Space and Structure: The Interplay Between Proximity, Unit Boundaries, and Supervision in Shaping Workplace Interactions

References

• Allen TJ (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R & D Organization (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(4):634–665.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Appel-Meulenbroek R, de Vries B, Weggeman M (2017) Knowledge sharing behavior: The role of spatial design in buildings. Environment. Behav. 49(8):874–903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldry C (1999) Space-the final frontier. Sociology 33(3):535–553.Google Scholar
• Berg N (2022) Fortune 500 companies are wasting millions on unused office space. Retrieved July 1, https://www.fastcompany.com/90793160/fortune-500-companies-are-are-wasting-millions-on-unused-office-space.Google Scholar
• Bergeron DM, Shipp AJ, Rosen B, Furst SA (2013) Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. J. Management 39(4):958–984.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES (2017) Making transparency transparent: The evolution of observation in management theory. Acad. Management Ann. 11(1):217–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES, Turban S (2018) The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc. B 373(1753):201702391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES, Gupta P, Mortensen M, Leonardi PM (2024) Collective attention and relational overload: A theory of transactive control in high-permeability intraorganizational environments. Res. Organ. Behav. 44:1–16.Google Scholar
• Birnholtz JP, Gutwin C, Hawkey K (2007) Privacy in the open: How attention mediates awareness and privacy in open-plan offices. Proc. ACM Internat. Conf. Supporting Group Work (ACM, New York), 51–60.Google Scholar
• Bolino M, Long D, Turnley W (2016) Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 3(1):377–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boutellier R, Ullman F, Schreiber J, Naef R (2008) Impact of office layout on communication in a science‐driven business. R&D Management 38(4):372–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broadbent DE (1958) Perception and Communication (Pergamon Press, London, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brownstein A, Chan K (2025) JPMorgan RTO leaked memo. Retrieved July 1, https://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-rto-leaked-memo-polaris-employees-columbus-parking-dining-2025-3.Google Scholar
• Butts CT (2008) sna: Tools for social network analysis [R package version 2.6]. Retrieved July 1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sna.Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Chan TY, Li J, Pierce L (2014a) Compensation and peer effects in competing sales teams. Management Sci. 60(8):1965–1984.Link, Google Scholar
• Chan TY, Li J, Pierce L (2014b) Learning from peers: Knowledge transfer and sales force productivity growth. Marketing Sci. 33(4):463–484.Link, Google Scholar
• Congdon C, Flynn D, Redman M (2014) Balancing “we” and “me": The best collaborative spaces also support solitude. Retrieved July 1, https://hbr.org/2014/10/balancing-we-and-me-the-best-collaborative-spaces-also-support-solitude.Google Scholar
• Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 3(3):201–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cristea IC, Leonardi PM (2019) Get noticed and die trying: Signals, sacrifice, and the production of face time in distributed work. Organ. Sci. 30(3):552–572.Link, Google Scholar
• Cronin MA, Weingart LR (2007) Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):761–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cross R, Ernst C, Assimakopoulos D, Ranta D (2015) Investing in boundary-spanning collaboration to drive efficiency and innovation. Organ. Dynamics 44(3):204–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davison RB, Hollenbeck JR, Barnes CM, Sleesman DJ, Ilgen DR (2012) Coordinated action in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psych. 97(4):808.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edenius M, Yakhlef A (2007) Space, vision and organizational learning: The interplay of incorporating and inscribing practices. Management Learn. 38(2):193–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Bechky BA (2007) It’s more than a desk: Working smarter through leveraged office design. California Management Rev. 49(2):80–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Cable DM, Sherman JW (2010) How passive ‘face time’ affects perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations 63(6):735–760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups; A Study of Human Factors in Housing (Harper, New York).Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Taylor SE (2008) Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture (McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR ( (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Gershuny J (2005) Busyness as the badge of honor for the new superordinate working class. Soc. Res. Internat. Quart. 72(2):287–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Goldberg E (2023) Return to office enters the desperation phase. New York Times (June 20), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/business/return-to-office-remote-work.html.Google Scholar
• Gonsalves L (2020) From face time to flex time: The role of physical space in worker temporal flexibility. Admin. Sci. Quart. 65(4):1058–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo ZA, Heidl RA, Hollenbeck JR, Yu A, Howe M (2022) When discretionary boundary spanning relationships cease becoming discretionary: The impact of closed ties on informal leadership perceptions. J. Appl. Psych. 107(6):898–916.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasan S, Koning R (2019) Prior ties and the limits of peer effects on startup team performance. Strategic Management J. 40(9):1394–1416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck JR, Wright PM (2017) Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. J. Management 43(1):5–18.Google Scholar
• Irving GL, Ayoko OB, Ashkanasy NM (2020) Collaboration, physical proximity and serendipitous encounters: Avoiding collaboration in a collaborative building. Organ. Stud. 41(8):1123–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• James W (1890) The Principles of Psychology, vols. 1–2 (Henry Holt and Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Johnston WA, Dark VJ (1986) Selective attention. Ann. Rev. Psych. 37:43–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE, Pittman TS (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Suls J, ed. Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), 231–261.Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Pandey N, Han G (2009) Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task‐based, team‐level, and contextual antecedents. J. Organ. Behav. 30(6):731–759.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kabo FW, Cotton-Nessler N, Hwang Y, Levenstein MC, Owen-Smith J (2014) Proximity effects on the dynamics and outcomes of scientific collaborations. Res. Policy 43(9):1469–1485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (1973) Attention and Effort, vol. 1063 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Katsuki F, Constantinidis C (2014) Bottom-up and top-down attention: Different processes and overlapping neural systems. Neuroscientist 20(5):509–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The Social Psychology of Organizations (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Kiesler S, Cummings JN (2002) What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. Hinds PJ, Kiesler S, eds. Distributed Work, 1st ed. (MIT Press, Cambirdge, MA), 57–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim J, De Dear R (2013) Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J. Environment. Psych. 36:18–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? J. Management 20(2):403–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Komaki JL (1986) Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. J. Appl. Psych. 71(2):270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kornberger M, Clegg SR (2004) Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative building. Organ. Stud. 25(7):1095–1114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudsen EI (2007) Fundamental components of attention. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 30(1):57–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1988) Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Soc. Networks 10(4):359–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lane JN, Ganguli I, Gaule P, Guinan E, Lakhani KR (2021) Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production? Strategic Management J. 42(6):1215–1244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latham GP (2023) Motivate employee performance through goal setting. Locke EA, Pearce CL, eds. Principles of Organizational Behavior: The Handbook of Evidence‐Based Management, 3rd ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), 83–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lauterbach AS, Borge RH (2026) How is your new office? A meta-analytic review of activity-based offices’ theoretical foundations and empirical outcomes. J. Occupation Organ. Psych. 99(1):e70099.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee D (2022) Apple tells employees to return to office 3 days a week from September. Retrieved July 1, https://www.ft.com/content/b8080070-4c41-4193-8382-4f5c8e9c5097.Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Walter J, Murnighan JK (2011) Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 22(4):923–939.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu C, De Rond M (2016) Good night, and good luck: Perspectives on luck in management scholarship. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):409–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Long DM, Baer MD, Colquitt JA, Outlaw R, Dhensa‐Kahlon RK (2015) What will the boss think? The impression management implications of supportive relationships with star and project peers. Personality Psych. 68(3):463–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Marrone JA (2010) Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. J. Management 36(4):911–940.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marrone JA, Tesluk PE, Carson JB (2007) A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Acad. Management J. 50(6):1423–1439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayo AT (2022) Syncing up: A process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(3):821–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mell JN, Quintane E, Hirst G, Carnegie A (2022) Protecting their turf: When and why supervisors undermine employee boundary spanning. J. Appl. Psych. 107(6):1009–1019.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1997) Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (2011) Attention to attention. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1286–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Oldham GR (1988) Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. J. Appl. Psych. 73(2):253–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oldham GR, Brass DJ (1979) Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(2):267–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Human Comput. Interactions 15(2):139–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oyedeji BA, Ko YH, Lee S (2025) Physical work environments: An integrative review and agenda for future research. J. Management 51(6):2589–2626.Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky JE, Spillane JP (2009) Question-order effects in social network name generators. Soc. Networks 31(4):221–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raver JL, Ehrhart MG, Chadwick IC (2012) The emergence of team helping norms: Foundations within members’ attributes and behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 33(5):616–637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2011) Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organ. Sci. 22(4):835–849.Link, Google Scholar
• Roy D (1952) Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. Amer. J. Sociol. 57(5):427–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sailer K, McCulloh I (2012) Social networks and spatial configuration—How office layouts drive social interaction. Soc. Networks 34(1):47–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schotter AP, Mudambi R, Doz YL, Gaur A (2017) Boundary spanning in global organizations. J. Management Stud. 54(4):403–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seddigh A, Stenfors C, Berntsson E, Bååth R, Sikström S, Westerlund H (2015) The association between office design and performance on demanding cognitive tasks. J. Environment. Psych. 42:172–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherman JD, Keller RT (2011) Suboptimal assessment of interunit task interdependence: Modes of integration and information processing for coordination performance. Organ. Sci. 22(1):245–261.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Spillane JP, Shirrell M, Sweet TM (2017) The elephant in the schoolhouse: The role of propinquity in school staff interactions about teaching. Sociol. Ed. 90(2):149–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundstrom E, Sundstrom MG (1986) Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Treisman AM (1960) Contextual cues in selective listening. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. 12(4):242–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Treisman AM (1969) Strategies and models of selective attention. Psych. Rev. 76(3):282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad. Management J. 24(2):289–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van den Bulte C, Moenaert RK (1998) The effects of R&D team co-location on communication patterns among R&D, marketing, and manufacturing. Management Sci. 44(11):2–S18.Google Scholar
• Vertegaal R (1999) The GAZE groupware system: Mediating joint attention in multiparty communication and collaboration. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 294–301.Google Scholar
• Waber B, Magnolfi J, Lindsay G (2014) Workspaces that move people. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(10):68–77.Google Scholar
• Wageman R, Gardner H, Mortensen M (2012) The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. J. Organ. Behav. 33(3):301–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xie XY, Wei J, Hu Q, Liao Z (2023) Is the door really open? A contingent model of boundary spanning behavior and abusive supervisory behavior. J. Bus. Res. 169:114284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zahn GL (1991) Face-to-face communication in an office setting: The effects of position, proximity, and exposure. Comm. Res. 18(6):737–754.Crossref, Google Scholar