Using data from embedded participant-observers and a field experiment at the second largest mobile phone factory in the world, located in China, I theorize and test the implications of transparent organizational design on workers’ productivity and organizational performance. Drawing from theory and research on learning and control, I introduce the notion of a transparency paradox, whereby maintaining observability of workers may counterintuitively reduce their performance by inducing those being observed to conceal their activities through codes and other costly means; conversely, creating zones of privacy may, under certain conditions, increase performance. Empirical evidence from the field shows that even a modest increase in group-level privacy sustainably and significantly improves line performance, while qualitative evidence suggests that privacy is important in supporting productive deviance, localized experimentation, distraction avoidance, and continuous improvement. I discuss implications of these results for theory on learning and control and suggest directions for future research.
AdlerP. S.BorysB.1996 “Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 61–89.
2.
AdlerP. S.ClarkK. B.1991 “Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning process.” Management Science, 37: 267–281.
3.
AltmanI.1975The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
4.
AntebyM.2008Moral Gray Zones: Side Productions, Identity, and Regulation in an Aeronautic Plant. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
ArgoteL.IngramP.LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L.2000 “Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 1–8.
6.
AschS. E.1951 “Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.” In GuetzkowH. (ed.), Groups, Leadership, and Men: Research in Human Relations: 177–190. Oxford: Carnegie Press.
7.
AschS. E.1956 “Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority.” Psychological Monographs, 70.
8.
BarkerJ. R.1993 “Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408–437.
9.
BarneyJ. B.ZhangS.2009 “The future of Chinese management research: A theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of management.” Management and Organization Review, 5: 15–28.
10.
BarrettF. J.1998 “Coda: Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning.” Organization Science, 9: 605–622.
11.
BechkyB. A.2003 “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor.” Organization Science, 14: 312–330.
12.
BennisW. G.GolemanD.O’TooleJ.2008Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS.2004 “How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119: 249–275.
14.
BestJ.2005The Limits of Transparency: Ambiguity and the History of International Finance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
BlokA.TillyC.1975The Mafia of a Sicilian Village, 1860–1960: A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs. New York: Harper & Row.
16.
BondC. F.TitusL. J.1983 “Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.” Psychological Bulletin, 94: 265–292.
17.
BurawoyM.1979Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
BurgoonJ.ParrottR.LeB.Poire KelleyD.WaltherJ.PerryD.1989 “Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6: 131–158.
19.
CainS.2012Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. New York: Crown.
20.
CareyA.1967 “The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism.” American Sociological Review, 32: 403–416.
21.
CarlileP. R.2004 “Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.” Organization Science, 15: 555–568.
22.
ChangL. T.2008Factory Girls: From Village to City in a Changing China. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
23.
ChenC.2008Some Assembly Required: Work, Community, and Politics in China’s Rural Enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center; distributed by Harvard University Press.
24.
ChweM. S.-Y.2001Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
CottrellN. B.1972 “Social facilitation.” In McClintockC. G. (ed.), Experimental Social Psychology: 185–236. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
26.
CsikszentmihalyiM.SawyerK.1995 “Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment.” In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (eds.), The Nature of Insight: 329–363. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
DaltonM.1959Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration. New York: Wiley.
28.
DemingW. E.1986Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
29.
DetertJ. R.EdmondsonA. C.2011 “Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work.” Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–488.
30.
DozY. L.1996 “The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes?” Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55–83.
31.
DunbarR. I. M.1992 “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates.” Journal of Human Evolution, 22: 469–493.
32.
EdmondsonA. C.2002 “The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective.” Organization Science, 13: 128–146.
33.
EllisC.BochnerA.2000 “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject.” In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 733–768. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
EllisC.FlahertyM.1992Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
ElyR. J.ThomasD. A.2001 “Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work groupprocesses and outcomes.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229–273.
36.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L.1995Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
EysenckH. J.1995Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
FoucaultM.1977Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books.
39.
GabbardG. O.2005Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 4th ed.Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
40.
GambettaD.1996The Sicilian Mafia: the Business of Private Protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
GibsonC.VermeulenF.2003 “A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 202–239.
42.
GilovichT.SavitskyK.MedvecV. H.1998 “The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others’ ability to read one’s emotional states.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 332–346.
43.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
44.
GoffmanE.1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
HackmanJ. R.1976 “Group influences on individuals.” In DunnetteM. (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1455–1525. Chicago: Rand McNally.
47.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R.1975 “Development of the job diagnostic survey.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 159–170.
HamperB.1986Rivethead: Tales From the Assembly Line. New York: Warner Books.
50.
HansenM. T.1999 “The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82–111.
51.
HargadonA.2003How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
52.
HewlinP. F.2003 “Note: And the award for best actor goes to. . . . Facades of conformity in organizational settings.” Academy of Management Review, 28: 633–642.
53.
HoodC.HealdD.2006Transparency: The Key to Better Governance. Oxford: Published for the British Academy (vol. 135) by Oxford University Press.
54.
InghamR.1978 “Privacy and psychology.” In YoungJ. B. (ed.), Privacy: 35–58. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
JettQ. R.GeorgeJ. M.2003 “Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life.” Academy of Management Review, 28: 494–507.
57.
JonesS. R. G.1992 “Was there a Hawthorne effect?” American Journal of Sociology, 98: 451–468.
58.
KanterR. M.KhuranaR.2009 “Types and positions: The significance of Georg Simmel’s structural theories for organizational behavior.” In AdlerP. S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations: 291–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
KarabelJ.2006The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Mariner Books.
60.
LamontM.MolnarV.2002 “The study of boundaries in the social sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 167–195.
61.
LazerD.FriedmanA.2007 “The network structure of exploration and exploitation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 667–694.
62.
LevinsonA. A.2009 “Industrial justice: Privacy protection for the employed.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18: 609–688.
63.
LevittS. D.ListJ. A.2009 “Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments.” National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper Series, No. 15016.
64.
LikerJ. K.2004The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
65.
MarchJ. G.1991 “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.” Organization Science, 2: 71–87.
66.
MarchettiV.MarksJ.1974The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Knopf.
67.
MarsG.1982Cheats at Work: An Anthropology of Workplace Crime. London: Unwin.
68.
MasA.MorettiE.2009 “Peers at work.” American Economic Review, 99: 112–145.
69.
MayoE.1933The Human Problems of an Industrial Organization. New York: McMillan.
70.
McGrathJ. E.1984Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
71.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.1994Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
MillJ. S.1859On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts, & Green Co.
73.
MishlerE. G.1979 “Meaning in context: Is there any other kind?” Harvard Educational Review, 49: 1–19.
74.
MorrisonE. W.MillikenF. J.2000 “Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world.” Academy of Management Review, 25: 706–725.
ParentW. A.1983 “Privacy, morality, and the law.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12: 269–288.
77.
PasmoreW.FrancisC.HaldemanJ.ShaniA.1982 “Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies.” Human Relations, 35: 1179–1204.
78.
PaulusP. B.LareyT. S.OrtegaA. H.1995 “Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17: 249–265.
79.
PerlowL. A.1999 “The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 57–81.
80.
PetersT. J.WatermanR. H.1982In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
81.
PisanoG. P.1994 “Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development.” Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85–100.
82.
RoethlisbergerF. J.DicksonW. J.1939Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
RoyD. F.1952 “Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop.” American Journal of Sociology, 57: 427–442.
85.
RoyD. F.1960 “Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction.” Human Organization, 18: 156–168.
86.
SandayP. R.1979 “The ethnographic paradigm(s).” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 527–538.
87.
SchelerM.1957Uber Scham und Schamgeful (On Ethics and Theory of Knowledge). Bern: Francke.
88.
SchoemanF. D.1984 “Privacy and intimate information.” In SchoemanF. D. (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology: 403–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
89.
SchwartzB.1968 “The social psychology of privacy.” American Journal of Sociology, 73: 741–752.
90.
SewellG.1998 “The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 397–428.
91.
SimmelG.1950The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
92.
SimmelG.1957 “Brücke und Tür.” In SimmelG., Brücke und Tür: Essays des Philosophen zur Geschichte: 1–7. Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler.
93.
SimmelG.1964 “The secret society.” In WolffK. (ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel: 345–376. New York: Free Press.
94.
SimontonD. K.2003 “Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives.” Psychological Bulletin, 129: 475–494.
95.
SitkinS. B.SutcliffeK. M.SchroederR. G.1994 “Distinguishing control from learning in Total Quality Management: A contingency perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 19: 537–564.
96.
SoloveD. J.2008Understanding Privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
97.
SpearS.BowenH. K.1999 “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system.” Harvard Business Review, 77 (Sept.–Oct.): 96–106.
98.
SpearS. J.2009Chasing the Rabbit: How Market Leaders Outdistance the Competition and How Great Companies Can Catch Up and Win. New York: McGraw-Hill.
99.
StaatsB. R.GinoF.2012 “Specialization and variety in repetitive tasks: Evidence from a Japanese bank.” Management Science (in press).
100.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R.1989 “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science, 19: 387–420.
ZalesnyM. D.FaraceR. V.1987 “Traditional versus open offices: A comparison of sociotechnical, social relations, and symbolic meaning perspectives.” Academy of Management Journal, 30: 240–259.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
