The physical environment of an organisation
Added on 2021-06-10
11 Pages4812 Words435 Views
1 |Organisation Behaviour Q: Sharing the same physical space, like, for example, an office, is crucial for maintaining an organisational culture. 1. Introduction Both traditional and more recent studies have found a strong correlation between modern corporate culture and their organisational spaces (Markland, 1995; Kallio et al., 2015). The physical environment of an organisation’s office communicates information about its values (Davis, 1984). It supports or undermines the desired culture or working practices (Allen & Henn, 2007; Becker & Steele, 1995; Higgins & McAllaster, 2004; McElroy & Morrow, 2010; Turner & Myerson, 1998). Hence, the organisation’s workspace can act as a powerful symbolism. The format of physical offices has radically transformed since the office was merely viewed as a place of work at a convenient location with fixed desks, chairs, and cabins (Knight Frank, 2017; Warren, 2003). Workplaces are becoming more interactive, collaborative, and knowledge-sharing environments (Colliers International, 2018; Gibson 2003). Culture is an intangible mechanism in the any industry’s productivity (Cawood, 2008), and has a substantial impact on an organisation’s long-term performance (Coffey et al., 2013). Culture generates a sense of order, continuity, and dedication that permeates every area of the organisation, from how employees interact to customer perceptions (Reiman and Oedewald, 2002). An organisation’s culture is made up of shared elements and common understandings, including philosophies, behaviours, traditions, values, norms, assumptions, perceptions, practices, and artefacts (Lau and Ngo, 1996; Adler and Jelinek, 1986; Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Schein, 1992; Shekari et al., 2012). This paper will thus argue in support of the notion that sharing physical space is essential for maintaining an organisational culture. It will utilise conceptualisations of organisational culture visible through artefacts and creations (Schein, 1984). 2. Literature Review Taylor and Spicer (2007) found that contributions to office space research are divided, with some focusing on ambient circumstances and others on psycho-social factors. The literature review begins with a look at office space and how it relates to company culture and communication. Then the section discusses the research on office space modifications and
2 |Organisation Behaviour how the processes and consequences of change influence and are influenced by culture and communication. Office space and organisational culture Various theorists argue that the organisation’s physical real estate is a silent messenger of the existing organisation’s culture (Knight Frank, 2017; Schein, 1992; Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Gagliardi, 1990; Martin, 1992). Physical work layouts are increasingly being used to communicate information about the organization's values to employees and visitors, and so play an important role in attracting and retaining talent (Hamilton et al., 2008; Haynes, 2011; Khanna et al., 2013). In addition to facilitating labour activities, office environments offer clear and subliminal messages about organisational hierarchy and authority within the organisation (Baldry and Hallier, 2010). However, although this level of culture is very easy to observe, it is difficult to interpret and it may lead to misleading assumptions about the organisation (Schein, 1992; Engstrom, 2010). Below are some evidence of office layouts supporting the four core dimensions of organisational culture outlined by Harrison and Stokes (1992): i. Power-oriented culture: This dimension is dominated by power (McCarthy, 1998), and varied office layout arrangements that demonstrate clear differences in employee power and accomplishments within the organisation are a key component of this culture type. ii. Role-oriented culture: This defines a power-oriented culture supported by structures and processes, which enable management of large organisations. Traditional office layouts with a central core and mixture of cellular spaces for high-rank employees and wide open office areas for low-rank employees, are considered most appropriate arrangements for this culture (Markland, 1995). iii. Achievement-oriented culture: This culture is a hybrid of power-oriented and role-oriented cultures, and it allows individuals to learn, grow, make decisions, and be accountable for their actions (McCarthy, 1998). This culture is characterised by private offices and quiet workplaces. iv. Support and person-oriented culture: The fundamental aspect of this type is mutual trust between management and staff, as well as mutual support among staff members for their co-workers (McCarthy, 1998). The most favourable office layout configuration for this culture type is open-plan office layouts with collaborative workplaces.
3 |Organisation Behaviour There is a growing body of research that links a company's physical office layout to its performance. (Haynes, 2017; Shuman and Scott, 2002; Heerwagen et al., 2004; De Croon et al., 2005; Danielsson and Bodin, 2008). Duffy (2000) described the relationship between building artefacts and the company’s performance as follows: “office buildings can kill commercially if their capacity to express messages, for good or ill, about whatever business thinks is important, is ignored or misused” (p.374). Changing office space and its relationship to organisation’s culture All organisations function in spatial contexts, and most spatial settings have an organisational level (Skogland & Hansen, 2017). Various researchers (Allen and Henn, 2007; Chilton and Baldry, 1997; Robertson, 2000) have emphasised that any change management plan should also include the organisational, as well as physical and technological levels. Based on Lefebvre's (1991) concept that social change is dependent on spatial change, Kuttner (2008) contends that effective organisational change cannot be realised without a parallel change in the physical workplace. On the other hand, Kampschroer (2008) takes a more moderate stance, suggesting that organisational transformation can occur without altering the physical environment. Although, the physical environment may be significant in accelerating or reinforcing the desired transformation (Inalhan and Finch, 2012; Allen et al., 2004; Mosbech, 2003). Tanis (2008, p.11) adds to this by stating that “space does not necessarily lead to transformation, but it needs to support transformation.” In recent years, an increasing number of businesses have recognised the value of the physical environment and have employed a variety of spatial methods to guide internal and external meaning-making processes (Ropo et al., 2015). As a result, both academics and practitioners have begun to emphasise the necessity of putting the physical environment on the managerial agenda as a tool for bringing about organisational transformation and development (Shiem-Shin Then, 2012; Vischer, 2012; Clegg and Kornberger, 2006a; Pinder et al., 2012; Bell, 2006; Inalhan and Finch, 2012; Kampschroer, 2008; Nadler et al., 1997; Baldry and Hallier, 2010; Allen et al., 2004; Bakke, 2007).
4 |Organisation Behaviour Building on from this, if employees are not sharing the same physical space, it could change the organisational culture. Effect of office space on social interactions Organisational culture is weakened when the relationships between individuals within the organisation are remote (Asatiani et al., 2018). In highly virtual organisations, nurturing organisational culture (i.e., promoting the accrual of symbolic values and permitting the enactment of meaningful pragmatic activities) has proven particularly difficult (Asatiani et al., 2018). Workplaces with a high level of virtuality are more likely to be culturally diverse than those with a lower level of virtuality (Duarte & Snyder, 2006). While cultural variety has been found to be helpful in physical organisations, it has not always met expectations in virtual ones (Hardin, Fuller, & Davison, 2007). Even in contexts where slight variances in organisational culture are exhibited-for example, in a highly virtual context where team members belong to the same organisation but are situated in different parts of the country-difficulties arise (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). A process of socialisation-comprising interaction among members of an organisation where individuals exchange the tacit knowledge required to become a successful member of the organisation-is often used to assist the integration of the symbolic and pragmatic components of organisational culture (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003; Bauer & Erdogan, 2011; Klein & Weaver, 2000). Mentorship, training, bonding exercises, and general day-to-day interaction with co-workers are all necessary components of effective socialisation (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Oshri, Kotlarsky, & Willcocks, 2007). In highly virtual work environments, the absence of regular face-to-face interaction and apparent material signals makes grasping underlying assumptions and finer aspects of communication more difficult (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). 3. Critical discussion Traditional organisational characteristics are seen to be administrative, hierarchic, integrated, co-located, stable, and adversarial. When the concept of the virtual organisation first appeared in management and organisational literature in the 1990s, most authors agreed that it rendered current organisational structures obsolete (Walker, 2006).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.