The digitization, digitalization, and datafication of work and communication, coupled with social and technical infrastructures that enable connectivity, are making it increasingly easy for the behaviors of people, collectives, and technological devices to see and be seen. Such digital connectivity gives rise to the important phenomenon of behavioral visibility. We argue that studying the antecedents, processes, and consequences of behavioral visibility should be a central concern for scholars of organizing. We attempt to set the cornerstones for the study of behavioral visibility by considering the social and technological contexts that are enabling behavioral visibility, developing the concept of behavioral visibility by defining its various components, considering the conditions through which it is commonly produced, and outlining potential consequences of behavioral visibility in the form of three paradoxes. We conclude with some conjectures about the kinds of research questions, empirical foci, and methodological strategies that scholars will need to embrace in order to understand how behavioral visibility shapes and is shaped by the process of organizing as we catapult, swiftly, into an era where artificial intelligence, learning algorithms, and social tools are changing the way people work.
AakhusM. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112–117.
2.
AlaviM.LeidnerD. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
3.
AlbuO. B.FlyverbomM. (2016). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 1–30.
4.
AlvessonM. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 997–1015.
5.
AlvessonM. (2011). De-essentializing the knowledge intensive firm: Reflections on sceptical research going against the mainstream. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1640–1661.
6.
AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20, 973–989.
7.
BaileyD. E.LeonardiP. M.BarleyS. R. (2012). The lure of the virtual. Organization Science, 23, 1485–1504.
8.
BarleyW. C. (2015). Anticipatory work: How the need to represent knowledge across boundaries shapes work practices within them. Organization Science, 26, 1612–1628.
9.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
BerkelaarB. L. (2014). Cybervetting, online information, and personnel selection: New transparency expectations and the emergence of a digital social contract. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 479–506.
11.
BernsteinE. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 181–216.
12.
BirnholtzJ.DixonG.HancockJ. (2012). Distance, ambiguity and appropriation: Structures affording impression management in a collocated organization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1028–1035.
13.
BrighentiA. (2007). Visibility: A category for the social sciences. Current Sociology, 55, 323–342.
14.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 40–57.
15.
BucherT. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14, 1164–1180.
16.
BundersonJ. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.
17.
BurrellJ. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951715622512.
18.
CarrJ. R.VieliA.StokesC. (2013). Influence of sea ice decline, atmospheric warming, and glacier width on marine-terminating outlet glacier behavior in northwest Greenland at seasonal to interannual timescales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 118(3), 1210–1226.
19.
CastellsM. (2000). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 1, the rise of the network society (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
ChanderA. (2016). The racist algorithm?Michigan Law Review, 115, 1023.
21.
ChinC. P. Y.EvansN.ChooK. K. R. (2015). Exploring factors influencing the use of enterprise social networks in multinational professional service firms. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 25, 289–315.
22.
ChristensenL. T.CheneyG. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25, 70–90.
23.
ChristensenL. T.CornelissenJ. (2015). Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 132–149.
24.
CristeaI. C.LeonardiP. M. (2019). Get noticed and die trying: Signals, sacrifice, and the production of face time in distributed work. Organization Science, 30, 552–572.
25.
DavenportT. (2014). Big data at work: Dispelling the myths, uncovering the opportunities. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
26.
DeVitoM. A.GergleD.BirnholtzJ. (2017). “Algorithms ruin everything”: #riptwitter, folk theories, and resistance to algorithmic change in social media. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA.
27.
DimokaA.HongY.PavlouP. A. (2012). On product uncertainty in online markets: Theory and evidence. MIS Quarterly, 36.
28.
DuttonJ. E.JacksonS. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90.
29.
ElsdenC.KirkD. S.DurrantA. C. (2016). A quantified past: Toward design for remembering with personal informatics. Human–Computer Interaction, 31(6), 518–557.
30.
FarajS.PachidiS.SayeghK. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm. Information and Organization, 28, 62–70.
31.
FlyverbomM. (2015). Sunlight in cyberspace: On transparency as a form of ordering. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 168–184.
32.
FlyverbomM. (2019). The digital prism. Cambridge University Press.
33.
FlyverbomM.ChristensenL. T.HansenM. K. (2015). The transparency–power nexus: Observational and regularizing control. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 385–410.
34.
FlyverbomM.LeonardiP. M.StohlC.StohlM. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 98–109.
35.
FonnerK. L.RoloffM. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 336–361.
36.
FonnerK. L.RoloffM. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers’ communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79, 205–231.
37.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.LaiC.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38, 70–100.
38.
GillespieT. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. Media Technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, 167, 167.
39.
GilovichT.MedvecV. H.SavitskyK. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211–222.
40.
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.
41.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
42.
GriffinD. W.RossL. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 319–359.
43.
GüntherW. A.MehriziM. H. R.HuysmanM.FeldbergF. (2017). Debating big data: A literature review on realizing value from big data. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26, 191–209.
44.
HafermalzE. (2020). Out of the panopticon and into exile: Visibility and control in distributed new culture organizations. Organization Studies, 0170840620909962.
45.
HamptonK. N. (2015). Persistent and pervasive community: New communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 101–124.
46.
HancockJ.BirnholtzJ.BazarovaN.GuilloryJ.PerlinJ.AmosB. (2009). Butler lies: Awareness, deception and design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 517–526). ACM.
47.
HansenH. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datafication of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 203–220.
48.
HansenH. K.ChristensenL. T.FlyverbomM. (2015). Logics of transparency. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 117–131.
49.
HansenH. K.FlyverbomM. (2015). The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22, 872–889.
50.
HindsP. J.KieslerS. (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
HiningsB.GegenhuberT.GreenwoodR. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28, 52–61.
52.
HuberG. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15, 47–71.
53.
KallinikosJ. (1995). The architecture of the invisible: Technology is representation. Organization, 2, 117–140.
54.
KennedyH.MossG. (2015). Known or knowing publics? Social media data mining and the question of public agency. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 2053951715611145.
55.
KimH. (2018). The mutual constitution of social media use and status hierarchies in global organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 32, 471–503.
56.
KolbD. G. (2008). Exploring the metaphor of connectivity: Attributes, dimensions and duality. Organization Studies, 29, 127–144.
57.
KolbD. G.CazaA.CollinsP. D. (2012). States of connectivity: New questions and new directions. Organization Studies, 33, 267–273.
58.
KolbD.IvaturiK.HendersonS.SrinivasanA. (2015). Managing ubiquitous connectivity: Mobile media flow service systems. In 2015 IEEE World Congress on Services (pp. 113–120).
59.
KundaZ. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636.
60.
LeonardiP. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25, 796–816.
61.
LeonardiP. M. (2015). Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn ‘who knows what’ and ‘who knows whom’. MIS Quarterly, 39, 747–762.
62.
LeonardiP. M. (2018). Social media and the development of shared cognition: The roles of network expansion, content integration, and triggered recalling. Organization Science, 29, 547–568.
63.
LeonardiP. M. (2020). You’re going digital – now what? Enough with the top-down strategizing. understand how change really happens on the ground—and plan for it accordingly. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(2), 28–35.
64.
LeonardiP. M.TreemJ. W. (2012). Knowledge management technology as a stage for strategic self-presentation: Implications for knowledge sharing in organizations. Information and Organization, 22, 37–59.
65.
LeonardiP. M.TreemJ. W.JacksonM. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 85–105.
66.
LittE. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 330–345.
67.
LynchM.ColeS. (2005). Science and technology studies on trial: Dilemmas of expertise. Social Studies of Science, 35, 269–311.
68.
LyonD. (2002). Everyday surveillance: Personal data and social classifications. Information, Communication & Society, 5, 242–257.
69.
MartiE.GondJ. P. (2018). When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity. Academy of Management Review, 43, 487–508.
70.
MarwickA. E.BoydD. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114–133.
71.
Mayer-SchönbergerV.CukierK. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
72.
MazmanianM. (2012). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1225–1250.
73.
MazmanianM.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337–1357.
74.
McAfeeA.BrynjolfssonE.DavenportT. H.PatilD. J.BartonD. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.
75.
MetiuA. (2006). Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17, 418–435.
76.
NapoliP. M. (2014). Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. Communication Theory, 24, 340–360.
77.
NardiB. A.EngeströmY. (1999). A web on the wind: The structure of invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1–2), 1–8.
78.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.
79.
PentlandB. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527–548.
80.
PentlandB. T.FeldmanM. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250.
81.
PinchT. (2010). The invisible technologies of Goffman’s sociology from the merry-go-round to the internet. Technology and Culture, 51(2), 409–424.
82.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 631–642.
83.
PötzschH. (2017). Archives and identity in the context of social media and algorithmic analytics: Towards an understanding of iArchive and predictive retention. New Media & Society, 20, 3304–3322.
84.
RingelL. (2019). Unpacking the transparency–secrecy nexus: Frontstage and backstage behaviour in a political party. Organization Studies, 40, 705–723.
85.
RobertsonM.ScarbroughH.SwanJ. (2003). Knowledge creation in professional service firms: Institutional effects. Organization Studies, 24, 831–857.
86.
SchnackenbergA. K.TomlinsonE. C. (2014). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization–stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42, 1784–1810.
87.
SergeevaA.HuysmanM.SoekijadM.van den HooffB. (2017). Through the eyes of others: How onlookers shape the use of technology at work. MIS Quarterly, 41, 1153–1178.
88.
SergiV.BonneauC. (2016). Making mundane work visible on social media: A CCO investigation of working out loud on Twitter. Communication Research and Practice, 2, 378–406.
89.
SproullL.KieslerS. B. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
90.
StohlC.StohlM.LeonardiP. M. (2016). Digital age managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 15.
91.
ThompsonJ. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31–51.
92.
TreemJ. W. (2012). Communicating expertise: Knowledge performances in professional-service firms. Communication Monographs, 79(1), 23–47.
93.
TreemJ. W. (2016). How organizations communicate expertise without experts: Practices and performances of knowledge-intensive firms. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 503–531.
94.
TreemJ. W.LeonardiP. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.
95.
TsoukasH. (1997). The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 29, 827–843.
96.
TurowJ. (2005). Audience construction and culture production: Marketing surveillance in the digital age. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 103–121.
97.
TurowJ.CouldryN. (2018). Media as data extraction: Towards a new map of a transformed communications field. Journal of Communication, 68, 415–423.
98.
VaastE. (2019). A seat at the table and a room of their own: Interconnected processes of social media use at the intersection of gender and occupation. Organization Studies, 0170840619894923.
99.
Van DijckJ. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
