Received: 20 November 2019 Revised: 2 December 2021 Accepted: 7 December 2021
DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12286
ORIG INAL ARTICLE
A review of the physical context of creativity: A
three-dimensional framework for investigating the physical
context of creativity
Annika J. Blomberg1,2 Tomi J. Kallio3,4,5
1 Management and Organization, Faculty
of Management and Business, Tampere
University, Tampere, Finland
2 Turku Institute for Advanced Studies
(TIAS) Turku School of Economics, (Pori
Unit), University of Turku, Finland
3 University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland
4 Kokkola University Consortium
Chydenius, Kokkola, Finland
5 Affiliated Professor at Linnaeus
University, Sweden
Correspondence
Annika J. Blomberg,Management and
Organization, Faculty ofManagement and
Business, TampereUniversity, Tampere,
Finland.
Email: annika.blomberg@tuni.fi
Abstract
Many organizations are investing considerable resources in building and design-
ing what are termed ‘creative offices’. In this paper, we bring together two lines of
academic enquiry that have attracted the interest of scholars from different dis-
ciplines: organizational creativity and the physical space of organizations. These
lines of study use different concepts and lean on different ontologies; conse-
quently, their relation is underexplored in the extant literature. To provide a bet-
ter understanding of the ways in which physical space relates to creativity, we
offer an integrative review based on a three-dimensional framework comprising
(i) the elements of workspace, (ii) the social dynamics of space and (iii) the rela-
tion between space and creativity. This framework is used to review the physical
context of creativity literature. Based on this framework and our review, we out-
line three directions for future studies on the physical context of creativity. These
directions are based on a broader understanding of physical space that aligns bet-
ter with the contemporary conception of creativity as a process.
INTRODUCTION
Designing offices or corporate facilities to encourage
employee creativity has become increasingly popular in
recent times. Despite its popularity, the paucity of gener-
alizable research findings on how to design offices that
enhance creativity has become evident (Meinel et al., 2017).
Some scholars have suggested that owing to the scarcity
of generalizable research findings, companies have relied
on stereotyped models of creativity in designing their
offices (De Paoli & Ropo, 2017; De Paoli et al., 2017).
Consequently, the simplified understanding of creativity
excludes or restricts ways of being in the office, for exam-
ple, by masking social division and heterogeneity (Alexan-
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dersson&Kalonaityte, 2018). Given the significant interest
among practitioners, the scarcity of generalizable research
findings and the central role played by office design in
many aspects of employee behaviour (Brown et al., 2010;
Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Kornberger
& Clegg, 2004), the physical context of creativity merits
refined research interest.
Considering creative spaces requires integrating two
heterogeneous lines of academic enquiry: physical space
and creativity. This segregation of disciplines makes it
almost impossible for any single scholar to acquire deep
expertise in all potentially relevant academic discourses.
Thus, in practice, scholars perceive their topic of interest
from a certain discipline, which applies to some extent
Int J Manag Rev. 2022;24:433–451. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijmr 433
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
434 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
to this particular paper. Accordingly, our analysis mainly
leans on the perspective of organizational studies.
Although several classical organizational studies have
links to physical space (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), orga-
nizational theorists have shown surprisingly little interest
in it (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007). According to Hatch and Cun-
liffe (2006), it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that organi-
zational theorists recognized the importance of the physi-
cal space. Moreover, the physical contexts of organizations
were long treated ‘as neutral settings; in Foucault’s terms,
fixed, dead, and immobile containers or settings’ (Taylor &
Spicer, 2007, p. 325). However, recent years have witnessed
a growing interest in organizational spaces and materi-
ality more broadly, as illustrated by the increasing num-
ber of contributions about the topic (e.g. Alexandersson
& Kalonaityte, 2018; Burrell & Dale, 2014; Clegg & Korn-
berger, 2006; Dale & Burrell, 2008; De Paoli & Ropo, 2017;
Kornberger & Clegg, 2004; Tyler & Cohen, 2010; Wein-
furtner & Seidl, 2019) and related special issues, such as
Chan et al. (2019) in the Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment, Delbridge and Sallaz (2015) in Organization Stud-
ies and Cutcher et al. (2016) in Organization. The interest
in physical space and materiality in organizational studies
has increased to the extent that it is fair to talk about the
material and spatial turn (Chan et al., 2019; vanMarrewijk
& Yanow, 2010).
Although creativity and physical space have been
actively studied over the years, the two have only recently
been brought together explicitly. In this paper, we perform
a review that lies at the intersection of two literatures—
organizational creativity and the physical space of organi-
zations. More specifically:
1. We offer an integrative framework comprising three
dimensions that can serve to guide research on the
physical organizational space.
2. Using the three-dimensional framework as an analyt-
ical lens, we review the extant literature on the phys-
ical context of creativity and critically discuss some of
its main findings and theoretical assumptions.
3. Based on the review, we suggest three research avenues
that could guide future theorizing on the physical con-
text of creativity.
We focus on creativity in an organizational context and
follow thewidely accepted definition of organizational cre-
ativity byWoodman et al. (1993, p. 293), that is ‘the creation
of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure,
or process by individuals working together in a complex
social system’. To provide a broader conception of creativ-
ity that emphasizes its social and processual nature, we
complement the above-mentioned definitionwith one that
conceptualizes creativity as a social and relational process
inherently entwined with material aspects, such as tools,
objects and space (Carlsen et al., 2012; Gaim et al., 2018;
Håkonsen Coldevin et al., 2019).
In the next section, we begin our review by identify-
ing the roots of the two lines of study—organizational cre-
ativity and the physical space of organizations—and con-
tinue by discussing why scholars have only recently shown
interest in studying them together. In the third section,
we introduce a three-dimensional framework comprising
(i) the elements of workspace, (ii) the social dynamics of
space and (iii) the relation of space and creativity that we
argue is a useful way to synthesize the current theorizing
on physical space.Using the three-dimensional framework
to inform categorization, we analyse studies dealing with
organizational creativity and physical space. Based on our
review, we identify three directions for future theorizing
that are rooted in a broader conception of physical space.
We end this paper by offering our conclusions.
CHALLENGES IN STUDYING THE
PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY
One of the difficulties in studying the physical context of
creativity is its multidisciplinary nature. The topic can be
approached from the perspectives of organization studies,
creativity and innovation studies, architecture and envi-
ronmental psychology. As the two themes, which have tra-
ditionally been kept apart but individually studied under
numerous fields of academic enquiry, are brought together,
a multitude of concepts, theories, perspectives and so on
have emerged.
One of the inconveniences of studying a multidisci-
plinary topic is conceptual confusion, which is obvious in
this case. To begin with, the vocabulary used to refer to the
physical organizational context is diverse (Weinfurtner
& Seidl, 2019), and the publications cited in this paper
alone use various terms and phrases when referring to
the physical space of organizations, including ‘place’
(Kristensen, 2004), ‘physical context’ (Kristensen, 2004),
‘physical space’ (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), ‘spatial struc-
ture’ (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), ‘spatial arrangements
of organizations’ (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), ‘spatial
configuration’ (Sailer, 2011), ‘spatial location’ (Moultrie
et al., 2007), ‘workplace layout’ (Moultrie et al., 2007),
‘operating environments’ (Moultrie et al., 2007), ‘physical
environment’ (Franck, 1984), ‘physical structure’ (Hatch &
Cunliffe, 2006), ‘physical press’ (Williams, 2009), ‘physical
setting’ (Ceylan et al., 2008; McCoy & Evans, 2002; Vithay-
athawornwong et al., 2003), ‘physical facilities’ (Lewis &
Moultrie, 2005; Magadley & Birdi, 2009), ‘physical layout’
(Sailer, 2011), ‘physical work environment’ (Martens,
2011) and ‘office design’ (Martens, 2011). This underlines
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 435
TABLE 1 A three-dimensional framework for analysing physical organizational space
The focus of
analysis
Elements of workspace Social dynamics of space Relation of space and behaviour
Aspects
identified
Spatial organization (size,
shape, allocation and division
of space)
Instrumental (physical settings as
‘tools’ for organizational goals
and productivity)
Direct effect
Architectonic details (aesthetics,
materials and ornaments used
to enhance workspace)
Symbolic (physical settings as
reflections of meanings and
symbolism)
Interaction effect
Views (observable features
visible within or from the
work area)
Aesthetic (sensory, affective and
emotional sensations elicited by
physical settings)
Indirect effect (via intra- or interpersonal
variables)
Resources (access to equipment,
physical fitness areas, parking
facilities, etc.)
Political (physical settings as both
socially produced and socially
producing)
Co-constitutive
Ambient conditions (heating,
illumination, ventilation and
acoustics)
Entwined
Kristensen’s (2004, p. 90) point when he states ‘Concepts
of space are often thought of in “vernacular” terms
because of the difficulty of their articulation’.
Moreover, as hinted at by the conceptual variety, phys-
ical space can be viewed from various angles, at different
levels of analysis and, ultimately, based on diverse ontolog-
ical assumptions. The next subsection offers a framework
with three dimensions to aid understanding of the orga-
nizational physical environment. This three-dimensional
framework will be used when reviewing the literature on
the physical context of creativity.
A three-dimensional framework for
understanding the physical organizational
space
Based on our analysis of the literature, we identified three
dimensions relevant when analysing the organizational
physical environment (Table 1). These dimensions explain
which element of workspace is studied, what social dynam-
ics are targeted, and how space and creativity and their
relations are conceived.
In terms of the first dimension—elements of
workspace—McCoy (2005) suggests that physical space
can be analysed based on five distinct but intertwined
elements: spatial organization, architectonic details,
views, resources and ambient conditions. The second
dimension is the social dynamics of space. Along this
dimension, Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz (2004) suggest that
in order to understand people’s reactions to physical
space, three perspectives should be taken into account:
instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism. Thus, phys-
ical space not only influences people instrumentally by
guiding their behavioural or interaction patterns, but
also provides a variety of symbolic meanings and evokes
aesthetic experiences. Due to the sometimes contradictory
tensions that arise from the interaction of these perspec-
tives, and in order to account for the political nature of
organizational spaces, the three perspectives are comple-
mented with a fourth—the political perspective (Dale,
2005; Dale & Burrell, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991). Together,
the four perspectives make up the second dimension of
physical space that is here labelled the social dynamics of
space. The third dimension concerns the relation between
space and behaviour. Here, Franck’s (1984) model is a
useful starting point for illustrating the different effects
that the physical environment may have on behaviour.
However, being several decades old, Franck’s (1984) model
is complemented with more recent thinking about the
relation between the physical context and behaviour. Next,
we elaborate the three above-mentioned dimensions in
studying organizational physical space (Table 1).
Elements of workspace
The first andmost straightforward dimension to aid under-
standing physical space is to conceptualize the elements
of physical workspace. According to McCoy (2005), spa-
tial organization, that is, the size, shape, allocation and
division of space, defines the spatial aspects of the work
environment. The organization of these spatial conditions
determines several important factors, such as the level of
enclosure, adjacency and territoriality, thus further affect-
ing privacy, control, flexibility and so on. Consequently,
the design of spatial conditions possesses tremendous, if
somewhat implicit, power over several social aspects of the
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
436 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
work environment (Elsbach & Bechky, 2007). According
to McCoy (2005), performance, satisfaction, communica-
tion, collaboration, organizational culture and identity are
factors connected to spatial organization. It is therefore no
coincidence that organizational studies have a long tradi-
tion of analysing organizational behaviour from the per-
spective of the spatial layout (see e.g. Hatch, 1987; Oldham
& Brass, 1979; Oldham & Rotchford, 1983).
According to McCoy (2005), fixed or stationary aesthet-
ics and the materials or ornaments used to embellish the
workspace belong to the architectonic details of the envi-
ronment, which include decorative styles, signs, colours
and artwork. Becker and Steele (1995) suggested that archi-
tectonic details are important from the standpoint of a
group’s identity and purpose, while the use of specific
items is secondary to the way that they are used. Office or
workstation views, including what can be seen from win-
dows and adjacent workspaces, have an explicit connec-
tion towork environment aesthetics and can be considered
to possess either restoration or stress qualities, for instance.
As recognized status symbols, they are also symbolically
charged (Elsbach & Bechky, 2007). Workplace resources,
such as access to equipment, parking and food services, are
clearly related to the instrumental aspects of thework envi-
ronment, while also performing a symbolic role because
people who are considered important are typically given
their own equipment, such as printers. Although ambi-
ent conditions, including heating, illumination, ventilation
and acoustics, are important aspects of the work environ-
ment, they are often explicitly noted only if something goes
wrong (McCoy, 2005).
Social dynamics of space
An organization’s physical environment not only defines
how and where people perform their tasks and interact
with one another in an instrumental sense, but also evokes
aesthetic experiences (Gagliardi, 1990; Rafaeli & Vilnai-
Yavetz, 2004), provides a rich symbolic landscape (Brown
& Humphreys, 2006; Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Hatch, 1990;
Stang Våland & Georg, 2019; Zhang & Spicer, 2013) and
produces power effects, which lend it a political aspect
(Dale & Burrell, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991). Together, the four
perspectives form the second dimension of physical space,
here labelled the social dynamics of space.
Instrumentally focused studies examine whether the
physical environment enables working effectively and
attaining organizational objectives (Vilnai-Yavetz et al.,
2005). Worker efficiency and productivity are central view-
points from which work conditions, such as lighting and
ergonomics, have traditionally been examined (see e.g.
Hollnagel, 2014; Veitch & Gifford, 1996). From the instru-
mental perspective, office design effectively influences two
areas of social behaviour in particular: worker interac-
tion and group collaboration (see e.g. Hatch, 1987; Kraut
et al., 2002; Oldham & Brass, 1979; Oldham & Rotch-
ford, 1983). The importance of physical space and dis-
tance for employee interaction has been found in sev-
eral studies (see e.g. Allen, 1977; Hatch, 1987; Oldham &
Brass, 1979; Oldham & Rotchford, 1983); when the physi-
cal distance between workstations increases, it decreases
employee interaction. Increasing the distance between
workstations reduces spontaneous communication in par-
ticular. It is reported that even just a few extra metres can
have a dramatic negative influence (Allen, 1977). How-
ever, some physical barriers, such as walls, have been
found to increase communication (Hatch, 1987), which has
been explained by increased privacy and opportunities for
personal communication (Oldham & Brass, 1979). Spatial
design also influences work relationships through proxim-
ity, privacy and having or lacking an assigned workspace
(Khazanchi et al., 2018).
When examining collaboration among different work
groups, some researchers have found that distance and
physical obstacles, such as walls or floors, have negative
consequences because informal and spontaneous interac-
tions become more difficult (Kraut et al., 2002). The influ-
ence of barriers can be reduced by introducing boundary
objects, such as shared workspaces, games and devices,
and places that encourage informal interaction among the
groups (Elsbach & Bechky, 2007; Fayard & Weeks, 2007).
Thus, the instrumental view on physical space is typically
concerned with how the physical space organizes peo-
ple’s behaviour, movement and flow of communication
and allows efficient and productive work.
The symbolic dynamics of physical space relate to the
symbolism and meanings attached to physical space
(Byron & Laurence, 2015; Elsbach & Bechky, 2007;
Gagliardi, 1990; Vilnai-Yavetz et al., 2005). Elsbach and
Bechky (2007) suggested that office design and its artefacts
constitute the visible part of an organization’s culture. In
addition to transmitting aspects of organizational culture,
office design signals the importance, the status (Hatch,
1990; Sundström et al., 1980) and the identity of people
(Brown, 2017; Brown & Humphreys, 2006; Brown et al.,
2005; Byron& Laurence, 2015; Crevani, 2019; Stang Våland
& Georg, 2019; Wasserman & Frenkel, 2011). The symbolic
of physical space also explains why satisfaction with
the workspace is relative. If private offices are available,
people tend to be dissatisfied if they do not have one,
while an open office arrangement does not produce the
same dissatisfaction if everybody shares the same open
space (Hatch, 1990). While many aspects of physical
space are often beyond employee control, the members of
an organization can, to various extents, influence office
symbolism by bringing in personal objects that represent
certain values or identities (Brown, 2017; Brown et al.,
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 437
2005; Byron & Laurence, 2015). However, physical spaces
always carry symbols, representations and meanings,
whether deliberate, unintended or even involuntary (Dale
& Burrell, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991).
The aesthetic dynamics of physical space consider the
aesthetic experiences of the space’s users and involve
the sensory, affective and emotional reactions elicited by
the organizational environment (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz,
2004). Vilnai-Yavetz et al. (2005) suggested that aesthetics
is independent of instrumentality but not of organizational
goals. To illustrate their point, the authors cited the plain
example of a black leather chair, which could be equally
functional in both a senior manager’s office and a flower
shop, but would obviously be more aesthetically pleasing
in the former.
Instrumental, symbolic and aesthetic dynamics largely
overlap; thus, the issue is more a question of choosing a
perspective than a specific set of features. A feature of phys-
ical space, such as a hallway, may be instrumental in guid-
ing people to use a certain route instead of another. It can
be interpreted as symbolizing proximity or distance, pres-
tige or degradation, to name a few, and it may be experi-
enced as aesthetically pleasing, unpleasant, oppressive or
something else (Vilnai-Yavetz et al., 2005). The instrumen-
tal, symbolic and aesthetic dynamics can also be in tension
with each other (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007). Elsbach and Pratt
(2007) illustrate that an aesthetically pleasing office may
be instrumentally horrible towork in. An aesthetic feature,
such as amessy desk, can give the impression that a person
is intelligent but simultaneously unsociable, and symbol-
ism within an environment can encourage both affiliation
with a group and the exclusion of others.
These potential tensions lead to the fourth dynamic of
organizational space, that is, the political. This refers to
perceiving spaces as both socially produced and socially
producing and thus political (e.g. Alexandersson & Kalon-
aityte, 2018; Dale, 2005; Dale & Burrell, 2008; Tyler &
Cohen, 2010). This perspective has been strongly influ-
enced by the work of Lefebvre (1991), who connects the
physicality of space to its ‘imaginary’ aspects that carry
the cultural, social and historicalmeanings associatedwith
spaces (Dale & Burrell, 2008). Lefebvre (1991) theorizes
space via a triad of perceived, conceived and lived space.
Perceived space refers to ‘spatial practice’, that is, the spe-
cific use of a particular space, such as a marketplace or a
street corner, which expresses and constitutes a quite rou-
tinized and habitual use of the space based on a ‘spatial
code’ (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 16, 33). The second element, con-
ceived space, refers to ‘representations of space’; spaces
that are deliberately planned by architects, designers and
environmental planners based on knowledge and ideol-
ogy, such as functionality or efficiency. The third element,
‘lived space or representational space’, refers to space as
lived and experienced through its symbols, images and
signs (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 38−40). Baldry et al. (1998, p.
164) argued that buildings are all about control, suggest-
ing that physical environments both easily obscure power
relations and make changing them seem difficult owing
to the immobility of physical environments. According to
Dale and Burrell (2008), space has power effects that can
be intended and deliberate, as well as unintentional. Built
spaces have power effects related to instrumentalism, for
instance, by creating boundaries, including and excluding,
as well as to symbolism, by establishing taken-for-granted
assumptions and norms, enforcingmeanings and embody-
ing different identities. Aesthetics is political because it
makes certain aspects perceivable while excluding or con-
fining others (Alexandersson&Kalonaityte, 2018) andmay
contain markers of ideology and inequality (Wasserman,
2012; Wasserman & Frenkel, 2015).
Relation between space and behaviour
The third dimension for understanding physical space con-
cerns the nature of the physical environment’s influence
on behaviour, labelled here as the relation between space
and behaviour. Franck (1984) provided an analysis of the
different influences that a physical environment may have
on human behaviour. According to Franck (1984), scholars
disagree on whether the physical environment has direct
effects on behaviour and, if so, whether it is a meaningful
topic to study. Franck (1984) concluded that although the
direct effects of the physical environment are likely to be
theoretically less important than the indirect effects, they
constitute a meaningful topic of a social study.
Franck (1984) also suggested that the effects of vari-
ous intervening variables and the interactionist effects of
independent variables on behaviour are more theoreti-
cally important. Franck (1984, p. 417) defined an interven-
ing variable as ‘the effect that an independent variable
exerts on a dependent variable that is transmitted via an
intervening variable’, where the intervening variable helps
explain why the environment influences behaviour. As
Franck (1984) highlighted, an intervening variable needs
to be a consequence of the environmental feature. If the
intervening variable is not a consequence but exists inde-
pendently of the environment, they must be labelled as
other influences or interaction effects of two or more inde-
pendent variables. Interaction effects refer to independent
variables that, together with certain environmental fea-
tures, influence behaviour. For instance, in Brunson et al.’s
(2001) study, a neighbourhood was experienced as safer by
those spending more time outdoors than those who spend
less time outdoors. Therefore, the time spent outdoors
mediated the effect of the physical environment on the
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
438 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
experiences of safety. The effect of an environment’s phys-
ical features thus depends on the presence of some other
variable.
Although Franck’s (1984) examination of the physical
environment’s potential influence on behaviour is insight-
ful, it was published a few decades ago; thus, it does not
reflect more recent developments in conceptions about
the relation between the physical and the social. While
acknowledging the possibility for users to modify a space,
Franck (1984) assumed that the space exists as an entity
separate from the social and that the chain of influence
between the physical environment and behaviour is uni-
directional. However, much of the recent literature recog-
nizes that the relation is far more complex and multidirec-
tional (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006; Dale & Burrell, 2008;
de Vaujany & Mitev, 2013; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004).
Clegg and Kornberger (2006, p. 144) stated: ‘we constitute
space through the countless practices of everyday life as
much as we are constituted through them’, an assertion
which expresses that while organizational space is enacted
through our occupation of and movement within it, the
space also constitutes the people inhabiting it. This per-
spective treats the relation of the physical and social worlds
as co-constitutive.
This approach shares many similarities with that of
sociomateriality (e.g. de Vaujany&Mitev, 2013; Orlikowski
& Scott, 2008), which emphasizes the entwinement of
the social and the physical. Franck’s (1984) theorization—
similarly, we believe, to most theorizations on physical
space and behaviour—leans on a ‘being’ ontology and
thus assumes the existence of ontologically distinct enti-
ties. However, sociomaterial thinking leans on a differ-
ent ontology, that relying on the premise that the world
is constituted by relational enactments and material con-
figurations (Hultin, 2019). Therefore, the approach goes
beyond looking at space,material elements and humans as
separate entities and perceives their relations and bound-
aries as enacted in practice (e.g. Orlikowski & Scott,
2008). Although physical organizational spaces are mate-
rial and play a profound role in co-constituting organi-
zations together with the social, the physical space is
often located at the margin of sociomaterial theorizing
and is thus not often expressly discussed (de Vaujany &
Mitev, 2013). From the viewpoint of sociomaterial litera-
ture, the question of how the physical environment influ-
ences behaviour is misleading, as ‘the material environ-
ment does not act on the social environment or vice versa;
one cannot be defined and described without the other’
(Bansal & Knox-Hayes, 2013, p. 63). The social and the
material, and thus the physical organizational space, are
entangled and melded in everyday life.
When examining the three-dimensional framework as
a whole, we can identify a significant permutation of
potential avenues for research. The extant literature directs
attention to some approacheswhile neglecting others. This
issue will be discussed in the Findings section, where we
review the research on the physical context of creativity
using the three-dimensional framework discussed above.
Beforehand, we briefly explain the review process.
METHOD
The methodological approach of this paper can be
described as a state-of-the-art review (Jesson et al., 2011;
cf. Danese et al., 2018; Shrivastava, 2007) that integrates
the literatures on organizational creativity and the phys-
ical space of organizations. It also extends the body of
knowledge by offering three directions for future theo-
rizing based on a broader conception of space. Here, the
style of theorizing is topological, with an attempt to cat-
egorize the literature to offer ‘a set of theoretical coor-
dinates for empirical research’ (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 6).
The literature review of this paper represents a ‘miner’
approach in that it synthesizes a field of study and catego-
rizes the related literature, while also presenting elements
of the ‘prospector’ approach by proposing an alternative
conceptual understanding of physical space and identify-
ing emerging research streams based on the refined con-
ceptual understanding (cf. Breslin & Gatrell, 2020).
The material included in the review consisted of peer-
reviewed journal articles published in scholarly journals
and scholarly books or book sections. The first round
of searches for relevant literature was conducted in Jan-
uary 2018 through the EBSCO Academic Search Premier
andABI/INFORMcollection databases. The searcheswere
conducted several times in both databases with slightly
different keywords. The articles gathered through the
searcheswere skimmed through, and their titles, keywords
and abstracts were read to determine whether they dealt
with the physical context of creativity. If they did, theywere
included in the analysis. Due to the variety of terminology
used in reference to physical space, it was quickly realized
that a keyword search in databases did not cover all rele-
vant sources. Therefore, the next stage of the search was to
read the reference lists of the articles included in the review
to find books and articles that were not accessed via the
database search. The search was renewed in March 2020
to ensure an updated review. The search and selection pro-
cess conducted in March 2020 is explicated in Appendix 1.
The articles to be analysed were first read to generate an
overview of the material. Second, the material was anal-
ysed more carefully using the three-dimensional frame-
work to facilitate understanding physical space presented
in the previous section (Table 1) as our analytical lens.
Then, the literature on organizational space was analysed
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 439
to identify its topical discussions, and based on that, future
research avenues for the study of the physical context of
creativity were formulated.
REVIEWING THE STUDIES ON THE
PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY
This section reviews the extant literature using the three-
dimensional framework as an analytical lens (Table 1). We
begin the review by discussing the studies using the first
dimension—the elements of workspace—for categoriza-
tion. The studies will also be reviewed from the viewpoint
of the second dimension, the social dynamics of space. We
continue by analysing the third dimension, the relation of
physical space and creativity.
Elements of workspace in the research on
the physical context of creativity
Spatial organization, that is, the size, shape, allocation
and division of space, is the first element in McCoy’s
(2005) categorization and is the element of space that
has attracted the most interest among researchers. Spa-
tial organization’s popularity is naturally understandable
because many issues, such as privacy, flexibility, commu-
nication and collaboration, are linked to spatial organiza-
tionwhile being central to creativity. For example, Ajis and
Naka (2015) conducted a case study exploring how physi-
cal space supports knowledge creation by fostering a com-
municative environment. They defined creativity as the
creation of new knowledge and concluded that creativity-
enhancing communication occurs in segregated and inte-
grated workspaces. Using mixed methods, Sailer (2011)
studied creativity by examining interaction patterns and
highlighted the need to bring people together and facilitate
communication to enhance creativity—a theme echoed in
many studies (e.g. Allen, 1977; Allen & Henn, 2007; Haner,
2005; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004; Manca et al., 2018; Oksa-
nen & Ståhle, 2013).
Another organizational feature influenced by spatial
layout is organizational culture. In their longitudinal
qualitative case study, Kallio et al. (2015) found that an
open spatial layout that facilitates open communication
and symbolizes equality and collectiveness enhances cre-
ativity. In their study, Vithayathawornwong et al. (2003)
noted that the physical environment indirectly influences
organizational creativity by facilitating dynamism and
freedom, which are considered important features of a
creativity-enhancing social work environment. Drawing
on experience as the general manager of the design firm
IDEO, Kelley (2001) described how its physical space
is used to create a culture of creativity and celebrate
teamwork. Kelley (2001) also highlighted that the design
needs to enable random encounters and concentrated
working. In a historical study, Crawford (2018) analysed
advertising agencies’ layouts and illustrated how office
design reflects the changing meanings and importance
attributed to creativity in the course of history. The author
concluded that agency spaces have simultaneously been
informed by these meanings and informed them.
The spatial layout is also the focus of Kornberger and
Clegg’s (2003, 2004) theoretical studies, although they also
addressed architectonic details and symbolic, aesthetic and
political dynamics. Kornberger and Clegg (2003) com-
plemented what they call the dominant organizational
theory by illustrating how corporate buildings generate
complexity by structuring movements and interactions.
They concluded that spaces designed to encourage cre-
ativity should provide an interplay of order and disor-
der and inside/outside relations. In another study, Korn-
berger and Clegg (2004) proposed a generative building
where individuals can interact and exchange ideas freely,
and surprises can happen. They criticized the arguments
that structure follows strategy and form follows function,
which leads to a terminal architecture (see Pawley, 1998),
characterized as stable, secure, defendable and imper-
sonal. By contrast, generative building requires a certain
randomness and unintended encounters, combined with
the protection of privacy. In their qualitative case study of
architectural firms, Gaim et al. (2018) provided an empir-
ical illustration of generative space, concluding that spa-
tial conditions conceptualized as organized chaos, bound-
ary(less)ness, premeditated spontaneity and (re)framing
evoke a paradoxical way of thinking and thus facilitate cre-
ativity.
A group of studies that analyses the relation of physi-
cal space and creativity using different stagemodels of cre-
ativity also targets spatial organization. They shared the
assumption that creativity consists of distinctive phases
that impose different demands on facilities (Allen &Henn,
2007; Haner, 2005; Kristensen, 2004; Martens, 2011; Meus-
burger, 2009; see also McCoy & Evans, 2002; Sailer, 2011;
Wanqing et al., 2020). In his qualitative case study, Kris-
tensen relied on the phase model devised by Wallas (1926,
cited in Kristensen, 2004), which comprises preparation,
incubation, elaboration and evaluation, in organizing his
research findings related to the physical context of cre-
ativity. He concluded that the preparation and elabo-
ration phases require a combination of communal and
private spaces, while the incubation and insight phases
need private spaces. Using a combination of theoretical
and case analyses, Haner (2005) distinguished between
the divergent and convergent phases, concluding that the
space design should accommodate both types of action.
He studied the effects of the spaces as indirect, that is, as
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
440 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
influencing interaction, knowledge sharing, collaboration
and concentration.
In their longitudinal qualitative study, Coradi et al.
(2015) found that proximity and visibility facilitate both
explorative and exploitative activities, although proxim-
ity is more important for exploitation, while exploration—
typically connected with creativity—requires a balance of
proximity and visibility without too many interruptions.
The second element onMcCoy’s (2005) list, architectonic
details, has been studied far less than spatial organization
in the extant literature. Architectonic details operate more
on symbolic and aesthetic levels, while being less influ-
ential from the instrumental perspective. In their exper-
imental laboratory study on how various features of the
physical environment are experienced in relation to cre-
ativity, McCoy and Evans (2002) identified five features
that predict greater creativity. These are the complexity of
visual detail, natural environment, use of natural mate-
rials, use of fewer cool colours and less use of manufac-
tured or composite materials in the environment. Haner
(2005) also mentioned the use of colours and materials in
the design of creativity-supporting facilities, but offered no
direct instructions on what they should be. In their quan-
titative survey study, Dul and Ceylan (2014) categorized
colours into those that create a relaxing experience, such
as green and blue, and those that stimulate, such as yellow,
orange and red. Creative and inspiring moods can also be
pursued with fun, unusual and surprising interior designs
(Lee, 2016; van der Lugt et al., 2007), although according
to van der Lugt et al. (2007), unconventionality needs to be
balanced with functionality in order not to become irritat-
ing.Although architectonic details are powerful symbols of
identity and purpose (Becker& Steele, 1995) and arewidely
described in the case descriptions of empirical studies (e.g.
Haner, 2005; Kallio et al., 2015; Lewis&Moultrie, 2005; van
der Lugt et al., 2007), it is not easy to draw conclusions on
their relation to creativity.
Office or workstation views, referring to what can be
observed from windows and workspaces, have an explicit
link to aesthetics, symbolism and politics, as they are
widely recognized status symbols (Elsbach & Bechky,
2007). The importance of having a view from a window
is mentioned in a few studies (Ceylan et al., 2008; Dul &
Ceylan, 2014; Hoff & Öberg, 2015; Kristensen, 2004; Luk-
ersmith & Burgess-Limerick, 2013; Martens, 2011; van der
Lugt et al., 2007). However, there does not seem to be con-
sensus on what kind of view could influence creativity, or
how it might do so. It is argued that a view of the natu-
ral environment facilitates concentration (Martens, 2011)
and a window view, a view of the natural environment
and transparency in general enhance creativity (Dul &
Ceylan, 2014; Hoff & Öberg, 2015; Lukersmith & Burgess-
Limerick, 2013; McCoy & Evans, 2002). Prior research thus
suggests a somewhat direct effect between a feature of the
physical environment and creativity. Visibility in general
is an element that appears to be central in the study of the
physical context of creativity. Visibility of workstations is
empirically found to promote both intra-team and inter-
team interaction (Haner, 2005; Hatch, 1987;Martens, 2011),
and also to increase communication, particularly informal
communication (Coradi et al., 2015) and thus to indirectly
influence creativity.
While the fourth aspect, resources, is a less tangible form,
such as time, often discussed in the organizational creativ-
ity literature (Blomberg et al., 2017), workplace resources
have received surprisingly little attention in studies on
the physical context of creativity. In addition, the litera-
ture reveals only briefmentions of ambient conditions (e.g.
Hoff &Öberg, 2015; Kallio et al., 2015;Wanqing et al., 2020)
or inclusions of them as items in questionnaires, together
with other measures (e.g. Chaubey & Sahoo, 2018; Dul &
Ceylan, 2014; Dul et al., 2011).
To summarize, among the elements of physical space
mentioned by McCoy (2005), spatial organization has
received the most attention. This is understandable, as its
influence on everyday organizational activities is proba-
bly the most obvious. Spatial layout has a powerful instru-
mental capacity, for example, in the form of pathways or
connecting spaces that effectively lead movements (Kris-
tensen, 2004), but it also carries a wide variety of symbolic
meanings and evokes aesthetic sensations. It is political in
that it embodies different interests, makes power relations
seem immutable and consists of structures that influence
people’s actions and movements (Dale & Burrell, 2008).
However, the prevalence of spatial layout in extant studies
does not mean that the other elements of physical space
are less important to study.
The studies dealing with special innovation laborato-
ries (i.e. spaces designed for creative ideation) frequently
mention that being away from the everyday office facili-
tates creativity by diluting hierarchies and distancing peo-
ple from their everyday framework (e.g. Lewis &Moultrie,
2005). However, these special innovation laboratories con-
stitute a topic that is quite different fromcreativity in every-
day work environments, as they can be regarded as liminal
places (see Söderlund & Borg, 2018), dedicated to produc-
ing creative ideas and symbolizing a creativity-fostering
culture (Lee, 2016). Accordingly, studies focusing on spe-
cial ‘creativity spaces’ or ‘innovation labs’ (seeHaner, 2005;
Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Magadley & Birdi, 2009; Osario
et al., 2019; vander Lugt et al., 2007) aremore or less limited
from the perspective of everyday work environments. For
instance, while Magadley and Birdi’s (2009) study partici-
pants find the unconventional physical design of an inno-
vation laboratory stimulating, the study indicates not only
the effects of physical design on creativity, but also the idea
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 441
of temporarily escaping from the everyday environment in
general (cf. Söderlund & Borg, 2018). Therefore, it is diffi-
cult to assess the effects that the physical designs described
in, for instance, Magadley and Birdi’s (2009) study would
have in relation to everyday work facilities. Thus, despite
the above-mentioned studies’ interesting findings, their
value for the design of offices for everyday tasks remains
controversial.
To conclude, as pointed out byMartens (2011), themajor-
ity of the literature on creativity and physical space has
studied space using interaction and communication as
intervening variables. Studies on spatial layout and creativ-
ity appear to favour qualitative methods, while those inter-
ested in architectonic details or views and their effect on
creativity typically favour quantitative methods or labora-
tory experiments. Closer analysis of the literature reveals
differences not only in the elements of space that are tar-
geted, but also in how scholars conceive the relation of
physical space and creativity. Next, we conduct a more sys-
tematic examination of the different approaches taken by
scholars to the relation of physical space and creativity and
discuss the theoretical assumptions underpinning those
approaches.
The relation between physical space and
creativity
The third dimension of the framework, the relation of
space and creativity (see Table 1), is a central issue in study-
ing the physical context of creativity, as it entails making
ontological assumptions. To make sense of the relation of
physical space and creativity, we review the literature using
the typology of relations of space and creativity presented
in Table 1.
Our review establishes that research examining creativ-
ity and physical space can be categorized into five groups
based on how they view the relation of physical environ-
ment and creativity (Table 2).
Research (e.g. Ceylan et al., 2008; Chaubey & Sahoo,
2018; Dul et al., 2011; McCoy & Evans, 2002) positioned in
the first group (Table 2) shares the belief that the phys-
ical environment affects creativity directly. Some schol-
ars (e.g. McCoy & Evans, 2002) contend that certain envi-
ronmental features—including the complexity of visual
detail, view of the natural environment, use of natural
materials, use of fewer cool colours and less use of man-
ufactured or composite materials—directly affect creativ-
ity. In the case of direct effects on creativity, one might
think of factors such as immediate access to resources—
information, documents or prototypes—that are crucial to
creativity (Ceylan et al., 2008; Hatch, 1987). Similarly, indi-
viduals’ ability to endure long working hours has been
suggested as conducive to creativity (McCoy, 2005). If the
required resources are absent or the ergonomics (for a
review, see Hollnagel, 2014), noise, temperature (Chaubey
& Sahoo, 2018) or physical design do not support long
working hours, the creative process might be disrupted,
even thwarted. Allowing concentrated work and the avail-
ability of basic tools may be the rare few factors whose
direct effect on creativity is somewhat incontestable—they
either allow a person to work on a task or prevent the per-
son from doing so. For factors other than thosementioned,
the direct effects of the physical environment on creativ-
ity are relatively difficult to find. Accordingly, this group of
studies appears to represent a somewhat traditional view,
while most contemporary studies tend to perceive the rela-
tion of the physical environment and creativity as more
complex.
The second and third groups of research (e.g. Hoff &
Öberg, 2015; Kallio et al., 2015; Vithayathawornwong et al.,
2003) do not believe in the direct influence of physical
space on creativity, while they recognize the importance
of studying the relation. They perceive the effects of space
mediated by other factors. According to this research, there
is little sense in trying to discover direct causal connections
between physical space and behaviour, let alone between
physical space and creativity, since the analyses required
tend to become both complex and somewhat implicit and
to deliver rather obscure conclusions. Consequently, it
becomesmore or less impossible to demonstrate that phys-
ical space either positively or negatively directly influ-
ences organizational creativity. In contrast, this research
assumes that the influence of physical space on creativity
occurs via intervening variables or the interaction effects of
environmental features and some independent variables.
If the variables exist independently of the physical envi-
ronment and are not its consequence, their influences are
called the interaction effects of two or more independent
variables (Group 2, Table 2). Interaction effects are caused
by the independent variables that interact with the phys-
ical environment and thus modify behaviour. For exam-
ple, an environmental feature, such as an open-plan office,
may be interpreted in various ways by different profes-
sional groups or in a different cultural environment. The
environment’s potential effect depends on the presence of
some other variable. A rare example of this type of study
is Veitch and Gifford’s (1996) investigation of the effect of
perceived control over the physical environment on cogni-
tive and creative task performance. They found that sub-
jects who were provided choices concerning the physical
environment performedmore poorly on creative tasks than
those who were not offered choices.
The third group (Table 2) views the influence of the
physical context on creativity as mediated by intervening
variables. As discussed earlier, an intervening variable
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
442 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
TABLE 2 Relation of physical space and creativity
1. Direct effect
Assumptions:
The physical environment is separate from and exists independently of its
users.
The physical environment is fixed and immobile.
The physical environment and its features directly affect creativity.
Examples of studies:
Ceylan et al. (2008); Chaubey and Sahoo
(2018); Dul et al. (2011); McCoy and Evans
(2002)
2. Interaction effect (of an independent variable)
Assumptions:
The physical environment is separate from its users.
Interaction effects are caused by independent variables (existing independently
of the physical environment) that interact with the physical environment and
thus modify behaviour.
Examples of studies:
Stokols et al. (2002); Veitch and Gifford
(1996)
3. Indirect effect
Assumptions:
The physical environment is separate from its users.
The physical environment can be interpreted differently depending on the
social environment.
The physical environment and its features influence creativity through
intervening variables, such as communication, social interaction, encounters
or culture.
Examples of studies:
Ajis and Naka (2015); Bjerke et al. (2007);
Coradi et al. (2015); Haner (2005); Kallio
et al. (2015); Sailer (2011); Wineman et al.
(2009)
4. Co-constitutive
Assumption:
Space influences action and emerges from action.
Its proponents have a dynamic view of space.
The relation between space and creativity is co-constitutive.
Examples of studies:
Gaim et al. (2018); Kornberger and Clegg
(2003, 2004); Kristensen (2004)
5. Entwined
Assumptions:
The material and the social are perceived asmelded.
Material artefacts mediate creative practices and materiality, as established by
actors, is regarded as a product of the social.
Its proponents hold a relational view of space, in which space is a relational
property of various actors.
* The search conducted in this review yielded
sociomaterial studies on creativity and
physical space but not any that would
explicitly connect the two topics.
is a consequence of the environmental feature and thus
explains why the environment influences behaviour. In
the case of creativity, facilitated communication and social
interaction patterns (Ajis & Naka, 2015; Allen, 1977; Allen
&Henn, 2007; Haner, 2005; Kallio et al., 2015; Osorio et al.,
2019; Sailer, 2011), an enhanced knowledge exchange (Ajis
& Naka, 2015), a more equal and participative culture
(Kallio et al., 2015; Osorio et al., 2019) and a culture
facilitating dynamism and freedom (Vithayathawornwong
et al., 2003) have been studied as intervening variables
because they—at least to a certain extent—are conse-
quences of the spatial configurations. As the spatial layout
effectively influences patterns of circulation, co-presence
and co-awareness (Coradi et al., 2015; Wineman et al.,
2009), encounters (Wineman et al., 2009) and interaction
and communication (Bjerke et al., 2007; Coradi et al.,
2015; Kallio et al., 2015; Sailer, 2011), they provide a set of
potential intervening variables in studies on the physical
context of creativity. Based on the review, this stream
of studies has been the most prominent so far, mostly
examining communication, encounters, culture or social
interaction as antecedents of creativity.
The fourth group (Table 2) is a small yet likely emerg-
ing stream of research that relies on a more proces-
sual view of creativity and physical space, in which both
can be regarded as involved in a co-production process
(Gaim et al., 2018). This view leans on the idea of cog-
nition being grounded in different modalities of the con-
text and connected to bodily engagement with physical
space (Carlsen et al., 2012, p. 147; Kristensen, 2004), as
well as the notion of cognition and imagination as embod-
ied and situated (Johnson, 2007). Therefore, creativity is
also perceived as grounded in the material world (Kris-
tensen, 2004). According to Johnson (2007, p. 62), our
schematic structures constantly operate when we move
through space, perceive it and manipulate its objects, thus
highlighting the physically embedded nature of imagina-
tion and other cognitive processes. These studies high-
light the co-constitutive and dynamic nature of the rela-
tion between physical space and creativity. While not yet
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 443
prominent based on our review, this line of research has
presented some interesting openings, such as Kornberger
and Clegg’s (2004) work on generative building, which
encourages the freedom of both movement and thinking.
Along similar lines, Gaim et al. (2018, p. 13) highlighted
the co-constitutive nature of the physical and the social
by illustrating how the space organizes idea work ‘within
and in relation to’ the space and evokes paradoxical ways
of thinking.
A more dynamic view of space as emerging from action
(Gaim et al., 2018), combinedwith a processual conception
of creativity (cf. Stierand et al., 2019), leads to studies com-
prising the fifth group (Table 2), which come close to the
stream of sociomateriality and emphasize the entwinement
of creativity with physical space. This view builds on the
idea of space as fluid, relational and continuously repro-
duced in organizing processes (de Vaujany & Mitev, 2013).
Despite the growing interest in the material entangle-
ment of creativity (Carlsen et al., 2012; Håkonsen Coldevin
et al., 2019; Stierand, 2014; Stierand et al., 2019) and sim-
ilarly sociomateriality in organization studies in general
(e.g. Orlikowski & Scott, 2008), the physical environment
still occupies a marginal position in both streams of litera-
ture (de Vaujany & Mitev, 2013). Although this example is
quite far from theworld of office design, Dopers and Stran-
negård (2004) interestingly illustrated how an artefact, in
this case the Cocoon chair, can be differently translated
and contextualized throughout its travels. The designer’s
original intention was soon forgotten, and the empty space
around the Cocoonwas filledwith changing content, high-
lighting the independence of the meanings from its mate-
rial form. Consistently, Beyes and Steyaert (2011, p. 56) sug-
gested that research on organizational spaces shouldmove
from treating space as a noun to thinking of spacing as a
verb, viewing space ‘as an excessive composition of multi-
ple forces’.
The above analysis indicates that extant research on the
physical context of creativity varies considerably in terms
of the perception of the relation of space and creativity.
How we understand that relation depends on the percep-
tion of space and the related assumptions, which are pre-
sented in Table 2. The understanding of space and the rela-
tion of space and creativity is discussed relatively rarely,
but that understanding has profound effects on how we
study the physical context of creativity, on how we report
it and on establishing the implications of our research.
Therefore, recognizing these different approaches and
shedding light on the assumptions onwhich they are based
facilitates future theorizing by enabling researchers to bet-
ter position their research in relation to those assumptions.
The next section identifies three directions for future
theorizing that the literature on physical space in orga-
nizational studies suggests are relevant. We then adopt a
more holistic perspective and integrate the directions for
future theorizing with the three-dimensional framework
(Table 1) presented previously. This, we hope, will offer a
springboard for future studies on the physical context of
creativity.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES ON
THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF
CREATIVITY
Summary of the present knowledge of the
physical context of creativity
Although the review presented in the previous section pro-
videsmany insights on the topic, it also illustrates the point
made by several scholars (De Paoli & Ropo, 2017; De Paoli
et al., 2017; Meinel et al., 2017) that not many generaliz-
able conclusions can be drawn from such insights. The first
of the few points agreed upon is that the physical space
needs to enable interaction and communication, which
are among the central ways that creativity can be facili-
tated through spatial design (Ajis&Naka, 2015; Allen, 1977;
Allen & Henn, 2007; Coradi et al., 2015; Haner, 2005; Lee,
2016; Martens, 2011; Oksanen & Ståhle, 2013). Second, the
creativity-enhancing physical space should accommodate
different types of work—private, concentratedwork on the
one hand and interactive, communal work on the other
hand. Third, the convertibility and flexibility of the space
is important (Ajis & Naka, 2015; Coradi et al., 2015; Haner,
2005; Kelley, 2001; Kristensen, 2004; Lee, 2016; Wanqing
et al., 2020). Apart from these few conclusions, it is quite
difficult to offer advice (grounded in research) on whether
and how creativity can be enhanced with spatial design.
The difficulty in drawing conclusions might be due to
several issues. First, some areas of the three-dimensional
framework (Table 1) have dominated the research so
far, at the cost of neglecting the others. Of the phys-
ical elements of workspace, spatial organization has
clearly attracted the most interest. In contrast, the other
elements—architectonic details, views, resources and
ambient conditions—have been studied to a considerably
lesser degree. Similarly, the instrumental perspective on
space has prevailed to date, leaving symbolic, aesthetic and
political perspectives somewhat neglected. The predomi-
nant view considers the physical space as separate from
its users; although it does not believe in a direct or unidi-
rectional relation between space and creativity, but in the
capacity of physical space to influence various antecedents
of creativity, such as communication or encounters. Stud-
ies viewing the relation between space and creativity as
more complex, co-constitutive or even entwined are still
relatively uncommon.
Second, our review reveals that it is quite usual for
the position in terms of the three-dimensional framework
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
444 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
adopted by the respective studies to often not be expressly
stated in the study. While the first two dimensions of
the framework—the elements of space targeted and the
social dynamics selected for analysis—often become evi-
dent when reading a study, the assumptions concerning
the relation of space and creativity are often more implicit,
and thus problematic. As discussed earlier in this paper
(see Table 2), the different approaches that can be taken
concerning the relation of space and creativity vary sig-
nificantly in terms of their ontological assumptions. These
differences have profound implications for the conduct of
research and its results.
Third, some difficulties might arise owing to differences
in understanding of the two research topics. While creativ-
ity is traditionally regarded as an individual skill or capac-
ity, the contemporary literature often conceptualizes it as
a process (see e.g. Sailer, 2011; Stierand et al., 2019). As the
literature to date typically treats physical space as a fixed
and static entity (see e.g. Dul & Ceylan, 2014; Haner, 2005;
McCoy, 2005), the inconsistency between the predominant
ontologies on which the two literatures are based can cre-
ate issues. Our review confirmed that the research on the
physical context of creativity is dominated by the concep-
tion of physical space as a fixed entity, separate from its
users, while recent literature on physical organizational
spaces emphasizes a more dynamic conception, one that
perceives it as socially produced and socially producing
(Dale & Burrell, 2008; Lefvebre, 1991). Beyes and Steyaert
(2011) even suggest replacing the concept of spacewith that
of spacing.
Similarly, while the instrumental perspective on space
has attracted the most interest among researchers, orga-
nizational space researchers have begun to acknowledge
that people’s relation to space is not only rational but
also sensual, affective and corporeal (Lefebvre, 1991; Strati,
1996; Vesala & Tuomivaara, 2018). A considerable body of
research assumes that objective space is the same as the
subjective interpretation of it (cf. Cairns, 2002; Kristensen,
2004). That assumption thus ignores the subjectivity and
situatedness of spatial experiences, especially the collec-
tive level of interpreting and negotiating such spatial expe-
riences (Crevani, 2019; Katila et al., 2019).
Conducting the review illuminated the above-
mentioned gaps in the literature on the physical context of
creativity. To bridge those gaps, we suggest three directions
for future studies and discuss them below.
Three directions for future studies on the
physical context of creativity
Drawing inspiration from the literature on physical space
in organization studies, we suggest three directions for
future studies. We hope the directions facilitate future the-
orizing on the physical context of creativity.
Space as confining or enabling
The first direction for future theorizing, labelled here
‘space as confining or enabling’, refers to the traditional
approach to physical space and is interested in spatial
arrangements that enable certain actions, movements
and sensory experiences while restricting others (Clegg
& Kornberger, 2006; Kristensen, 2004). This stream of
research can be summarized as follows:What kinds of cre-
ative processes does space enable or hinder? This question
has dominated research on creative physical space so far,
which is understandable because of its central importance
to many organizational processes—the reason why it pro-
vides interesting avenues for future research as well. How-
ever, while the focus of extant studies has been on spa-
tial organization, other elements of space, such as views
or resources, could also be fruitful topics of study.
Thus far, this direction has tended to be dominated by
the instrumental perspective on physical space and should
thus be open to other perspectives. Particularly, the poli-
tics of space as either confining or enabling is relevant in
terms of creativity, as spatial solutions effectively organize
power relations (Brown et al., 2010; Clegg & Kornberger,
2006; Dale & Burrell, 2008). As is well known in research
on organizational space, the physical environment pro-
duces power effects that can also have consequences for
creative processes (Baldry et al., 1998; Cairns, 2002; Dale
& Burrell, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991; Zhang & Spicer, 2013).
Physical space encompasses symbolic spaces, where differ-
ent rules, hierarchies and practices apply. These ‘spaces of
possibles’ in relation to creativity have been discussed by
Moeran (2009, p. 15) in the context of Japanese advertis-
ing production, while this perspective on space as enabling
or hindering could also open other possibilities for
studies.
In creativity research, it is relatively well established
that having sketches, visual illustrations and models on
hand facilitates creative processes (Carlsen et al., 2012,
pp. 147−155) and that creativity emerges from the rela-
tion between human actors and artefacts (e.g. Stierand,
2014). Thus, future research could explore spatial elements
as resources for creativity. Future research could look at
physical environments as cognitive artefacts (cf. Norman,
1991, p. 17), embodying knowledge and assumptions that
either facilitate or hinder creativity (cf. Slavich & Svejen-
ova, 2016). Similarly, as cognitive artefactsmay carrymean-
ings that encourage traditional ways of thinking and act-
ing, theymay also encourage creative ways of thinking and
doing. Artefacts and physical designs contain institutional
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 445
information (Katila et al., 2019) that could shed light on
how physical space conditions creative processes.
Space as a lived experience
The second direction for future theorizing is interested in
space as a ‘lived experience’. It refers to subjective, situated
and affective experiences of space and the everyday reality
of the people occupying it (e.g. Cairns, 2002). An embodied
experience of space consists of primary aesthetic responses
and reactions tomaterial things (vanMarrewijk, 2010), and
the lived experiences of those occupying or visiting the
space (e.g. de Vaujany et al., 2019; Van Marrewijk, 2010;
Vesala & Tuomivaara, 2018). This stream could be summa-
rized in the question: How does it feel to work in the space?
In the contemporary mobile world, organizations increas-
ingly consist of the ‘experiences that constitute and re-
constitute’ organizational spaces, making embodied expe-
riences of space andmateriality important areas of focus of
organizational research (de Vaujany et al., 2019).
The experience of space is not an effect of the physi-
cal on those experiencing it, or even separable from them,
but is embodied and situated. An aesthetic experience is
an ‘intertwinement between the affective, the spatial and
the embodied’ and thus does not pertain to generalizable
or universal rules (Berti et al., 2018, p. 171; see also Cairns,
2002; Strati, 1996). While the experience of space is derived
from the users’ actions, movements and residency in the
space, the space also has productive power (Dale & Bur-
rell, 2008). Physical space has the capacity to articulate
individuals’ interests, desires and identities, and ‘to move
us deeply’ (Dale & Burrell, 2008, p. 45; see also Clegg &
Kornberger, 2006). Therefore, the experiences of space also
constitute the subjectivities and identities of people and
the relations between them. This stream of research could
focus on the space’s capacity to articulate many issues,
as well as the users’ experiences of space. From this per-
spective, future research could explore the complex rela-
tion of physical space and individual identities and subjec-
tivities, how the ideologies, interests and agendas behind
the design of creative spaces are experienced, and how
the spaces constitute their occupants. Creative work can
also affect workspaces, for instance, by transforming a
workspace into something else, by changing a space’s use
or by changing the look and feel of the space. These types
of processes entwined with creative work could provide new
insights into spatiality and creativity.
The collective conception of space
In contrast to the primary aesthetic responses, the second-
order effects of spontaneous aesthetic reactions result
from cognitive processing and often stem from symbolism
(Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004), and acquire their meaning
in and through the social context, which takes us to the
third direction for future theorizing. This stream focuses
on collective meaning-making concerning the physical
space and is summarized in the question: What kinds of
collective meanings are attached to the space? While the
previous stream acknowledged that individuals experi-
ence a space in various ways owing to their backgrounds
and experience (Cairns, 2002; Zhang & Spicer, 2013), this
stream is interested in collective meanings and interpreta-
tions, either by those occupying the space or those observ-
ing it from the outside. The collectivemeanings refer to the
intersubjective level of subjective space (Kristensen, 2004),
labelled the intersubjective space. The intersubjective space
is the collective conception of the subjective interpreta-
tions of the physical space, which is collectively negotiated
and builds on, combines and incorporates various individ-
ual interpretations (cf. Katila et al., 2019).
This stream of research is the most explicitly connected
to symbolism because intersubjective space is always
rooted in culture and interpreted through the framework
provided by the social environment (cf. Musson & Tietze,
2004; Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004). Creative spaces are
often designed with the intention of creating a sense of
community with a somewhat established identity (Moul-
trie et al., 2007; Osario et al., 2019; Stang Våland & Georg,
2019). Brown and Humphreys (2006) pointed out how a
group’s shared understanding of its physical environment
can act as a resource for identity construction and how the
group’s interpretation of the space may influence its iden-
tity narratives.
Further, creating the appearance of creativity is a cen-
tral motive for designing creative offices (Crawford, 2018).
Accordingly, future research might investigate space as
a symbol of creativity. Many elements of physical space,
such as visibility and architectonic details, play an impor-
tant role as they function as signals of this desirable orga-
nizational capacity—creativity. Besides the intent of the
space’s designers, the signals may include elements of
fetishism, commodification or performativity, which may
offer interesting insights into the meanings attached to the
space (Dale & Burrell, 2008; Lefebvre, 1991). More research
would be required to understand how the occupants of a
space and visitors to it interpret these signals, and espe-
cially how they relate to them.
Future theorizing on the physical context
of creativity
To integrate the directions for future studies presented in
the previous section with our three-dimensional frame-
work (Table 1), we offer the illustration in Figure 1.
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
446 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
F IGURE 1 A three-dimensional
framework for investigating the physical
context of creativity and directions for future
theorizing
This illustration includes the three-dimensional frame-
work for analysing the physical space that researchers
should take a stance on before proceeding with their study.
The dimensions encompass: what elements of workspace
are targeted, which social dynamics are analysed and how
the relation between physical space and creativity is con-
ceived. This framework can be conceptualized as an ana-
lytical lens through which to consider the three directions
for future theorizing.
The directions for future theorizing are positioned
slightly differently in terms of the framework and its
dimensions. From the viewpoint of the first dimension
of the framework, elements of workspace, all the elements
can be equally relevant (Figure 1). Spatial organization
is relevant in all three directions for future theorizing,
although it is particularly evident from the viewpoint of
‘space as confining or enabling’. However, architectonic
details, views, resources and ambient conditions are likely
to be of interest, particularly from the viewpoint of the
two latter streams of research: ‘space as a lived experience’
and ‘collective conception of space’. Regarding the second
dimension of the framework, the social dynamics of space,
‘space as confining or enabling’ can be approached from
any of the four perspectives, while the political, symbolic
and aesthetic have been less studied. Regarding ‘lived expe-
rience of space’ and ‘collective conception of space’, the
instrumental perspective may include a risk of generat-
ing one-size-fits-all rules of thumb for productivity or effi-
ciency that might have controversial effects. The aesthetic
perspective is themost explicitly connected to ‘lived experi-
ence of space’ and the symbolic to ‘collective conception of
space’, while the political dynamics could offer interesting
opportunities in all directions for future studies. Moreover,
looking at how these dynamics are interconnected and
evolving jointly might offer new insights into understand-
ing physical space regarding any of the suggested direc-
tions for future theorizing.
Concerning the third dimension of the framework, the
relation of space and creativity, any of the approaches
(Table 2) could (at least theoretically) be used in the three
directions for future theorizing. However, to overcome the
ontological inconsistencies between the two streams of
literature—organizational creativity and physical space—
we suggest adopting a broader conception of space in the
study of the physical context of creativity. This broader con-
ception of space would be more aligned with the concep-
tualization of creativity as a process (see e.g. Sailer, 2011;
Stierand et al., 2019) andmove away from treating physical
space as an immobile, fixed entity separate from its occu-
pants. The literature on organizational spaces has intro-
duced broader conceptions of space, highlighting its nature
as a social construct that ‘tells us narratives, stories of our-
selves and the societies we live in, and it simultaneously
influences what we do or do not do’ (Dale & Burrell, 2008,
p. 43).
This broader conception of space has consequences
when thinking about the relation of space and creativity.
It moves away from seeing that relation as unidirectional
and thus challenges the study of direct—or any unidirec-
tional, for that matter—effects of space on creativity in a
traditional sense. The proposed conceptualization of space
challenges the idea that space has ‘effects’ and encourages
scholars to see the relation between space and creativity as
more multifaceted and complex. Consequently, although
the broader conception of space incorporates more multi-
directional and dynamic relations of space and creativity
(thus hinting at the relevance of a co-constitutive or even
entwined view of space and creativity), it does not deny
the possibility of adopting other approaches to investigate
the relation. Whereas the two latter directions for future
theorizing—‘lived experience of space’ and ‘collective con-
ception of space’—favour a co-constitutive or entwined
relation of space and creativity, the first direction for future
theorizing, ‘space as enabling or confining’, offers more
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 447
freedom concerning thinking about the relation of space
and creativity.
While being based on a broader understanding of phys-
ical space, these three directions for theorizing (Figure 1)
allow for a variety of perspectives within the three dimen-
sions (Table 1). We, however, suggest that the physical con-
text of creativity should no longer be perceived as having a
unidirectional effect or being part of a causal connection,
but as a thing per se that is both produced and producing,
lived, experienced and collectively mediated.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper examines the intersection of two streams of
research: creativity and physical space. We discussed the
common difficulties related to studying the physical con-
text of creativity and provided an overview of the extant
studies and their findings. To make sense of current lit-
erature on the physical context of creativity and facilitate
future studies, we constructed a three-dimensional frame-
work for understanding physical space. That framework
comprises the elements of workspace, the social dynamics
of space and the relation of space and behaviour. The three-
dimensional framework was used to structure our review
of the literature on the physical context of creativity.
Our review suggests thatmost studies examine the influ-
ence of space on creativity as mediated by some of its
antecedents, such as communication, encounters or cul-
ture. However, we also found studies assuming a direct
effect, an indirect effect through intra- or interpersonal
variables, or an interaction effect.We identified a few stud-
ies that assume a co-constitutive relation of space and cre-
ativity. In extant research, spatial layout is the most recur-
rent element of physical space, which is understandable
given its power to set boundaries and guide flows of move-
ment and interaction, thus influencing creativity via many
of its antecedents. The instrumental perspective is themost
popular among the reviewed studies, although they do also
investigate symbolic, aesthetic and political aspects.
The review identified certain gaps in the literature relat-
ing to the physical context of creativity. To bridge those
gaps, we suggested three directions for future theorizing
inspired by our analysis of organizational space research.
These directions revolve around three questions: (1)What
kinds of creative processes does a space enable or hinder?
(2) How does it feel to work in the space? (3) What kinds
of collective meanings are attached to the space? The first
direction represents the traditional view, which will likely
remain relevant in the future. It centres on physical space,
conceived of as physical, sensual, mental or political barri-
ers and borders, and views space as enabling or hindering
creativity-related processes. The second direction focuses
on the lived and embodied experiences of the users of a
space, and considers experiences of a space as inseparable
from the space itself and space as having the capacity to
influence individuals’ inner processes. The third direction
focuses on the collective level of meaning-making related
to space. It concentrates on the intersubjective conception
of space—that is, the collective negotiation of meanings
attached to space—and also the symbolism used to signal
creativity. The three directions for future studies lean on
a broader conception of physical space that departs from
treating it as a fixed entity separate from its users. That
approach alignsmore closelywith the conceptualization of
creativity as a process (see e.g. Sailer, 2011; Stierand et al.,
2019).
As a consequence of the broader conception of physical
space, the relation of creativity and physical space is not
unidirectional or effect-like but complex and multidirec-
tional. Several issues, such as identity, power, hierarchy,
autonomy, freedom and equality, are actualized through
spatial design (Alexandersson & Kalonaityte, 2018; Brown
& Humphreys, 2006; Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Elsbach &
Bechky, 2007; Stang Våland & Georg, 2019; Wasserman &
Frenkel, 2011; Zhang & Spicer, 2013). That belief accords
with physical space having a productive power. Physical
space produces not onlymovement, action and interaction,
but experiences, social relations, categories and identities.
This paper offers several contributions. First, we
reviewed the extant literature on physical space in orga-
nization studies and discussed the variety of perspectives
available when studying physical space. This enabled us to
formulate a three-dimensional framework that we used to
analyse the literature on the physical context of creativity.
Accordingly, the second contribution of this paper is the
three-dimensional framework that will enable researchers
to better position their work. The third contribution is our
reviewof the physical context of creativity literature,which
offers an overview of the current knowledge of the topic
and discusses the theoretical assumptions upon which the
literature is based. Fourth, by suggesting the adoption of a
broader conception of physical space, we facilitate the inte-
gration of studies focused on the physical organizational
space and creativity in organizations. Through the alterna-
tive conceptual understanding, we seek to guide the direc-
tion of future research on the topic. Finally, by using the
contemporary discussions on organizational space to seed
ideas for the study of the physical context of creativity, we
have presented three directions for future studies.We hope
that the suggested directions will provide fertile ground for
future theorizing of the physical context of creativity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editor and the
anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback that
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
448 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
significantly improved the quality of the paper. They are
also grateful to Professor Adam Smale for his invaluable
help with improving the readability the paper. The first
author would like to thank the Foundation for Economic
Education (Liikesivistysrahasto) for financial support.
ORCID
Annika J. Blomberg https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1637-
5707
Tomi J. Kallio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7032-9632
REFERENCES
Ajis, A. & Naka, R. (2015). Spatial configuration based on amount
of communication for organizational creativity in interior design
firms. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, pp. 285–296.
Alexandersson, A. & Kalonaityte, V. (2018). Playing to dissent: The
aesthetics and politics of playful office design. Organization Stud-
ies, 39, pp. 297–317.
Allen, T.J. (1977).Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Allen, T.J. & Henn, G.W. (2007). The Organization and Architecture
of Innovation, Managing the Flow of Technology. London: Elsevier.
Baldry, C., Bain, P. & Taylor, P. (1998). ‘Bright satanic offices’: Intensi-
fication, control and teamTaylorism. InThompson, P.&Warhurst,
C. (eds),Workplaces of the Future: Critical Perspectives onWork and
Organisations. London: Palgrave, pp. 163–183.
Bansal, P. & Knox-Hayes, J. (2013). The time and space of materiality
in organizations and the natural environment. Organization and
Environment, 26, pp. 61–82.
Becker, F.D. & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by Design: Mapping the
High-Performance Workscape. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berti, M., Simpson, A.V. & Clegg, S.R. (2018). Making a place out of
space: The social imaginaries and realities of a business school as
a designed space.Management Learning, 49, pp. 168–186.
Beyes, T. & Steyaert, C. (2011). Spacing organization: Non-
representational theory and performing organizational space.
Organization, 19, pp. 45–61.
Bjerke, R., Ind, N. & De Paoli, D. (2007). The impact of aesthetics on
employee satisfaction and motivation. EuroMEd Journal of Busi-
ness, 2, pp. 57–73.
Blomberg, A., Kallio, T. & Pohjanpää, H. (2017). Antecedents of orga-
nizational creativity: Drivers, barriers or both? Journal of Innova-
tion Management, 5, pp. 78–104.
Breslin, D. & Gatrell, G. (2020). Theorizing through literature
reviews: The miner–prospector continuum. Organizational
Research Methods, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288.
Brown, A.D. (2017). Identity work and organizational identification.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, pp. 296–317.
Brown, A.D. & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and
place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 43, pp. 231–257.
Brown, A.D., Kornberger, M., Clegg, S.R. & Carter, C. (2010). ‘Invisi-
ble walls’ and ‘silent hierarchies’: A case study of power relations
in an architecture firm. Human Relations, 63, pp. 525–549.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T.B. & Robinson, S.L. (2005). Territoriality in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, pp. 577–594.
Brunson, L., Kuo, M. & Sullivan,W.C. (2001). Resident appropriation
of defensible space in public housing implications for safety and
community. Environment and Behavior, 33, pp. 626–652.
Burrell, G. & Dale, K. (2014). Space and organization studies. In
Adler, P., du Gay, P., Morgan, G. & Reed, M. (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory and Organization Studies:
Contemporary Currents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 684–
706.
Byron, K. & Laurence, G.A. (2015). Diplomas, photos, and tchotchkes
as symbolic self-representations: Understanding employees’ indi-
vidual use of symbols. Academy of Management Journal, 58, pp.
298–323.
Cairns, G. (2002). Aesthetics, morality and power: Design as
espoused freedom and implicit control. Human Relations, 55, pp.
799–820.
Carlsen, A., Clegg, S. & Gjersvik, R. (2012). Idea Work: Lessons of
the Extraordinary in Everyday Creativity. Oslo: Cappelen Damm
Akademisk.
Ceylan, C., Dul, J. & Aytac, S. (2008). Can the office environment
stimulate a manager’s creativity? Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 18, pp. 589–602.
Chan, P.U., Räisäsen, C. & Lauche, K. (2019). What’s taking space?
Re-framing space and place in everyday organizational life. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Management, 35, pp. 1–3.
Chaubey, A. & Sahoo, C.K. (2018). Honing of employee creativity in
Indian automobile industry. Journal ofManagement Development,
37, pp. 552–572.
Clegg, S. & Kornberger, M. (2006). Organising space. In Clegg, S. &
Kornberger, M. (eds), Space, Organizations andManagement The-
ory. Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press,
pp. 143–162.
Coradi, A., Heinzen, M. & Boutellier, R. (2015). A longitudinal study
ofworkspace design for knowledge exploration and exploitation in
the research and development process. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 24, pp. 55–71.
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments. Developing propositions, a
process model or a typology. Academy of Management Review, 42,
pp. 1–9.
Crawford, R. (2018). Office space: Australian advertising agencies in
the twentieth century. Journal ofManagementHistory, 24, pp. 396–
413.
Crevani, L. (2019). Privilege in place: How organisational practices
contribute to meshing privilege in place. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 35, pp. 1–13.
Cutcher, L., Dale, K., Hancock, P. & Tyler, M. (2016). Spaces and
places of remembering and commemoration.Organization, 23, pp.
3–9.
Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied
politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, pp. 649–678.
Dale, K. & Burrell, G. (2008). Spaces of Organization and the Organi-
zation of Space. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Danese, P., Manfè, V. & Romano, P. (2018). A systematic literature
review on recent lean research: State-of-the-art and future direc-
tions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, pp. 579–
605.
Delbridge, R. & Sallaz, J.J. (2015). Work: Four worlds and ways of see-
ing. Organization Studies, 36, pp. 1449–1462.
De Paoli, D. & Ropo, A. (2017). Creative workspaces – a fad ormaking
real impact? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19, pp. 157–167.
De Paoli, D., Sauer, E. & Ropo, A. (2017). The spa-
tial context of organizations: A critique of ‘creative
workspaces’. Journal of Management and Organization, 25,
pp. 331–352.
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 449
de Vaujany, F.X., Dandoy, A., Grandazzi, A. & Faure, S. (2019). Expe-
riencing a new place as an atmosphere: A focus on tours of col-
laborative spaces. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35, art.
101030.
de Vaujany, F.-X. & Mitev, N. (2013). Materiality and Space. Bas-
ingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dobers, P. & Strannegård, L. (2004). The cocoon—a travelling space.
Organization, 11, pp. 829–852.
Dul, J. & Ceylan, C. (2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting
work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, pp. 1254–1267.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C. & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity
and the role of the physical work environment. Human Resource
Management, 50, pp. 715–734.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-
categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial
office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, pp. 622–654.
Elsbach, K.D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: The role of
office décor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp. 99–128.
Elsbach, K.D. & Bechky, B.A. (2007). It’s more than a desk: Working
smarter through leveraged office design. California Management
Review, 49, pp. 80–101.
Elsbach,K.D.&Pratt,M.G. (2007). The physical environment in orga-
nizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, pp. 181–224.
Fayard, A. & Weeks, J. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The
affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28, pp.
605–634.
Franck, K.A. (1984). Exorcising the ghost of physical determinism.
Environment and Behavior, 16, pp. 411–435.
Gagliardi, P. (1990). Artefacts as pathways and remains of organiza-
tional life. In Gagliardi, P. (ed.), Symbols andArtefacts: Views of the
Corporate Landscape. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 3–38.
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N. & Jacobsson, M. (2018). The role of space for
a paradoxical way of thinking and doing: A study of idea work in
architectural firms.Creativity and InnovationManagement, 28, pp.
265–281.
Haner,U.-E. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two estab-
lished organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14,
pp. 288–298.
Hatch, M.J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and inter-
action activity in research and development firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 32, pp. 387–399.
Hatch, M.J. (1990). The symbolics of office design: An empirical
exploration. In Gagliardi, P. (ed.), Symbols and Artefacts: Views of
the Corporate Landscape. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 129–146.
Hatch,M.J. &Cunliffe, A. (2006).OrganizationTheory:Modern, Sym-
bolic, and Postmodern Perspectives, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Hoff, E. & Öberg, N. (2015). The role of the physical work environ-
ment for creative employees – a case study of digital artists. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, pp. 1889–
1906.
Hollnagel, E. (2014). Human factors/ergonomics as a systems dis-
cipline? “The human use of human beings” revisited. Applied
Ergonomics, 45, pp. 40–44.
Hultin, L. (2019). On becoming a sociomaterial researcher: Exploring
epistemological practices grounded in a relational, performative
ontology. Information and Organization, 29, pp. 91–104.
Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L. & Lacey, F.M. (2011).Doing your Literature
Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.
Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human
Understanding. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Kallio, T.J., Kallio, K.-M. & Blomberg, A.J. (2015). Physical space, cul-
ture and organisational creativity – a longitudinal study. Facilities,
33, pp. 389–411.
Katila, S., Laine, P.M. & Parkkari, P. (2019). Sociomateriality and
affect in institutional work: Constructing the identity of start-up
entrepreneurs. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28, pp. 381–394.
Kelley, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from
IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. New York: Doubleday.
Khazanchi, S., Sprinkle, M., Masterson, S. & Tong, N. (2018). A spa-
tial model of work relationship: The relationship-building and
relationship-straining effects of workspace design. Academy of
Management Review, 43, pp. 590–609.
Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S.R. (2003). Architecture of complexity.Cul-
ture and Organization, 9, pp. 75–91.
Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S.R. (2004). Bringing space back in: Orga-
nizing the generative building. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1095–
1114.
Kraut, R., Fussell, S.R., Brennan, S.E. & Siegel, J. (2002). Under-
standing effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for
technologies to support remote collaborative work. In Hinds, P. &
Kiesler, S. (eds),DistributedWork. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, pp.
137–162.
Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 13, pp. 89–96.
Lee, Y.S. (2016). Creative workplace characteristics and innovative
start-up companies. Facilities, 34, pp. 413–432.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lewis, M. & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation labo-
ratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, pp. 73–83.
Lukersmith, S. & Burgess-Limerick, R. (2013). The perceived impor-
tance and the presence of creative potential in the health profes-
sional’s work environment. Ergonomics, 56, pp. 922–934.
Magadley, W. & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination
into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativ-
ity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, pp. 315–325.
Manca, C., Grijalvo, M., Palacios, M. & Kaulio, M. (2018). Collabora-
tive workplaces for innovation in service companies: Barriers and
enablers for supporting new ways of working. Service Business, 12,
pp. 525–550.
Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic
support for creativity. Facilities, 29, pp. 63–79.
McCoy, J.M. (2005). Linking the physical work environment to cre-
ative context. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, pp. 169–192.
McCoy, J.M. & Evans, G.W. (2002). The potential role of the physical
environment in fostering creativity.Creativity Research Journal, 14,
pp. 409–426.
Meinel, M., Maier, L., Wagner, T.F. & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Designing
creativity-enhancing workspaces: A critical look at empirical evi-
dence. Journal of Technology and Innovation Management, 1, pp.
1–12.
Meusburger, P. (2009). Milieus of creativity: The role of places,
environments, and spatial contexts. In Meusburger, P., Funke, J.
& Wunder, E. (eds), Milieus of Creativity – An Interdisciplinary
Approach to Spatiality of Creativity. Berlin: Springer, pp. 97–153.
Moeran, B. (2009). The organization of creativity in Japanese adver-
tising production. Human Relations, 62, pp. 963–985.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.-E., Janssen, S. & van
der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation spaces: Towards a framework for
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
450 BLOMBERG and KALLIO
understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, pp. 53–65.
Musson, G. & Tietze, S. (2004). Places and spaces: The role of meton-
omy in organizational talk. Journal of Management Studies, 41, pp.
1301–1323.
Norman, D.A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In Carroll, J.M. (ed.), Cam-
bridge Series on Human–Computer Interaction, No. 4. Designing
Interaction: Psychology at the Human–Computer Interface. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–38.
Oksanen, K. & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for
innovation: Investigating the attributes of innovative space. Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management, 17, pp. 815–827.
Oldham, G.R. & Brass, D.J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-
plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 267–284.
Oldham, G.R. & Rotchford, N.L. (1983). Relationships between office
characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical
environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, pp. 542–556.
Orlikowski, W.J. & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging
the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of
Management Annals, 2, pp. 433–474.
Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J.I. &
Alfaro,M. (2019). Design andmanagement of innovation laborato-
ries: Toward a performance assessment tool. Creativity and Inno-
vation Management, 28, pp. 82–100.
Pawley, M. (1998). Terminal Architecture. London: Reaktion.
Rafaeli, A. & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Emotion as a connection of
physical artefacts and organizations. Organization Science, 15, pp.
671–686.
Sailer, K. (2011). Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities, 29,
pp. 6–18.
Slavich, B. & Svejenova, S. (2016). Managing creativity: A critical
examination, synthesis, and new frontiers.EuropeanManagement
Review, 13, pp. 237–250.
Söderlund, J. & Borg, E. (2018). Liminality in management and orga-
nization studies: Process, position and place. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 20, pp. 880–902.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-
of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 9, pp. 53–80.
Stang Våland, M. & Georg, S. (2019). Spacing identity: Unfold-
ing social and spatial–material entanglements of identity perfor-
mance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34, pp. 193–204.
Stierand, M. (2014). Developing creativity in practice: Explorations
with world-renowned chefs. Management Learning, 45, pp. 598–
617.
Stierand, M., Boje, D.M., Glăveanu, V., Dörfler, V., Haley, U.C.V. &
Feuls, M. (2019). Paradoxes of “creativity”: Examining the creative
process through an antenarrative lens. Journal of Creative Behav-
ior, 53, pp. 165–170.
Stokols, D., Clitheroe, C. & Zmuidzinas, M. (2002). Qualities of work
environments that promote perceived support for creativity. Cre-
ativity Research Journal, 14, pp. 137–147.
Strati, A. (1996). Organizations viewed through the lens of aesthetics.
Organization, 3, pp. 209–218.
Sundström, E., Burt, R.E. & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work:
Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 23, pp. 101–117.
Taylor, S. & Spicer, A. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of
research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Man-
agement Reviews, 9, pp. 325–346.
Tyler,M.&Cohen, L. (2010). Spaces thatmatter: Gender performativ-
ity and organizational space. Organization Studies, 31, pp. 175–198.
van der Lugt, R., Janssen, S., Kuperus, S.&deLange, E. (2007). Future
center ‘The Shipyard’: Learning from planning, developing, using
and refining a creative facility. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 16, pp. 66–79.
Van Marrewijk, A. (2010). The beauty and the beast: The embod-
ied experience of two corporate buildings. In Van Marrewijk, A.
& Yanow, D. (eds), Organizational Spaces: Rematerializing the
Workaday World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 296–115.
VanMarrewijk, A. & Yanow, D. (2010).Organizational Spaces: Rema-
terializing the Workaday World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Veitch, J.A. & Gifford, R. (1996). Choice, perceived control, and per-
formance decrements in the physical environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, pp. 269–276.
Vesala, H. & Tuomivaara, S. (2018). Experimenting with work prac-
tices in a liminal space: A working period in a rural archipelago.
Human Relations, 71, pp. 1371–1394.
Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A. & Yaacov, C.S. (2005). Instrumental-
ity, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design. Environment and
Behavior, 37, pp. 533–551.
Vithayathawornwong, S., Danko, S. & Tolbert, P. (2003). The role of
the physical environment in supporting organizational creativity.
Journal of Interior Design, 29, pp. 1–16.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Wanqing, S., Tianyu, Z., Zhichong, Z., Jian, K. & Jianhua, S. (2020).
A grounded theory approach to the understanding of creativity in
common spaces of universities. Interactive LearningEnvironments,
28, pp. 744–761.
Wasserman, V. (2012). Open spaces, closed boundaries: Transpar-
ent workspaces as clerical female ghettos. International Journal of
Work Organisation and Emotion, 5, pp. 6–25.
Wasserman, V. & Frenkel, M. (2011). Organizational aesthetics:
Caught between identity regulation and culture jamming. Orga-
nization Science, 22, pp. 503–521.
Wasserman, V. & Frenkel, M. (2015). Spatial work in between
glass ceilings and glass walls: Gender–class intersectionality and
organizational aesthetics. Organization Studies, 36, pp. 1485–
1505.
Weinfurtner, T. & Seidl, D. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective: An
integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, 35, art. 101009.
Williams, A. (2009). Creativity syntax: An emerging concept for cre-
ativity in the workspace. Design Principles and Practices: An Inter-
national Journal, 3, pp. 193–202.
Wineman, J.D., Kabo, F.W. & Davis, G.F. (2009). Spatial and
social networks in organizational innovation. Environment and
Behaviour, 41, pp. 427–442.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory
of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18,
pp. 293–321.
Zhang, Z. & Spicer, A. (2013). “Leader, you first”: The everyday pro-
duction of hierarchical space in a Chinese bureaucracy. Human
Relations, 67, pp. 739–762.
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A REVIEW OF THE PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF CREATIVITY 451
How to cite this article: Blomberg AJ. & Kallio
TJ. (2022) A review of the physical context of
creativity: A three-dimensional framework for
investigating the physical context of creativity.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 24,
433–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12286
APPENDIX 1: STEPS OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Step Description Criteria Outcome
Step 1: Literature search Initial literature search for
articles on physical context
of creativity
Databases:
EBSCO Academic search premier
• ‘physical space’ AND creativity
• ‘physical environment’ AND creativity
• ‘physical design’ AND creativity
- Search terms: search in all text, limited
to peer-reviewed scholarly articles
published in English
- Time period: no limit–March 2020
ABI/INFORM collection
• ‘physical space’ AND creativity
• ‘physical environment’ AND creativity
• ‘physical design’ AND creativity
- Search terms: search in all text, limited
to peer-reviewed scholarly articles
published in English
- Time period: no limit–March 2020
2011 articles
2637 articles
236 articles
802 articles
1339 articles
163 articles
Step 2: Screening articles Screening relevance of the
articles identified at step 1
▪ The title, abstract and/or keywords of
the article needed to indicate that the
article explicitly deals with physical
space and creativity in organizational
contexts
35 articles
Step 3: Snowballing Searching for articles and
books that were not
identified at step 2
▪ Reading through the reference lists of
the 35 articles for titles that include
references to physical space and
creativity or that appear relevant to
the topic
▪ Accessing these articles and books
and screening them for relevance
34 articles or books
Step 4: Analysis of the articles Conducting the qualitative
analysis of the articles and
books
▪ The articles and books selected during
steps 2 and 3 were analysed from the
perspective of physical elements of
workspace, social dynamics of space
and the relation of physical space and
creativity
69 articles or books
 14682370, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12286 by University Of Vaasa, Wiley Online Library on [11/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License