This paper examines how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and promoted through office design technologies within professional service firms (PSFs). Our data, constituted through interviews with firm representatives and site visits, points to the pursuit by PSF management of a core principle of marketization, which is promoted through a range of spatial technologies inscribed in the office space to sustain the development of subjectivities reflective of Homo economicus. Specifically, we found that fluid open-plan layouts and adaptable workplaces constitute technologies of government with great ambitions, aiming to cultivate a paradoxical climate of cooperative competitiveness within the firm, a constant endeavor toward efficiency, and a transformation of firm members into neoliberal self-entrepreneurs. One of the chief ideas that motivates office designers is to provide PSF members with the freedom to work how, where, and when they want in order to meet their firm’s imperatives of effectiveness and client satisfaction. Ultimately, our study shows that office design initiatives within PSFs constitute tools of neoliberal governmentality that aim to govern subtly the emancipation of firm members as accomplished self-entrepreneurs.
ArgeK.De PaoliD. (2000). Strategic workplace design. In NuttB.McLennanP. (Eds.), Facility management: Risks and opportunities (pp. 149–156). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
2.
BaldryC. (1997). The social construction of office space. International Labour Review, 136, 365–378.
3.
BaldryC. (1999). Space – the final frontier. Sociology, 33, 535–553.
4.
BarnettC. (2005). The consolations of “neoliberalism”. Geoforum, 36, 7–12.
5.
BarnettC. (2010). Publics and markets: What’s wrong with neoliberalism. In SmithS. J.PainR.MarstonS. A.JonesJ. P. III (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social geographies (pp. 269–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
6.
BirchK. (2017). A research agenda for neoliberalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
7.
BirchK.SpringerS. (2019). Peak neoliberalism? Revisiting and rethinking the concept of neoliberalism. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19, 467–485.
8.
BrandenburgerA. M.NalebuffB. J. (2011). Co-opetition. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
9.
CarmonaS.EzzamelM.GutiérrezF. (2002). The relationship between accounting and spatial practices in the factory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 239–274.
10.
ChiapelloE. (2017). Critical accounting research and neoliberalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 47–64.
11.
CleggS.KornbergerM. (2006). Space, organization and management theory. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
12.
CooperC. (2015). Entrepreneurs of the self: The development of management control since 1976. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 14–24.
13.
CornelissenL. (2019). On the (ab)use of the term “neoliberalism”: Reflections on Dutch political discourse. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19, 487–512.
14.
CovaleskiM.DirsmithM.HeianJ.SamuelS. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big 6 public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 298–327.
15.
DaleK. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.
16.
DaleK.BurrellG. (2008). Spaces of organization and the organization of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
DirsmithM. W.McAllisterJ. P. (1982). The organic vs. the mechanistic audit. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 5, 214–228.
18.
DreyfusH. L.RabinowP. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
DuffyF. (1997). The new office. London: Conrad Octopus.
20.
EyalG. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 863–907.
21.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2004). You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave: Spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57, 75–95.
22.
FlemingP.SturdyA. (2011). Being yourself in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64, 177–200.
23.
FletcherR. (2010). Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society, 8, 171–181.
24.
FletcherR. (2019). On exactitude in social science: A multidimensional proposal for investigating articulated neoliberalization and its ‘alternatives’. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19, 537–564.
25.
FoucaultM. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
26.
FoucaultM. (1991). Governmentality. In BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
FoucaultM. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979. New York: Picador.
28.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
29.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R.BrownJ. (1990). “P2-form” strategic management: Corporate practices in professional partnerships. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 725–755.
HalfordS. (2008). Sociologies of space, work and organisation: From fragments to spatial theory. Sociology Compass, 2, 925–943.
32.
HallR. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33, 92–104.
33.
HatchM. J. (1990). The symbolics of office design: An empirical exploration. In GagliardiP. (Ed.), Symbols and artefacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 129–146). Berlin: De Gruyter.
34.
HoughtonE. (2019). Becoming a neoliberal subject. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19, 615–626.
35.
KornbergerM.CleggS. (2004). Bringing space back in. Organization Studies, 25, 1095–1114.
36.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: SAGE Publications.
37.
MacintoshN. B. (2002). Accounting, accountants and accountability: Poststructuralist positions. London: Routledge.
38.
MeyersonJ.RossP. (2003). The 21st century office. New York: Rizzoli.
39.
MillerP.RoseN. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19, 1–31.
40.
MunroI.JordanS. (2013). “Living space” at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66, 1497–1525.
41.
ParkerL. D. (2016). From scientific to activity based office management: A mirage of change. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12, 177–202.
42.
ParkerL. D.JeacleI. (2019). The construction of the efficient office: Scientific management, accountability and the neo-liberal state. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36, 1883–1926.
RaffnsøeS.MennickenA.MillerP. (2019). The Foucault effect in organization studies. Organization Studies, 40, 155–182.
45.
RoseN. (1999). Powers of freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SpencerD. (2011). Architectural Deleuzism: Neoliberal space, control and the “univer-city”. Radical Philosophy, 168, 9–21.
47.
SpencerD. (2016). The architecture of neoliberalism: How contemporary architecture became an instrument of control and compliance. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
48.
SpringerS. (2014). Neoliberalism in denial. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4, 154–160.
49.
SuddabyR.VialeT.GendronY. (2016). Reflexivity: The role of embedded social position and entrepreneurial social skill in processes of field level change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 225–245.
50.
SundstromE.BurtR.KampD. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 101–117.
51.
TaylorS.SpicerA. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 325–346.
52.
TownleyB. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 518–545.
