Introduction Space was treated as the (lead= the xed, the undialectica], the immobile. Time, on the contrary, was richness, fecundity, life, dialectic. (Foucault I980, 70) Time and space are closely linked in areas of scientic research such as physics, in everyday life and in workplaces. In the social sciences, however, it has been common practice to privi- lege the analysis of time. This is reected in organization and management research; books, journal papers and edited collections provide analyses of time in the workplace, extending our understanding of temporal dynamics in management and the contestation of time codes. In contrast, until recently the spaces and places that management happens in and through have been portrayed as neutral settings; in Foucault's terms, xed, dead and immobile containers or settings. In this paper, we argue that this situation has begun to change. and review published work in order to establish an integrated framework for future work on space in organization and management studies. Our argument is founded on the contention that established sub-elds of management research tend to 'see' spaces as specic common-sense categories that can be separated out from each other empirically and analytically. This is in Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007, 9600 Garsmgton Road, Oxford OX4 2DQr UK and 350 Main Streetr Malden, MA 02148, USA International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 9 Issue 4 pp. 325346 Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces part a result of the lack of conceptualization of space and place, and especially a lack of engagement with the increasing interest in space and spatiality in the social sciences (Soja 1989; Wilton and Cranford 2002). We suggest that an increasing number of organizational scholars take space and place as a central analytical theme (e.g. Dale and Barrel] 2007; Clegg and Kornberger 2006; Homes 2004a; Komberger and Clegg 2004); others use spaces as an analytical lever to understand established sub-elds such as employee relations or international business. The study of organizational spaces is an area characterized by fragmented contributions. Competing understandings of space and place mean that analysis tends to be atomized. We suggest that, while this disintegration has produced a rich variation of understandings of spatiality, it is problematic in developing an understanding of management and organization standing the social activities of organizing and managing work. Ultimately, we intend to con- tribute towards recognizing the 'multiplicity of the objective qualities which space and time can express, and the role of human practices in their construction' (Harvey 1990, 203). Three Forms of Organizational Space Research into spaces in organization and management studies is difcult to aggregate. This is partly because of the signicant variety in vocabulary used to describe the object of analysis. Terms in use include: space, place, region, surroundings, locale, built environment, workspace, 'environments' (xed, semi-xed, ambient), private/public space, building, territory and proximate space. In particular, there is an ongoing controversy around differentiating the concepts of space and place (Casey 2003). We use the term organizational spaces as an \"umbrella 325 The rst conception treats space as distance between two points. The second conception treats space as materialized power relations. The nal conception treats space as the manifestation of our imagination. Each of these three different conceptions involves dif- ferent methodological preconceptions that shape key analytical concepts and protocols of data collection (see Table 1). In the next sec- tions, we work through each of these different approaches to analysing the spatiality of organization and management. We then move on to propose a means of synthesizing the analysis of organizational spaces, by drawing on Lefebvre (199]). Use of Lefebvre's theoreti~ cal approach enables us both to explore in more depth the materiality of organizational spaces and also to emphasize the power relations inherent to managing and organizing. Space as Distance Perhaps the most widespread approach to understanding space in organization and management studies treats it as physical distance. This approach draws on Euclidian geometry, which suggests space is the distance between two or more points. These points can be anything from buildings to resources to customers to competitors. It also implies that spatial distances can be objectively measured and represented. For instance, we might measure the distance of rms from their key resources in order to show that companies will cluster around critical resources (Lorsch 1954). The focus of analysis is sites where distance and proximity can be readily measured. The result is usually detailed measurement of distances. These data might then be aggregated into diagrams or maps- The approach underpins a range of different studies of organizational spaces including studies of workplace layout, rm agglomeration and clustering dynamics. Perhaps the largest body of research on organizational space, certainly the most commonly explored, focuses on the question of workplace layout. This examines the measurable relationship between furniture, machines, architectural objects (doors and physical distance and transportation costs can windows, for example) and those who occupy explain the agglomeration of firms in particular the workplace. Research in this tradition regions (Greenhut 1956; Isard 1956). A related details how the layout of the workplace strand of research examines how space is encourages certain patterns of behaviour made up of distances scattered with resources. and interaction (e.g. Arge 2000; Becker 1981; Organizational location decisions are charted Bitner 1992; Brookes and Kaplan 1972; Duffy as rational economic choices shaped by the 1997; Grajewski 1993; Hatch 1987; Parsons desire to be positioned close to critical resources 1972; Sundstrom and Sundstrom 1986). An such as fuel or input materials (Lorsch 1954; issue of particular interest is the con- Weber 1909). Research here demonstrates that sequences of 'open plan' style offices. Some firms will tend to cluster around large pools of architectural writers argue that creating more critical human resources, such as 'star scientists' flexible spaces through the use of open plan in the biotechnology industry (Zucker et al. 1998) space, hot-desking and bright and airy design or knowledge amongst engineers (Almeida facilitates information sharing and creativity and Kogut 1999). Others demonstrate that (Duffy 1997; Meyerson and Ross 2003). In clustering dynamics in the financial services contrast, in-depth studies of the organizational industry are driven by attempts to access the dynamics of de-personalizing work space reputation of already existing firms in a in these ways suggest that the absence of geographic location as well as access sophisti- physical barriers between employees can cated consumers (Pandit and Cooke 2003). decrease satisfaction with the workspace and Alongside this work, population ecologists the job (Sundstrom et al. 1980), decrease the seek to account for how competitive dynamics amount of interaction within a firm (Hatch can explain the agglomeration of firms. Accord- 1987), and decrease employee motivation ing to this approach, geographic positioning (Oldham and Brass 1979). Recent work further of firms is not just shaped by proximity to suggests that the multiple meanings attributed resources but also to competitors within any to workspace are central to employee resistance given space (Baum and Mezias 1992; Carroll of managerial initiatives such as hot-desking and Wade 1991; Lomi and Larsen 1996; (Halford 2004). Others have investigated the Sorenson and Audia 2000). The geographic effect of constructing virtual organizational proximate of competition is used to explain spaces, inhabited by remote employees or location decisions by entrepreneurs (Lomi virtual teams (Cascio 2000; Maznevski and 1995; Sorenson and Audia 2000; Stuart and Chudoba 2000; Shin 2004). Despite the Sorenson 2003), firm morality rates (Baum prominence of virtual working in the popular and Mezias 1992; Ingram and Inmam 1996; imagination it is still relatively rare, unpopular Lomi 1995; Wade et al. 1998), and the con- with both managers (Halford 2005; Perin centration of firms close to competitors rather 1991) and employees (Felstead et al. 2002; than customers (Greve 2000). Surman 2002; Whittle 2005; Wiesenfeld et al. In addition to competitors, resource spaces 2001) and highly problematic to implement are also conceptualized as containing networks (Cascio 2000). Organizing and managing appear of organizations and individuals. This human to be activities that are extremely difficult to ecology approach argues that geographical displace. In this respect, distance and proximity proximity gives rise to strong social networks remain central to practice. that then determine important outcomes in Conceptions of organizational space as social life (Hawley 1950). Early work traced physical distance that extend beyond the how geographic co-location could increase workplace are also prominent. An extensive the likelihood of marriage (Bossard 1932). body of work examines spatial dynamics at the friendship (Festinger et al. 1950), or the level of industries. This work explores how adoption of agricultural innovations (Hagerstrand1953). These network-based models of physical proximity were then put to use to explain the regional agglomeration of rms; thus it is suggested that rms tend to concentrate because colocation gives rise to knowledge spillovers which are then put to use by other economic actors (Jaffe '1986). The geographic concentration of high-technology industries in different regions is attributed to social networks that allow transmission of knowledge across organizational boundaries (Jaffe et at. 1993). Other studies emphasize inter-personal relationships and inter-organizational relations (Almeida and Kogut 1999), and professional relations such as directorate interlocks (Kono et af. 1998). Studies of the physical set-up of the work- place, clustering dynamics around resources or competitors, and networks are certainly diverse. They are targeted at different levels of analysis, they seek to explain different dependent variables, and they draw on different theoretical frameworks. However, they are held together by a common understanding of space as a pattern of distance and proximity which can be manipulated. Those studying the workplace examine the physical distance between workers, objects or architectural features; those studying clustering investigate the physical distance between rescurces and competitors; while those studying networks investigate the physical distance between co-operating organizations. This focus on patterns of distance and proximity has some important advantages. First, it should be credited with bringing the importance of the most elemental spatial dynamics to the attention of those studying organizations. By focusing on the importance of distance and proximity, researchers convincingly demon strate how space makes a difference to im- portance issues such as workplace behaviour, competitive dynamics and uptake of innova- tion. Second, a clear fOCus on issues of distance and proximity makes spatiality a relatively easy construct to measure. This means those interested in the role of spaces simply need to attend to the physical distance between points (be they people, resources, or companies). Finally, researchers make an important practical contri- bution in calling attention to the role of distance and proximity on organizational activity. They show how by changing the arrangement of distance and proximity, it is possible to inuence workplace eiciency, health and safety, employee satisfaction, rm competitiveness and innovation. Each of these is an important achievement. Despite these signicant advantages, studies of organizational space which are based on this understanding as distance and proximity have some signicant shortcomings. The rst criticism to consider is that they are unable to account for the ways in which actors attribute meaning and signicance to a space (Halford 2004). This means that these studies are not able to explain the role which perceptions or experiences of distance and proximity play (MerleawPonty I962). These may be far more important in shaping organizational processes than distanceas-measured. This may then lead to a lack of understanding between those concerned with the technical manipulation of organizational spaces (architects, operations managers and builders), and those living out the social organization of the space such as employees, managers or customers (Becker 1981). The result can be conflict between designers and inhabitants, lower performance, and the development of neglected, run-down, even soul-destroying spaces (Blau 1984; Knowles and Leslie 2001). The second potential criticism of this approach is that it disregards how patterns of power and resistance may shape manifestations of distance and proximity. Charting distance or proximity of workers and competing rms can provide us with a description of the congu ration of space. In many cases, it cannot provide an adequate explanation for such a configuration of space or how spatiality is practised. By fOCusing only on spatial Outcomes, we remain blind to deeper causes. In particular, we ignore how spatial congurations of distance and proximity are the surface manifestation of deeper level relations of power (Harvey 1973). As Harvey (1990, 205) also notes, 'beneath the veneer ot common-sense and seemingly \"natural\" ideas about space and time, there lie hidden terrains of ambiguity, contradiction, and struggle'. In order to address these, we nd that researchers have developed a second approach that examines how congurations of space are underpinned by deeply rooted power relations. It is to this approach we now turn. Space as Ma teriah'zation of Power Relations We have argued that studies of organizational space as distance reveal the most 'visible' aspects of space in and around organizations. How ever, they do not provide a cogent explanation of what produces one set of patterns of distance and proximity rather than another. In order to address this question, some researchers move from analysing organizational spaces as distance to focusing on organizational space as the materialization of power relations (Allen 1977) - an approach often informed by Marxian analytical categories. While there have been extensive questioning and criticism of Marx's work and its variants as a political movement or explanatory framework (Kolakowski 2005), nonetheless it inspired a series of inuential accounts of economic space (e.g. Harvey 1973). Marx's own work examines a variety of organi' zational spaces as he develops a political economy of the UK in the mid-19th century, observing regions, cities, neighbourhoods and factories transformed by industrial capitalism. For Marx, these newly formulated spaces were materializations of changing relations of power at play in capitalism. Most obviously factories are considered to be spaces where industrial workers are concentrated to ensure better surveillance and control by entrepreneurs. This desire to control the workforce is given its most potent expression in company towns, such as Port Sunlight, Saltaire and Bournville in the UK, or Pullman, Hershey or Gary in the US (Andrews 1999; Carstens 2001; Jeremy 1991). Study of these towns is rewarding in part as the social and economic conditions of production are inscribed into every aspect of their spatial arrangements (Veninga 2004). Scholars have consistently argued that the construction of housing around factories is an attempt to create communities that come under the absolute rule of the industrialist. Employees and their dependents are encour- aged to become dependent, subject to social and cultural discipline. Residential streets are planned and built to enable surveillance during what is notionally employees' free time (Burrell 1997), to complement the control sought within the walls of the workplace. The notion is proving remarkably resilient; English-Lueck (2000) argues that Silicon Valley can be viewed as a 21stcentury version of the original 19th century ideal, where organizational norms leak into non-work space and the sociocultural order of the region is conditioned by work organiza- tions. Similarly Kooijman (2000) argues that in business parks we see a reinterpretation of the company town that. allows managers in smaller organizations to mobilize spatial dynamics for purposes of control. Within the organizational walls, the most commonly cited way that power relations are materialized is through the disciplinary gaze. Foucault (1991) for example argues that modern institutions, including the prison, hospital, school and factory, all use the Benthamite blueprint of the panopticon in order to materialize relations of power. He suggested that: It is spaces that provide xed positions and permit circulation; they came out individual segments and establish operational links; they mark place and indicate values; they guarantee the obedience of individuals, but also a better economy of time and gesture. They are mixed spaces: real because they gOvem the disposition of buildings, rooms. l'umiture. but also ideal, because they are projected over this arrangement of characterizations, assessments, hierarchies. (Foucault 1991, 148) Organizing workspace thus brings together the material and ideal. In the early stages of industrial development, supervisors and overseers were expected to maintain visual surveillance of production and behaviour in