliches Wissen: Vol. 130. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.
Werlen, B. (1993). Society, action and space: An alternative human geography (G. Walls, Trans.). London: Routledge.
Werth, L., & Förster, J. (2002). Wie Sie als Führungskraft Kreativität steigern oder blockieren können [How you as an executive can increase or block creativity]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2, 13–20.
Wineman, J., Kabo, F., & Davis, G. F. (2009). Spatial and social networks in organizational innovation. Environment and Behavior, 41, 427–442.
Zierhofer, W. (1999). Die fatale Verwechslung: Zum Selbstverständnis der Geographie [The disastrous mistake: On the self-conception of geography]. In P. Meusburger (Ed.), Handlungszentrierte Sozialgeographie: Benno Werlens Entwurf in kritischer Diskussion (pp. 163–186). Erdkundliches Wissen: Vol. 130. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sailer, K. (2014). Organizational Learning and Physical Space—How Office Configurations Inform Organizational Behaviors. In: Berthoin Antal, A., Meusburger, P., Suarsana, L. (eds) Learning Organizations. Knowledge and Space, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7220-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7220-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7219-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7220-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)