Process studies of organizational space

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