This paper takes an interest in how buildings can obstruct place-making efforts. Drawing on ethnographic research of a refugee emergency shelter in Germany, we explore how volunteers and refugees seek to turn a previous administrative office complex into a home and a communal place. However, the building's materiality evoked affective atmospheres, involving prison-like and bureaucratic affects, obstructing these place-making attempts. We conceptualize the material obstruction of the building to place-making efforts as material overhang, drawing attention to the limits of the productiveness of space as well as the agency of materiality.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586822
2.
ArnoldP.CostasJ. (2023). From silence to noise – The politics of the other in organization theory. Organization Theory, 4(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231204086
3.
AshcraftK. L. (2017). ‘Submission’ to the rule of excellence: Ordinary affect and precarious resistance in the labor of organization and management studies. Organization, 24(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416668188
4.
BaldessarelliG.StiglianiI.ElsbachK. D. (2022). The aesthetic dimension of organizing: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0198
5.
BaradK. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
6.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
7.
BertiM.SimpsonA. V.CleggS. R. (2018). Making a place out of space: The social imaginaries and realities of a business school as a designed space. Management Learning, 49(2), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507617737453
8.
BeyesT. (2018). Politics, embodiment, everyday life: Lefebvre and spatial organization. In DaleK.KingmaS.WassermannV. (Eds.), Organizational space and beyond: The significance of Henri Lefebvre for organization studies (pp. 27–45). Routledge.
9.
BeyesT.SteyaertC. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411401946
BoxenbaumE.JonesC.MeyerR. E.SvejenovaS. (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39(5-6), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772611
12.
BrückerH.RotherN.SchuppJ.Babka von GostomskiC.BöhmA.FendelT.FriedrichM.GiesselmannM.KosyakovaY.KrohM.KühneS.LiebauE.RichterD.RomitiA.SchachtD.ScheibleJ. A.SchmelzerP.SiegertM.SirriesS.TrübswetterP.VallizadehE. (2016). IAB-BAMF-SOEP refugee survey: Forced migration, arrival in Germany, and first steps toward integration (BAMF-Brief Analysis, 5-2016). Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF), Forschungszentrum Migration, Integration und Asyl (FZ); GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.
13.
BuchananD. A. (2001). The role of photography in organization research: A reengineering case illustration. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492601102018
14.
CloutierC.RavasiD. (2020). Identity trajectories: Explaining long-term patterns of continuity and change in organizational identities. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1196–1235. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1051
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131471
17.
CresswellT. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Blackwell.
18.
CrevaniL. (2019). Organizational presence and place: Sociomaterial place work in the Swedish outdoor industry. Management Learning, 50(4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619839636
19.
CzarniawskaB. (2007). Shadowing: And other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Liber.
20.
DacinM. T.ZilberT. B.CartelM.KiblerE. (2024). Navigating place: Extending perspectives on place in organization studies. Organization Studies, 45(8), 1191–1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241252944
21.
DaleK. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12(5), 649–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405055940
22.
DaleK.BurrellG. (2008). The spaces of organization and the organization of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
DeckerS. (2014). Solid intentions: An archival ethnography of corporate architecture and organizational remembering. Organization, 21(4), 514–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414527252
24.
De La ChauxM.HaughH.GreenwoodR. (2018). Organizing refugee camps: “respected space” and “listening posts”. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(2), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0040
25.
De MolliF.MengisJ.van MarrewijkA. (2020). The aestheticization of hybrid space: The atmosphere of the locarno film festival. Organization Studies, 41(11), 1491–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619867348
26.
de VaujanyF.VaastE. (2014). If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(3), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0858
27.
Di DomenicoM.FlemingP. (2009). `It’s a guesthouse not a brothel’: Policing sex in the home-workplace. Human Relations, 62(2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100359
EisenmanM.FrenkelM. (2021). Remembering materiality: A material–relational approach to organizational memory. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211029666
30.
ElsbachK. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622–654. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556639
31.
ElsbachK. D.PrattM. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 181–224. https://doi.org/10.5465/078559809
32.
EndrissatN.IslamG. (2022). Hackathons as affective circuits: Technology, organizationality and affect. Organization Studies, 43(7), 1019–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211053206
33.
FarajS.AzadB. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In LeonardiP. M.NardiB. A.KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258.s). Oxford University Press.
34.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2004). ‘You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave’: Spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704042715
35.
FordJ.HardingN. (2004). We went looking for an organization but could find only the metaphysics of its presence. Sociology, 38(4), 815–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504045866
36.
FotakiM.KennyK.VachhaniS. J. (2017). Thinking critically about affect in organization studies: Why it matters. Organization, 24(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416668192
GilmoreS.KennyK. (2015). Work-worlds colliding: Self-reflexivity, power and emotion in organizational ethnography. Human Relations, 68(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714531998
39.
HancockP.SpicerA. (2011). Academic architecture and the constitution of the new model worker. Culture and Organization, 17(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.544885
40.
HatchM. J.SchultzM. (2017). Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the carlsberg group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 657–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217692535
41.
HultinL. (2019). On becoming a sociomaterial researcher: Exploring epistemological practices grounded in a relational, performative ontology. Information and Organization, 29(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.004
42.
HultinL.IntronaL. D.GöranssonM. B.MähringM. (2022). Precarity, hospitality, and the becoming of a subject that matters: A study of Syrian refugees in Lebanese tented settlements. Organization Studies, 43(5), 669–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211026115
43.
JørgensenL.HoltR. (2019). Organization, atmosphere, and digital technologies: Designing sensory order. Organization, 26(5), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419855698
KornbergerM.CleggS. R. (2004). Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative building. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1095–1114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604046312
46.
LeclairM. (2023). The atmospherics of creativity: Affective and spatial materiality in a designer’s studio. Organization Studies, 44(5), 807–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221080141
47.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
LeonardiP. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
50.
LiuY.GreyC. (2018). History, gendered space and organizational identity: An archival study of a university building. Human Relations, 71(5), 640–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717733032
51.
MichelsC.SteyaertC. (2017). By accident and by design: Composing affective atmospheres in an urban art intervention. Organization, 24(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416668190
52.
MukerjiC. (1997). Territorial ambitions and the gardens of Versailles. Cambridge University Press.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
55.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2023). The Digital Undertow and Institutional Displacement: A Sociomaterial Approach. Organization Theory, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231180898
56.
OttoB. D.StraußA. (2019). The novel as affective site: Uncertain work as impasse in wait until spring, bandini. Organization Studies, 40(12), 1805–1822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619874463
57.
PeltonenT. (2012). Exploring organizational architecture and space: A case for heterodox research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/19348831211215669
58.
PetaniF. J.MengisJ. (2016). In search of lost space: The process of space planning through remembering and history. Organization, 23(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415605102
59.
ReckwitzA. (2016). Practices and their affects. In HuiA.SchatzkiT. (Eds.), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners (pp. 114–125). Routledge.
60.
RindovaV.DalpiazE.RavasiD. (2011). A cultural quest: A study of organizational use of new cultural resources in strategy formation. Organization Science, 22(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0537
RowlinsonM.HassardJ.DeckerS. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2012.0203
ShorttH. (2015). Liminality, space and the importance of ‘transitory dwelling places’ at work. Human Relations, 68(4), 633–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714536938
65.
ŚliwaM.RiachK. (2012). Making scents of transition: Smellscapes and the everyday in ‘old’ and ‘new’ urban Poland. Urban Studies, 49(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011399596
66.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Waveland Press.
67.
SteinM. K.NewellS.WagnerE. L.GalliersR. D. (2014). Felt quality of sociomaterial relations: Introducing emotions to sociomaterial theorizing. Information and Organization, 24(3), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.05.003
68.
StephensonK. A.KuisminA.PutnamL. L.SivunenA. (2020). Process studies of organizational space. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 797–827. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0146
69.
TaylorS.SpicerA. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00214.x
70.
TuanY. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press.
Van MarrewijkA.YanowD. (2010). Organizational spaces: Rematerializing the workaday world. Edward Elgar Publishing.
73.
WagnerE.NewellS.PiccoliG. (2010). Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(5), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00227
74.
WarrenS. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 29(4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083104
75.
WatkinsC. (2005). Representations of space, spatial practices and spaces of representation: An application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Culture and organization, 11(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550500203318
76.
WeinfurtnerT.SeidlD. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2), 101009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.02.003
77.
YbemaS.YanowD.WelsH.KamsteegF. (2009). Studying everyday organizational life. In YbemaS.YanowD.WelsH.KamsteegF. (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 1–20). Sage.
78.
ZhangZ.SpicerA. (2014). ‘Leader, you first’: The everyday production of hierarchical space in a Chinese bureaucracy. Human Relations, 67(6), 739–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713503021
