Peer Review Version: Author Accepted Manuscript

Au
th
or
P A ee c
r Rce
evp
ietwe
dVe
Mrsi
Office design, neoliberal governmentality and professional

aonn
service firms
Journal: Organization Studies

us
Manuscript ID OS-18-0317.R4
Special Issue on Organizational control and surveillance of new work

Manuscript Type:
cr
practices
accounting firms, governance of freedom, neoliberal governmentality,

Keywords: neoliberalism, office design, professional service firms, self-
ip
entrepreneur, social control, space
This paper examines how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and

t
promoted through office design technologies within professional service

Abstract: 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
10.1177/0170840620964072
Organization Studies
Page 1 of 37
1
2
3
of spatial technologies inscribed in the office space to sustain the
4 development of subjectivities reflective of homo economicus. Specifically,
5 we found that fluid open plan layouts and adaptable workplaces
6 constitute technologies of government with great ambitions, aiming to
7 cultivate a paradoxical climate of cooperative competitiveness within the
8 firm, a constant endeavor toward efficiency, and a transformation of firm
9 members into neoliberal self-entrepreneurs. One of the chief ideas that
Au
motivates office designers is to provide PSF members with the freedom

10
to work how, where and when they want in order to meet their firm’s
11 imperatives of effectiveness and client satisfaction. Ultimately, our study
12 shows that office design initiatives within PSFs constitute tools of
13 neoliberal governmentality that aim to govern subtly the emancipation of
th
14 firm members as accomplished self-entrepreneurs.

15
16
or
17
P A
18
ee c
19
20
21
r Rce
22
23
24
25
evp
26
27
28
ietwe
29
30
31
32
33
dVe
34
35
36
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47
48
49
ip
50
51
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59
60 Organization Studies
Page 2 of 37
1
2
3 Office design, neoliberal governmentality and professional service firms
4
5
6
7
8
9
Au
10
11 Claire-France Picard, Ph.D., CPA, CA1
12 Université Laval
13
th
14
Canada
15
16
or
17
P A
18
Sylvain Durocher, Ph.D., CPA, CA
Telfer School of Management
ee c
19
20 University of Ottawa
21 Canada
r Rce
22
23
24
25 Yves Gendron, Ph.D.
evp
26 Université Laval
27 Canada
28
ietwe
29
30
31
32
33
dVe
34
35
36 September 2020
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46 We wish to thank all the participants of this study for their time and contribution. We benefited
cr
47 from the comments made by workshop participants at Concordia University (Montréal), IAE de
48
Nice – Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (France), Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (Brazil),
49
and University of Virginia (Charlottesville). We also acknowledge the comments from participants
ip
50
51 at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Accounting Association (Washington, DC), the 2018
52 Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference (Edinburgh, Scotland), and the 2018
t
53 Qualitative Research and Critical Accounting (Latin American) Conference (Sao Paulo, Brazil).
54 1We gratefully acknowledge the financial support
Corresponding author: Claire-France Picard, Faculté des of the Social
sciences Sciences and
de l’administration, Humanities
Pavillon Research
Palasis-Prince, 2325
55 Council
rue of Canada.
de la Terrasse, Université Laval, Québec (Qc), Canada, G1V 0A6. Tel.: +1 418 656-2131 ext. 11366. Email: claire-
56 france.picard@fsa.ulaval.ca
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59
Page 3 of 37
1
2
3 Office design, neoliberal governmentality and professional service firms
4
5
6
7
8
9 Abstract
Au
10
11 This paper examines how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and promoted through office
12 design technologies within professional service firms (PSFs). Our data, constituted through
13 interviews with firm representatives and site visits, points to the pursuit by PSF management of a
th
14 core principle of marketization, which is promoted through a range of spatial technologies inscribed
15 in the office space to sustain the development of subjectivities reflective of homo economicus.
16
or
Specifically, we found that fluid open plan layouts and adaptable workplaces constitute
17
P A
18
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
ee c
19
20 transformation of firm members into neoliberal self-entrepreneurs. One of the chief ideas that
21 motivates office designers is to provide PSF members with the freedom to work how, where and
r Rce
22 when they want in order to meet their firm’s imperatives of effectiveness and client satisfaction.
23 Ultimately, our study shows that office design initiatives within PSFs constitute tools of neoliberal
24
governmentality that aim to govern subtly the emancipation of firm members as accomplished self-
25
evp
26 entrepreneurs.
27
28
ietwe
29 Keywords
30
31 Accounting firms, governance of freedom, neoliberal governmentality, neoliberalism, office
32 design, professional service firms, self-entrepreneur, social control, space.
33
dVe
34
35
36
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47
48
49
ip
50
51
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 1
Page 4 of 37
1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6
For a long time, space has been identified as an important referent in the study of organizational
7
8 phenomena (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006; Dale, 2005; Dale & Burrell, 2008; Kornberger & Clegg,
9
Au
10 2004; Taylor & Spicer, 2007). Accordingly, a significant body of research sheds light on a range
11
12
of issues surrounding organizational space,2 with an emphasis on the role of designed spaces in the
13
th
14
15 organization’s life (Munro & Jordan, 2013). Studies have focused on the layout of the workplace
16
or
17 in analyzing how it could facilitate interaction and encourage creativity (Arge & De Paoli, 2000;
P A
18
ee c
19 Duffy 1997; Meyerson & Ross, 2003), increase cost efficiency and productivity (Parker, 2016),
20
21
affect employee motivation and satisfaction (Hatch, 1990; Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980), and
r Rce
22
23
24 foster a tighter control of labor (Carmona, Ezzamel, & Gutiérrez, 2002; Fleming & Spicer, 2004;
25
evp
26 Fleming & Sturdy, 2011). A more critical stream recently emerged, examining the social
27
28
ietwe
29
production of organizational space and how it conveys certain organizational values, transforms
30
31 modes of organizational control, and promotes certain forms of ideological socialization through
32
33 the manipulation of space (Clegg & Kornberger, 2006; Dale, 2005; Dale & Burrell, 2008; Halford,
dVe
34
35
2004, 2008).
36
Mrsi
37
38 Within this critical research strand, many studies conceive of organizational space as a
39
aonn
40 management control tool (Halford, 2004, 2008) that exerts power in more or less subtle ways. Early
41
42 studies on workspaces (Baldry, 1997, 1999) underlined how work buildings act as structures of
43
us
44
45 control that limit movement and constrain interactions to facilitate supervision and surveillance.
46
cr
47 For numerous scholars, workspaces indeed represent major power structures (Baldry, 1997, 1999;
48
49 Carmona et al., 2002; Fleming & Spicer, 2004; Fleming & Sturdy, 2011; Parker & Jeacle, 2019).
ip
50
51
52
This stream of research particularly draws our attention on the role organizational space plays in
t
53
54
55
56 2 In this paper, we use ‘organizational space’, ‘office space’, ‘workspace’ and ‘office design’ interchangeably.
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 2
Page 5 of 37
1
2
3 the exercise of disciplinary power (Foucault, 1975; Townley, 1993) on organizational members.
4
5
6
As Taylor and Spicer (2007) point out, these analyses of organizational space are essentially
7
8 underpinned by a disciplinary perspective (Foucault, 1975) where the workspace, in a capitalist
9
Au
10 environment, acts as a tool for powerful employers to (self-)discipline employees (Halford, 2008).
11
12
Although insightful, this literature neglects upstream processes through which organizational space
13
th
14
15 is conceived of and configured (Taylor & Spicer, 2007). It also overlooks the thesis of
16
or
17 contemporary thinkers on spatiality who argue that organizational space is involved in significant
P A
18
ee c
19 dynamics, moving away from the disciplinary spatial model to enter into a neoliberal post-
20
21
disciplinary era (Spencer, 2011). Our study takes place in the backdrop of this new era of spatiality,
r Rce
22
23
24 conceiving of office design as a significant platform for intervention, seeking to frame employees’
25
evp
26 conduct of conduct as neoliberal agents.

27
28
ietwe
29
What we maintain in this paper is that, just as everyday life is increasingly colonized by
30
31 neoliberalism, so too is the organizational space. Through our analysis of office design initiatives
32
33 unfolding in professional service firms (PSFs), we will see that space is carefully and consciously
dVe
34
35
conceived to reflect a neoliberal governmentality project that aims to transform firm members into
36
Mrsi
37
38 ‘entrepreneurs of the self’ (Foucault, 2008) – who are provided with the ‘freedom’ they need to
39
aonn
40 meet valued organizational imperatives. Specifically, the objective of this paper is to examine, in
41
42 the context of public accounting firm office design, how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed
43
us
44
45 and promoted through spatio-organizational technologies that seek to govern the ‘freedom’ of firm
46
cr
47 members. We carried out our investigation through interviews with accounting firm representatives
48
49 and site visits in three countries (Canada, Ireland, and UK). It is important to note that our analysis
ip
50
51
52
focuses on organizational space as conceived by PSF management. As such, we did not examine
t
53
54 how organizational space is perceived and experienced by employees. We acknowledge that the
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 3
Page 6 of 37
1
2
3 actual use of space can be quite unpredictable and spontaneous – and can therefore differ from
4
5
6
what was initially planned (Halford, 2004, 2008).
7
8 We believe understanding the range of intentions that underlie PSF office design projects is
9
Au
10 important to help rank-and-file professionals realize how a neoliberal agenda informs spatio-
11
12
organizational initiatives that promote ‘freedom’ within the workplace. Through a careful
13
th
14
15 conception of space, PSF management aims to develop a powerful control device to influence, in
16
or
17 subtle ways, the mind and behavior of organizational members to their firm’s business imperatives.
P A
18
ee c
19 The shaping of ‘professional minds’ is not a trivial stake as, par ricochet, PSFs exert significant
20
21
influence in a wide range of fields – in terms of economics, politics and collective sense-making.
r Rce
22
23
24 Therefore, how PSF management strives to shape professional minds through neoliberal office
25
evp
26 design constitutes a critical issue – both theoretically and socially.

27
28
ietwe
29
This study aims to make a twofold contribution to the literature. First, it extends research on
30
31 organizational space by conceiving space as a technology of neoliberal governmentality.
32
33 Recognizing that organizational space is now articulated in ways that are increasingly distant from
dVe
34
35
a classic disciplinary perspective, our neoliberal governmentality emphasis brings to the fore the
36
Mrsi
37
38 neglected relationship between power and freedom in office design. In so doing, our study arguably
39
aonn
40 goes beyond dichotomies of structure and agency prevailing in organization studies (Raffnsøe,
41
42 Mennicken, & Miller, 2019) to show how employees’ freedom is not always an obstacle to social
43
us
44
45 control – but could instead be thought of and acted upon as a ‘soft’ control catalyzer.
46
cr
47 Second, this paper extends research on PSFs by examining the manner in which office design
48
49 is planned to influence how day-to-day professional work is organized and conducted. Despite the
ip
50
51
52
significant impact that organizational space may have on the ways people interact and behave at
t
53
54 work, researchers have largely ignored the physical realities and spatio-organizational features that
55
56 surround professional work. Interestingly, Eyal (2013, p. 871) calls for a sociology of expertise
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 4
Page 7 of 37
1
2
3 that notably examines the intended influence of spatial arrangements: ‘[…] a full explication of
4
5
6
expertise must explore indeed this background of practices and the social, material, spatial,
7
8 organizational, and conceptual arrangements that serve as its conditions of possibility.’ In a way,
9
Au
10 the purpose of the present study is to ‘bring space back in’ (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004, p. 1095)
11
12
the purview of academic work on PSFs.
13
th
14
15 The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical
16
or
17 framing of our study, informed by the literature on neoliberal governmentality. This is followed by
P A
18
ee c
19 a description of the methodological features of our investigation. We then present our findings,
20
21
focusing on the main office design technologies through which the neoliberal governmentality
r Rce
22
23
24 project is deployed. Our findings are then discussed, followed by areas for future research and
25
evp
26 concluding remarks.
27
28
ietwe
29
30
31 Theoretical framework
32
33 Neoliberalism is a multifaceted concept ‘that manifests quite differently in diverse contexts in
dVe
34
35
syncretism with pre-existing institutions and ideologies’ (Fletcher, 2019, p. 538). Unsurprisingly,
36
Mrsi
37
38 a variety of analytical perspectives have been used to conceive of neoliberalism, such as
39
aonn
40 Foucauldian or Marxist perspectives (Birch & Springer, 2019; Chiapello, 2017), each having its
41
42 peculiar preferences, strengths and weaknesses (see Birch, 2017 for a detailed analysis of these
43
us
44
45 perspectives).
46
cr
47 With an ever-expanding variety of conceptual traditions, the analytical usefulness of

48
49 neoliberalism has been questioned. In a recent article revisiting the bulk of research on
ip
50
51
52
neoliberalism in the organization literature, Birch and Springer (2019, p. 468) underlined how this
t
53
54 concept, ‘as currently theorized, is overstated as a way to understand recent and ongoing social
55
56 changes’. These authors particularly challenge two assumptions on which most neoliberal studies
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 5
Page 8 of 37
1
2
3 are premised, i.e. that neoliberalism is everywhere (p. 469) and that we are all in the process of
4
5
6
becoming ‘market monsters’ (p. 471).
7
8 Neoliberalism is challenged as a theoretical underpinning because it is now used to study a
9
Au
10 wide range of (political, social, organizational, etc.) phenomena that are perceived as bad or
11
12
disagreeable, suggesting that neoliberalism is everywhere (with negative consequences), therefore
13
th
14
15 undermining its specificity and analytical relevance (Birch & Springer, 2019; Cornelissen, 2019).
16
or
17 A number of scholars (e.g., Fletcher, 2019; Springer, 2014), however, assert that such criticisms
P A
18
ee c
19 may be overcome through a careful theorization of neoliberalism that ‘attempts to locate
20
21
neoliberalism within a particular context as but one component to the unfolding of a complex
r Rce
22
23
24 political economic story’ (Springer, 2014, p. 156). In this study, we rely on a comprehensive
25
evp
26 framework, that of Fletcher (2019), to explore how some dimensions of neoliberalism manifest in
27
28
ietwe
29
the specific context of PSFs’ office design.
30
31 The usefulness of neoliberalism is also questioned because of the tendency of Foucauldian
32
33 studies to consider that, under neoliberalism, everybody is transformed into ‘market monsters’ who
dVe
34
35
consider themselves as ‘private business organization[s] driven by financial logics seeking the
36
Mrsi
37
38 highest return from their investments’ (Birch & Springer, 2019, p. 471). Birch and Springer (2019)
39
aonn
40 maintain that this point largely remains an undetermined assumption in need of further thought and
41
42 nuance, for instance in terms of actors’ reflexivity. In this paper, we adopt a Foucauldian
43
us
44
45 governmentality perspective which goes beyond dichotomies of structure and agency, recognizing
46
cr
47 that agents are endowed with reflexive skills (Suddaby, Viale, & Gendron, 2016). Accordingly,
48
49 whereas neoliberal technologies can aim at inciting agents to think of themselves as enterprising
ip
50
51
52
individuals, this is not to say that all agents will obediently follow this path. Nonetheless, as Rose
t
53
54 (1999) suggests, it is important from a governmentality perspective ‘to start by asking what
55
56 authorities of various sorts wanted to happen, in relation to problems defined how, in pursuit of
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 6
Page 9 of 37
1
2
3 what objectives, through what strategies and techniques’ (Rose, 1999, p. 20). Therefore, although
4
5
6
we recognize that there is inescapably a gap between neoliberal intentions and employees’ actual
7
8 thinking and behavior (Fletcher, 2019), analyzing the way in which a neoliberal technology is
9
Au
10 thought and designed constitutes a relevant intellectual endeavor.

11
12
In what follows, we carefully set out the conceptualization of neoliberalism that informs our
13
th
14
15 inquiry and present the framework we use to articulate neoliberalism in the particular context of
16
or
17 office design.
P A
18
ee c
19
20
21
Neoliberalism as a particular governmentality
r Rce
22
23
24 Adopting a Foucauldian perspective, we view neoliberalism as a particular form of
25
evp
26 governmentality articulating and disseminating a set of market-centered beliefs that aim to

27
28
ietwe
29
transform people into homo economicus or entrepreneurs of the self (Chiapello, 2017; Fletcher,
30
31 2019; Rose, 1999). Foucault defines governmentality as the ‘art of government’ in a wide sense,
32
33 i.e. where government takes on meaning beyond the form of leading and directing populations.
dVe
34
35
Foucault thus encourages us to broaden existing conceptions of power (e.g., hierarchical or top-
36
Mrsi
37
38 down), to consider how power intermingles with rationalities and beliefs, and to examine how
39
aonn
40 broader forms of power influence the capacity of individuals to control themselves. In a broad
41
42 sense, governmentality can be defined as the ‘conduct of conduct’, that is, as an ensemble of means
43
us
44
45 to influence and shape individual thought and behavior (Foucault, 1991). A specific neoliberal
46
cr
47 governmentality, Fletcher (2019, pp. 544-545) contends,

48
49 […] aims to construct and manipulate the external incentive structures in terms of
ip
50
which individuals, conceived as self-interested rational actors, evaluate the costs versus
51
52
benefits of alternative courses of action (Foucault, 2008; Fletcher, 2010). It is, Foucault
t
53 describes, ‘an environmental type of intervention instead of the internal subjugation of

54 individuals’ (2008: 260); ‘a governmentality which will act on the environment and
55 systematically modify its variables’ (ibid.: 271).
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 7
Page 10 of 37
1
2
3 To elaborate further on the distinctive aspects of neoliberal governmentality, Foucault (2008)
4
5
6
contrasts it with more traditional forms of governmentality in his previous work, namely
7
8 disciplinary and sovereign governmentalities. Disciplinary governmentality underpins self-
9
Au
10 regulation of behavior through the inculcation of ‘appropriate’ values and standards (Fletcher,
11
12
2019; Foucault, 1975). This type of governance is generally associated with the Panopticon
13
th
14
15 concept, which incites subjects to internalize certain norms and values in order to self-discipline
16
or
17 themselves (Fletcher, 2019; Foucault, 1975). Sovereign governmentality, in contrast, is based on a

P A
18
ee c
19 ‘command-and-control’ principle, taking the form of regulatory policies aimed at controlling
20
21
subjects’ behaviors (Fletcher, 2019). It is through the distinction between these three forms of
r Rce
22
23
24 governmentality (one centered on command-and-control (sovereign), one oriented toward values
25
evp
26 and standards (disciplinary) and one incentive-based (neoliberal)) that the broader notion of
27
28
ietwe
29
neoliberalism takes on a peculiar meaning – as a means of governing human behavior in a subtle
30
31 yet appealing way, that is to say through the promotion of certain forms of freedom.
32
33
dVe
34
35
Comprehensive framework
36
Mrsi
37
38 In order to develop a fine-grained analysis of how neoliberal governmentality manifests itself in
39
aonn
40 PSF office design, we rely on Fletcher’s (2019) framework whose analytical toolkit’enables
41
42 multidimensional investigation of the complex ways in which neoliberalism articulates with
43
us
44
45 distinct forms of governance’ (Birch & Springer, 2019, p. 470). In his framework, Fletcher (2019)
46
cr
47 develops a four-part typology of neoliberalism comprising: (1) an overarching governmentality

48
49 project; (2) a set of general principles or rationalities the governmentality project embodies; (3) the
ip
50
51
52
specific technologies through which it is implemented; and (4) the forms of subjectivities that a
t
53
54 given governmentality project seeks to cultivate. According to Fletcher (2019, p. 545), these four
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 8
Page 11 of 37
1
2
3 dimensions – which are further explained below – ‘can of course be differentially emphasized in
4
5
6
particular variegated projects.’
7
8 Overarching governmentality. Applied to the context of organization, neoliberalism, as a
9
Au
10 project of governmentality, can be understood as a set of incentive structures designed to shape

11
12
minds toward market-centered beliefs, therefore encouraging organization members to behave as
13
th
14
15 adaptable and responsive entrepreneurs adjusting their conduct to the conditions of the market in
16
or
17 order to realize (and benefit from) their freedom. The incentive structures are embedded in a range
P A
18
ee c
19 of organizational parameters such as policies, organizational pronouncements, and the
20
21
organization’s space. Accordingly, contemporary architecture increasingly resonates with
r Rce
22
23
24 neoliberal governmentality (e.g., Spencer, 2011, 2016). Viewed as a structural incentive aiming to
25
evp
26 shape the conduct of individual ‘freedom’, architecture has been recognized, in recent years, as a
27
28
ietwe
29
means to articulate and diffuse neoliberal governmentality (Spencer, 2011, 2016). Therefore, we
30
31 contend that neoliberalism can manifest itself through workspace environment.
32
33 Principles. Neoliberal governmentality prescribes an ensemble of principles such as
dVe
34
35
privatization, deregulation and commodification (Fletcher, 2019). These principles all fall under
36
Mrsi
37
38 the overarching notion of marketization – aiming to instil market-based rationality in different areas
39
aonn
40 of social and organizational life. As Foucault (2008, p. 131) contends, neoliberalism is ‘taking the
41
42 formal principles of a market economy and […] projecting them on to a general art of government.’
43
us
44
45 Neoliberal governmentality can therefore be seen to pursue a core principle, that of marketization,
46
cr
47 which promotes incentives in line with an entrepreneurial environment: offering opportunities to

48
49 exchange information, developing new contacts, and undertaking ‘business’ initiatives – thus
ip
50
51
52
encouraging certain types of behaviors. This core principle ‘may be enacted in various ways […]
t
53
54 within projects advocating an explicitly neoliberal philosophy’ (Fletcher, 2019, p. 546). In this
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 9
Page 12 of 37
1
2
3 study, we investigate the specific ways in which marketization is promoted in PSF office design
4
5
6
initiatives.
7
8 Specific technologies. Technologies are variegated and heterogeneous, bringing together
9
Au
10 mechanisms that allow the principles of a governmentality project to take shape, such as techniques
11
12
of notation and calculation, procedures of examination, or building design and architectural forms
13
th
14
15 (Miller & Rose, 1990). In this paper we analyze the role of office design technologies through
16
or
17 which the principle of marketization is operationalized and the neoliberal governmentality project
P A
18
ee c
19 deployed.
20
21
Subjectivities. Through a set of principles and technologies, the neoliberal governmentality
r Rce
22
23
24 project seeks to cultivate (although certainly not always succeeding; see Barnett, 2005, 2010)
25
evp
26 various forms of subjectivities. Under neoliberalism, individuals are encouraged to transform

27
28
ietwe
29
themselves into homo economicus, i.e. rational actors who are inclined to assess the costs and
30
31 benefits of different alternatives, have a penchant for competition, and behave as entrepreneurs of
32
33 themselves to ‘pursue [their] own interest’ (Foucault, 2008, p. 270). As such, entrepreneurs of the
dVe
34
35
self draw on the resources and skills at their disposal in order to benefit from payoffs ensuing from
36
Mrsi
37
38 their work or behavior. They are ‘expected to act in ways that maximize their (human) capital
39
aonn
40 value’ (Cooper, 2015, p. 15). In so doing, Foucault argues, the individual who responds
41
42 ‘systematically to modifications in the variables of the environment appears precisely as someone
43
us
44
45 manageable’ (2008, p. 270) and, even, ‘governmentalizable’ (2008, p. 252).
46
cr
47 Although the distinction between these categories is not necessarily absolute, we argue that
48
49 this typology is particularly useful for examining processes that relate to the development and
ip
50
51
52
promotion of a project that aims to shape the minds of organizational members in a subtle manner,
t
53
54 specifically through the ways in which professional offices are designed. As Fletcher (2019, p. 547)
55
56 points out,
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 10
Page 13 of 37
1
2
3 Understanding neoliberalism in this multidimensional perspective thus allows us to
4
avoid dichotomies and strict limits, to sidestep the impossible task of adjudicating
5
6
whether a given situation is or is not neoliberal in its entirety and instead assess which
7 particular elements of a given process – at different scales and in different dimensions
8 – reflect common neoliberal tendencies.
9
Au
10
Thus, with this framework, we examine the extent to which the processes that underlie PSF
11
12 office design reflect a neoliberal agenda. We argue that, through the (re)configuration of
13
th
14 workspaces, PSF management seeks to create a web of spatio-organizational features reflective of

15
16
or
a neoliberal governmentality project. In so doing, management pursues a core principle of

17
P A
18
marketization, which is promoted through a range of spatial technologies inscribed in office space.
ee c
19
20
21 These technologies seek to sustain the development of subjectivities specific to homo economicus,
r Rce
22
23 characterized by cooperative competitiveness, efficiency, and free self-entrepreneur spirit. In sum,
24
25
evp
26 our analytical endeavor focuses on spatial technologies used by PSF management to promote and
27
28 operationalize a neoliberal governmentality project predicated on a core marketization principle,
ietwe
29
30 which is targeted at shaping firm members’ subjectivities accordingly.
31
32
33
dVe
34
35 Method
36
Mrsi
37
38 This study emerged from a broader research project which aimed to better understand how office
39
aonn
40 designs, in the context of accounting firms, are developed and the impact they may have on the
41
42 credibility and legitimacy of organizations. More specifically, the initial objective was to examine
43
us
44
45
what representations of accountants and of their work are conveyed through office design and what
46
the main preoccupations of designers and accountants are when elaborating office design. The use
cr
47
48
49 of a qualitative approach was considered appropriate given the complex dynamics we thought were
ip
50
51
involved in the development of each firm’s office design (Patton, 2002). Our data collection
52
t
53
54 approach was centered on interviewing actors involved in office design projects and observing the
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 11
Page 14 of 37
1
2
3 features of such designs in situ. This allowed us to constitute a meaningful dataset to analyze how
4
5
6
neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and promoted through PSF office design.
7
8
9
Au
10 Sources of data and data collection

11
12
Interviews. Our data consists overall of 19 interviews with 23 participants carried out between
13
th
14
15 August 2014 and November 2015. Specifically, we interviewed 11 partners or managing partners
16
or
17 involved in office design projects, ten accounting firm representatives in charge of their office’s
P A
18
ee c
19 design, one senior manager, and one administrative assistant. At the time of interviews, the majority
20
21
of participants (i.e., 65%) were working (or had worked) within Big Four firms. All interviewees
r Rce
22
23
24 were or had been involved in the decision-making process related to their office’s latest design
25
evp
26 project and were knowledgeable about their firm’s approach in terms of design. Most offices we
27
28
ietwe
29
visited had renewed their design within the last two years. The redesign of some had occurred
30
31 further back but we thought the data was of interest since these offices were among the first in their
32
33 respective country to introduce a new vision of office design. Table 1 summarizes key information
dVe
34
35
about the interviewees.
36
Mrsi
37
38 [Insert Table 1 here]
39
aonn
40
41 The interview process took place in three somewhat concurrent phases. The first phase
42
43
us
consisted of consulting firms’ websites and the financial press to identify Canadian firms that
44
45
46 undertook or were in the process of undertaking office design projects. Firms were then contacted
cr
47
48 by email to solicit their participation, emphasizing our willingness to meet with people that were
49
ip
50 directly involved in these projects. The second phase consisted of interviewing representatives of
51
52
t
53
Canadian firms that accepted to participate in our study. The third phase consisted of collecting
54
55 data in other countries as suggested by Canadian participants. Indeed, after the first interviews in
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 12
Page 15 of 37
1
2
3 Canadian firms, participants identified cases of new office designs that were developed in the
4
5
6
United Kingdom (UK) and which, they believed, could be relevant settings for our study. UK firms
7
8 were reportedly at the forefront of office design and, therefore, could provide an opportunity to
9
Au
10 deepen our research analysis. Consequently, some interviews were conducted in the UK as well as
11
12
in Ireland while additional interviews were also conducted in Canada.
13
th
14
15 Collecting data in three different countries allowed us to gain insights into global tendencies
16
or
17 in PSF office design. Ultimately, the total number of interviews conducted as part of this study was
P A
18
ee c
19 sufficient to gain an impression of theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Indeed, in the
20
21
final interviews carried out, we felt a significant degree of redundancy in the responses obtained
r Rce
22
23
24 regarding design features and in participant descriptions of the process by which their office design
25
evp
26 project was developed and implemented.

27
28
ietwe
29
The recording of semi-structured interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, averaging 48
30
31 minutes. The interviews initially focused upon main trends in professional office design, the
32
33 process typically followed in the firm or office when a new design project was conceived and
dVe
34
35
implemented, the main actors involved, sensitive issues emerging in the process, and the
36
Mrsi
37
38 representation of the firm as conveyed through office design. In responding to our questions, most
39
aonn
40 participants tended to discuss the specifics of the latest office design project in which they had been
41
42 involved, but also mentioned how the design initiatives aimed at transforming work environment
43
us
44
45 and practices. As such, our interest was not only in the design reconfigurations and spatial
46
cr
47 arrangements, but also in how interviewees presented their office space in terms of transformative
48
49 opportunities. An interview guide containing open questions was used to conduct the interviews to
ip
50
51
52
enable participants to freely express their viewpoints in their own words (Patton, 2002). All
t
53
54 interviews were recorded and transcribed to facilitate the analysis. In cases where the participants
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 13
Page 16 of 37
1
2
3 extended the discussion of key topics after the end of recording, detailed notes were made within
4
5
6
two hours of the interview.
7
8 Measures were taken to sustain the trustworthiness of data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
9
Au
10 Before the start of every interview, permission was sought to record the discussion digitally. Much
11
12
care was taken to reassure participants that complete anonymity was guaranteed, for themselves
13
th
14
15 and their employers. After the interviews had been transcribed, a copy of the transcript was sent to
16
or
17 every interviewee. Every participant was thus able to suggest amendments or add further
P A
18
ee c
19 explanations to the transcription to ensure they were comfortable with what they said during the
20
21
meeting.3
r Rce
22
23
24 Observation. Interviews were complemented by observation in most cases. Direct
25
evp
26 observations occurred first while waiting to conduct the interviews. In several cases, we were
27
28
ietwe
29
invited to wait in an office area where we could observe the workplace settings (e.g., the stairs,
30
31 coffee corner, or open plan layout). A few interviews were also conducted in the office café, which
32
33 allowed us to ‘experience’ the ‘alternative’ workspaces available to employees. In addition, we
dVe
34
35
asked for visit tours (e.g., office area, cafeteria, conference rooms, teamwork rooms), when
36
Mrsi
37
38 possible, which took place right after the interviews, to develop a better sense of what participants
39
aonn
40 were telling us during our discussions. We asked for permission to take photographs during the
41
42 visits – or we asked to obtain some pictures of the new design – to enrich the data and provide us
43
us
44
45 with a basis to visualize interviewee descriptions of design. Site visits lasted between 15 and 45
46
cr
47 minutes, averaging 30 minutes and resulting in over 300 photographs.

48
49 Direct observations first enabled us to visualize and experience the ‘feeling’ of being
ip
50
51
52
physically present in the office. In particular, we were exposed to the range of activities that were
t
53
54
55 3Three participants sent a revised version of their interview transcript with minor changes. The revised transcripts
56 were used for data analysis.
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 14
Page 17 of 37
1
2
3 taking place and the flow of people that were moving in the work environment. Second, they
4
5
6
allowed us to capture details that may have escaped awareness among participants. Indeed,
7
8 participants may have come to take some aspects of their office design project for granted (e.g.,
9
Au
10 vast open space, luminosity or colors), thereby diminishing their sensitivity to nuances otherwise
11
12
apparent to an observer not fully immersed in this setting (Patton, 2002). Third, observations
13
th
14
15 allowed us to see and hear things not necessarily discussed during the interview, such as the level
16
or
17 of noise, the extent of messiness on some work desks, or the narrowness of individual working
P A
18
ee c
19 spaces.
20
21
r Rce
22
23
24 Data analysis
25
evp
26 Data analysis occurred in two phases. First, one of the authors gave each interview transcript and
27
28
ietwe
29
observation note a preliminary reading to identify the most significant themes transpiring from the
30
31 data. This resulted in a classification of office design features and transformative aspects of the
32
33 design. The cross-cutting idea emerging from this classification was the extent to which the features
dVe
34
35
of office design were consistent with the spirit of neoliberalism. Therefore, in a second stage, two
36
Mrsi
37
38 of the authors carried out together a detailed coding analysis, this time in light of Fletcher’s (2019)
39
aonn
40 comprehensive framework, focusing on office design technologies and the subjectivities these
41
42 technologies aim to cultivate. Through this process we identified two central office design
43
us
44
45 technologies (i.e., fluid open plan layout and adaptable workspaces) as well as some key
46
cr
47 subjectivities sustained through these technologies: cooperative competitiveness; efficiency; and

48
49 free self-entrepreneur spirit. Table 2 summarizes our coding concepts in light of the comprehensive
ip
50
51
52
framework and provides examples of quotes from interviews for each category.
t
53
54 [Insert Table 2 here]
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 15
Page 18 of 37
1
2
3 Following detailed analysis, interview excerpts were transferred to a separate thematic file –
4
5
6
organized along the different codes and sub-codes. The thematic file was reanalyzed several times;
7
8 after each round of analysis, some of the excerpts were discarded to ensure that only the most
9
Au
10 significant ones were retained. Of course, when necessary, we returned to the original transcripts.
11
12
Doing a two-author detailed coding helped us to strengthen our comfort regarding the
13
th
14
15 trustworthiness of our analyses – providing us with opportunities to challenge the coding, question
16
or
17 the categories, and refine the argument. As our research progressed, we sought to strengthen the
P A
18
ee c
19 consistency of our emerging conclusions (more specifically, regarding the overlap between
20
21
neoliberalism and PSF office design technologies) by consulting supplementary documents on
r Rce
22
23
24 office design. For example, we consulted journals and magazines specialized in office design and
25
evp
26 newspaper articles to develop a sense of current trends in office space. Final interpretations were
27
28
ietwe
29
discussed and agreed upon by all three authors. Ultimately, we felt that neoliberal governmentality
30
31 constituted a meaningful template to make sense of the data.
32
33
dVe
34
35
Designing neoliberal office spaces
36
Mrsi
37
38 As mentioned above, two major office design technologies emerged from the analysis of our
39
aonn
40 empirical data. This section fleshes out the role of these two technologies, as well as the
41
42 subjectivities they nurtured, through the provision of empirical evidence. Before going further,
43
us
44
45 there is no doubt in our minds that the spatial technologies we analyzed were partly influenced by
46
cr
47 economic considerations, such as the cost-benefit approach. The latter is consistent with neoliberal
48
49 thinking (Fletcher, 2019). However, our data collection revealed office design is much more than
ip
50
51
52
a simple cost-cutting exercise. As one interviewee points out:
t
53
54 […] although people would say that we do it [i.e., reconfiguring space] to reduce costs,
55 it’s not really the case. Because, as you can tell, we spent a lot of money on this space.
56 So, at the end of the day, we re-vectored where the spending was. […] We’re still
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 16
Page 19 of 37
1
2
3 spending a lot of money on space for people. It’s just that we’re spending it differently.
4
(Managing partner, Big Four)
5
6 In comparison to ritualistic referrals to the cost-benefit approach, we believe that our
7
8 analytical endeavor enabled a deeper understanding of how PSF managers articulate neoliberal
9
Au
10
11 governmentality through office design projects.
12
13
th
14
15 Fluid open plan layout
16
or
17
P A
18
One of the most common features of PSF office design projects is the adoption of open plan layouts
ee c
19
20 reminiscent of a ‘marketplace’ promoting the interaction of firm members as they cross paths in
21
r Rce
22 their daily undertakings. Although the open plan model is not novel (Baldry, 1997), we observe in
23
24
PSFs a ‘contemporary’ translation of the open space concept which goes beyond disciplinary
25
evp
26
27 control. Instead of a technology allowing direct control of employees (Baldry, 1997), our data
28
ietwe
29 indicates that open space in PSFs is a more fluid space (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004) layout which
30
31 not only minimizes divisions by permanent walls and enclosed rooms, but also allows firm
32
33
dVe
34 members to freely choose where to seat, regardless of hierarchical boundaries. Indeed, the open
35
36 space layout is designed to offer firm members the ability to choose where and when to work. For
Mrsi
37
38 instance, most firms adopted a ‘hot desking’ system under which seats are not assigned to specific
39
aonn
40
41
individuals. Employees just choose their seat on a day-to-day basis:
42
43 We have hot desking but I like to call it not desking. […] It’s about not actually being
us
44 attached to your desk. It’s about providing some areas where people go to because
45 they’re in four or five days a week and some areas where people don’t mind coming
46 in, touching down, using the space. There’s a whole bunch in between that kind of
cr
47
varies. […] We’re fairly relaxed about how we allocate desks. (Real estate/office
48
49 design director, Big Four)
ip
50 Rather than assigning one floor to a specific line of service and desks to specific individuals,
51
52
t
53
organizational members can freely sit wherever they want. Some other firms went a step further
54
55 and adopted a hoteling system under which seats are booked in advance when needed. Under a
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 17
Page 20 of 37
1
2
3 hoteling system, employees book a spot to sit and work at the office just like they would book a
4
5
6
hotel room:
7
8 Everything is based on a software platform and […] every single seat has a unique ID
9 number. You can go to that software and it’s accessible through your computer, through
Au
10 iPads, etc. You can decide where you want to go. For example, from 8 to 10, I can
11 choose this seat. Then, from 10 to 12, I can be in a meeting room, and from 12 to 1 I’m
12
at lunch, I don’t need a location. From 1 to 3 I may sit in the café. […] so I can actually
13
th
14 go and identify different locations throughout the day. At the same time, we have a
15 number of locations where there are no unique identifiers, and […] you can go sit there
16 whenever you want. (Real estate/office design director, Big Four)
or
17
P A
18
The underlying ideal of this ‘unallocated seating system’ is that all employees, regardless of
ee c
19
20 their hierarchical position, can use the spatial arrangements on equal terms in a de-hierarchized
21
r Rce
22 office space.
23
24
There’s no differentiation between partners and junior staff. So junior staff and partners
25
evp
26 can be sitting side by side at a collaborative environment. We don’t have any type of
27 hierarchy in that world. (Managing partner, Big Four)
28
In this context, the main objective of open space is no longer bureaucratic monitoring, but
ietwe
29
30
31 rather encouraging connectivity and collaboration in order to increase efficiency, sell additional
32
33 services, and strengthen internal competitiveness. In all this, firm members are incited to perceive
dVe
34
35 themselves as free self-entrepreneurs. Indeed, according to our interviewees, the open plan layout
36
Mrsi
37
38 provides conditions of possibility for in-house interactions to develop unrestrainedly, allowing
39
aonn
40 office members to share ideas and information with one another on an ongoing basis:
41
42 I think the best part is that it [i.e., open plan] has created a lot of different connection
43
us
points and touch points within our organization. Before, you used to go sit down in
44
45
your cubicle or your office for the day. You would interact with people very limitedly.
46 Today, you’re constantly moving around and you’re seeing different people and you’re
having touch points that are ten times what you would have touched before. You see
cr
47
48 and spend time with people continuously. It creates a whole different level of
49 productivity, of engagement, and of innovative thinking in terms of sharing ideas
ip
50 constantly. You can’t share ideas on the phone. You have to share ideas face-to-face.
51
(Managing partner, Big Four)
52
t
53 As this quote suggests, the open space allegedly provides a context in which connectivity
54
55 develops more easily. In the eyes of interviewees, an office design that allows for regular
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 18
Page 21 of 37
1
2
3 connectivity is commonly considered highly valuable because of the PSFs’ competitive
4
5
6
environment:
7
8 Those connections are actually really valuable. Because that’s when you say, “oh I’ve
9 got to do this report for so and so on such and such”, and someone will say “oh well,
Au
10 we did something similar to that a couple of weeks ago. Let me send you what I just
11 did.” And it’s those connections that we want to re-create. The bigger an organization
12
gets, the bigger the risk I think for going into silos. […] So creating as many spaces
13
th
14 like that [i.e., increasing connectivity] is actually quite key I think. (Senior manager,
15 Big Four)
16
or
In this type of office design, cooperation as much as competition between firm members are
17
P A
18
encouraged. Workspaces promote the belief that a peculiar type of relationship should structure
ee c
19
20
21 human interactions in organization settings – specifically by integrating design features that
r Rce
22
23 encourage a greater level of competition as well as cooperation within the office. Through fluid
24
25
evp
26 open plan layout, office members are incited to cooperate significantly with their internal
27
28 competitors (i.e., their colleagues), a phenomenon called ‘coopetition’ (Brandenburger & Nalebuff,
ietwe
29
30 2011). Although never explicitly discussed – to our knowledge – in the neoliberal literature,
31
32
33
coopeting is coherent with a neoliberal view as it implies competitors working together to create a
dVe
34
35 more valuable market than they could by working individually (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011).
36
Mrsi
37 In most firms that adopted an open plan layout, coopetition is meant to supplant hierarchy.
38
39
aonn
Our observations and interviews indicate that firms aim to create an open culture where partners,
40
41
42 managers, trainees and even administrative staff freely interact. As the following quote suggests,
43
us
44 ‘cross-pollination’  a term used by a Big Four partner to refer to collaboration  seems to be the
45
46
ultimate goal regarding this kind of office design:
cr
47
48
49 We want people to be aware of what’s going on. We want people to talk about the
ip
50 clients. And then everyone knows what’s going on. […] you’re not having, here are all
51 the junior people in one place, here are all the senior people in another place. We want
52 to have a friendly, open culture where information is shared wherever possible.
t
53 (Managing partner, Small accounting firm)

54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 19
Page 22 of 37
1
2
3 Such cross-hierarchical designs  with the connectivity they entail  are also meant to
4
5
6 increase the ability of firm members to be more efficient in resolving problems. Ingrained in office
7
8 design initiatives is an overarching ambition, namely, that open layout establishes a climate which
9
Au
10 is dedicated to client service and innovation in serving clients:

11
12
13 What we’re seeing is the ability to solve problems is happening quicker […]. I see you
th
14 in the hallway, I grab you and say, “let’s go solve this issue right now that we’ve been
15 trying to connect for the last two weeks by phone. […]” We’re connecting quicker and
16 more frequently, and we have the creativity, the whole innovation discussion around
or
17
P A
more thought-provoking ideas happening because of the environment we’re in. Now
18 you would say that maybe that was happening before too. It’s not the same level. And
ee c
19
20
you feel that, you see it, you ignite it. I experienced that today. I solved more problems
21 today than I typically would in our old world. I would have had to schedule over the
next period of two to three weeks to meet with people. Here it’s five minutes’
r Rce
22
23 conversations, ten minutes’ conversations […]. So the productivity element is changing
24 the market kind of client service aspect but also I think it’s by far increasing that whole
25 level of innovation, thought-provoking ideas, client services. (Managing partner, Big
evp
26
Four)
27
28 As the above quotes suggest, open plan layouts are put forward to incite the office
ietwe
29
30 ‘entrepreneurs’ to act upon themselves in order to reach organizational goals and deliver superior
31
32
33 performance in serving clients, therefore encouraging employees to ‘think of themselves as (and
dVe
34
35 reflect on themselves as being) enterprising individuals’ (Houghton, 2019, p. 620).
36
Mrsi
37 In sum, our analysis shows that the neoliberal core principle of marketization is articulated
38
39
aonn
40
through a fluid open plan layout technology aiming to facilitate networking and connectivity within
41
42 the workforce, particularly at the office, while promoting a greater degree of intertwining between
43
us
44 competition and cooperation. The open plan is meant to transform the office space into a vast
45
46
‘marketplace’ supposed to maximize encounters between ‘entrepreneurs’ while sustaining a high
cr
47
48
49 efficiency climate under which these ‘entrepreneurs’ work together intensively to meet
ip
50
51 organizational imperatives.
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 20
Page 23 of 37
1
2
3 Adaptable workspaces
4
5
6
To incite organizational members to adjust their conduct to the conditions of the market, adaptable
7
8 workspace technologies are put in place aiming to render firm members more productive while
9
Au
10 encouraging them to develop as competitive and communicative entrepreneurs. Through our data
11
12
collection, we observe that many office space features in PSFs are designed to foster adaptation to
13
th
14
15 various work situations – e.g., individual work, small group work, public presentations. For
16
or
17 instance, designers wanted to offer firm members workspaces where they could work in smaller
P A
18
ee c
19 groups without being disturbed by the noise level in the open space:
20
21
In an open plan floor, what they were to do was to provide an area where people could
r Rce
22
23 meet, but particularly both stand up and sit down, so the table is adjustable. So it would
24 be maybe tête-à-tête or four people for maybe 15 minutes. That sort of thing. (Real
25 estate/office design director, mid-tier firm)
evp
26
27 And it is open, like it’s not enclosed all the way around. There are actually two openings
28 and there is a light and there are little stools. It is very much like a breakout room for a
ietwe
29 15 minutes’ catch up that people can do on the floor. Within the enclosed area, inside
30 the pod, the noise, voices don’t carry from there. It absorbs noise on the outside, it also
31 contains the conversation. (Real estate/office design director, mid-tier firm)
32
33 These workplaces, often called ‘pods’ by interviewees, allegedly provide incentives to
dVe
34
35 coopete with colleagues. In some firms, staircases are also designed to be a strategic gathering
36
Mrsi
37
38 point where impromptu and public meetings could happen:
39
aonn
40 The staircase isn’t a mechanical means to get up to the floors […]. It’s a cascade stair.
41 […] There are seated areas on the staircase with a separate staircase coming on the
42 side, with balconies at the top so people can stand.4 […] So we build those staircases
43
us
and we build the environments that enable people to stop going to a quiet room with a
44
45
lock on it when they can do it in a public forum. (Real estate/office design director, Big
46 Four)
cr
47 According to interviewees, staircases are places where employees can stop for a chat during
48
49
the day to exchange information on client services. Such encountering places reportedly aim to
ip
50
51
52
t
53 4The interviewee refers to a wide staircase which, in addition to allowing people to move from floor to floor, can be
54
used as a gathering platform. A picture of a cascade stair is available on the following website, right below the heading
55 ‘Gallery’ by clicking on the outdoor image of a 15-story building: https://www.cre-llp.co.uk/projects/30- north-
56 colonnade-london-e14/ (see the 22nd photograph out of 40 – Last access on May 12, 2020).
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 21
Page 24 of 37
1
2
3 foster a range of connecting opportunities – which may ultimately translate into greater quality of
4
5
6
services and efficiency of work. We were able to observe such interactions between employees in
7
8 staircases, as we saw some of them having a discussion or stopping one of their colleagues to have
9
Au
10 a quick chat.
11
12
Interestingly, these adaptable workspaces are designed with a peculiar representation of work
13
th
14
15 in mind, as the following quote suggests:
16
or
17 So a lot of the work now is done in teams. People like to cluster around together in
P A
18 teams, they like to work collaboratively together, and a more traditional layout doesn’t
ee c
19 lend itself to that. You’ve only got so many meeting rooms and meeting rooms are
20
21
generally needed for formal meetings, so we’re looking at a way of saying, well maybe
if we change the way that we actually accommodate people we can actually build in
r Rce
22
23 more of those type of facilities. (Real estate/office design director, Big Four)
24
Adapting to employees’ ‘natural’ needs thus becomes a key element of the way in which
25
evp
26
27 neoliberalism is articulated in the firms’ spatio-organizational arrangements. However, these
28
ietwe
29 ‘needs’ are not viewed as being constructed and idiosyncratic. The strategy is to make staff believe
30
31 that neoliberal space is consistent with the approaches in which today’s professionals ‘naturally’
32
33
dVe
34 work. In other words, adaptable spatial technologies are represented as fitting the natural ‘needs’
35
36 of professionals at work, which allow these individuals to feel good about the work they do.
Mrsi
37
38 Adaptable space also serves multiple functions – e.g., working, training, eating – to respond
39
aonn
40
41
to the ‘needs’ of organizational members, the broader aim being to mobilize PSF members as
42
43 enterprising social actors able to work long hours, shifting efficiently across tasks and assignments.
us
44
45 For instance, designs often offer employees the possibility of eating while working. As one
46
cr
47
interviewee explains, ‘[The restaurant], that’s a workplace for me. That’s where people work. […]
48
49
And we’re encouraging it, and we’re providing data points and the power and Wi-Fi to enable them
ip
50
51
52 to work in those spaces’ (Real estate/office design director, Big Four). Indeed, we were able to
t
53
54 observe comfortable cafeterias nicely designed where employees were eating, discussing with
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 22
Page 25 of 37
1
2
3 colleagues and working on their computers. Some firms also offer a gym directly on the workplace
4
5
6
to allow sporty staff maximizing their time at work:
7
8 We have a gym now, because it’s part of what we want to do with our staff. You know
9 it’s about empowering our staff to say: “I’ve got half an hour to spend, my meeting got
Au
10 canceled. I’m going down to a spin class.” During the day. So that type of concept.
11 (Real estate/office design director, Big Four)
12
13 Offering a gym is thought to increase staff efficiency as they do not have to go elsewhere for
th
14
15 training; everything is offered in house. As the following quote points out, ‘It’s easy to get here at
16
or
17
P A
18
7:30, end up training at 8:15, take a shower, and be ready for work at 8:45. It replaces training
ee c
19
20 activities you can get elsewhere’ (Real estate/office design director, Big Four). Staff are thus able
21
r Rce
22 to devote more time for work and, ultimately, be more productive.
23
24
While elaborating on the various adaptable facets of their respective interior office design,
25
evp
26
27 interviewees candidly admitted that the overarching objective is to strengthen employee
28
ietwe
29 competitiveness and efficiency, which points to the instrumental nature of office design:
30
31 […] the building is for the people to actually be able to work the way that is most
32
33
efficient for them and if we are able to do that just by crafting different solutions for
dVe
34 people in terms of desking, in terms of furniture, in terms of different kinds of features,

35 then that’s what we really have to do. (Real estate/office design director, Big Four)
36
Mrsi
In so doing, the designs are meant to encourage firm members to behave as ‘entrepreneurs of
37
38
39 the self’, relying on their social skills, imagination and resourcefulness in their daily undertakings
aonn
40
41 to maximize returns on themselves (Cooper, 2015). As the next interviewee clearly points out, the
42
43
us
role of office design is to bring organizational members to see the office as a space of their own,
44
45
46 in order to encourage them to behave like entrepreneurs deeply motivated to serving clients well:
cr
47
48 If we want the working floors to be engaging for staff, then we need to […] make them
49 feel productive and in an environment where they just get on and be as productive for
ip
50 our clients as possible. So the quality output is better than having to remind them where
51
they work. So yes it’s that shift on what the space is for, how you want people to feel
52
t
53
when they’re in the space. […] we want our staff to feel that they’re in something that
54 they take some ownership of. This is my building, my space, and somewhere that they
55 can feel like they work as productively as possible. (Senior manager, Big Four)
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 23
Page 26 of 37
1
2
3 Neoliberal space therefore seeks to capitalize on the staff’s emotional domain in order to
4
5
6
promote behavior in line with entrepreneurship of the self. Multiple features of the adaptable
7
8 workspace are also set up to lead the professional entrepreneurs to feel free to organize their day
9
Au
10 as they want to:

11
12
So you might come in and grab a coffee in the corporate restaurant on the way up the
13
th
14 stairs or the elevator to your floor. And you might have a conference call in the
15 morning, perhaps with a client. And you might book a small enclosed meeting space
16 for that meeting. So for say two hours. And then you need to collaborate with the rest
or
17 of the team on a project […], so then you find out where they’re located. You go and
P A
18 you sit with the team, do the collaboration stuff that you need to do. You need to go
ee c
19 out of the office for lunch so you put your papers and your laptop in your locker […].
20
21
You come back. You might go to one of the café stations and grab a coffee […]. So
perhaps you’re working late this evening and so you decide to take a yoga break in the
r Rce
22
23 middle of the afternoon. And then come back to your desk and work for the remainder
24 of the day. (Partner and real estate/office design leader, Big Four)
25
evp
26 The adaptability of the space is presented as a feature that is highly valued by firm members
27
28 because it provides them with the freedom they ‘need’ to work in inspiring and efficient ways. This
ietwe
29
30 sense of freedom is important in a context where the focus is on deliverables. Being viewed as
31
32
33
entrepreneurs of the self, firm members are expected to use their freedom to adapt their working
dVe
34
35 spaces as they choose, in order to meet deadlines and reach superior performance. Therefore,
36
Mrsi
37 neoliberal office space ultimately aims to liberate the worker from ineffective bureaucratic
38
39
aonn
constraints; this does not imply, though, that employees are not subject to sophisticated forms of
40
41
42 control (such as outcome-based control).
43
us
44 Paraphrasing the words expressed by several interviewees, PSF office designs nowadays are
45
46 predicated on the idea of adapting space to professionals’ existing needs for productivity – but in
cr
47
48
49 so doing the rhetoric precisely creates and strengthens such ‘needs’. In the eyes of most
ip
50
51 interviewees, one of the overarching goals of the firms is to ‘get the best out’ of their employees –
52
t
53 to extract value from them. In a neoliberal regime, this ‘extraction’ is not done through overt
54
55
56
disciplinary mechanisms. Instead, it is accomplished through a constellation of initiatives that aim
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 24
Page 27 of 37
1
2
3 to influence the mind in subtle ways – inculcating in staff a certain conception of what is ‘naturally’
4
5
6
expected of them in the workplace.
7
8
9
Au
10 Discussion
11
12 In this study, we focused on PSFs’ office design projects, carefully and consciously conceived by
13
th
14 design planners and firm partners to create a web of spatial structures reflecting a neoliberal
15
16
or
17
governmentality. Drawing on Fletcher’s (2019) theoretical framework, we examined the range of
P A
18
spatial technologies used by PSF management to promote and articulate neoliberal governmentality
ee c
19
20
21 and its core principle of marketization. Our analysis especially brings to the fore the intricate
r Rce
22
23 relationship between power, freedom and office space, thereby contributing to the view that space
24
25
evp
26 is much more than a disciplinary mechanism. Our study also extends research on PSFs by
27
28 examining the manner in which office design is planned to influence how day-to-day work in
ietwe
29
30 contemporary firms is organized, accomplished, and controlled. This section discusses further this
31
32
33 twofold contribution to the literature, focusing on the implications of our analysis in terms of the
dVe
34
35 neoliberalization of professional (spatial) life.
36
Mrsi
37 Our first contributory statement is meant to engage with the literature on organizational
38
39
aonn
40
space. According to our analysis, neoliberal office designs constitute technologies that aim to create
41
42 and sustain an organizational climate that governs firm member mentality, particularly through the
43
us
44 notion of ‘freedom’. Paradoxically, but as expected from a neoliberal ideology, office space aims
45
46 to provide organizational members with a sense of liberty enabling them to work in a committed
cr
47
48
49 way toward their organization’s imperatives. This sense of liberty transpires in design technologies
ip
50
51 such as open plans and adaptable work environment allowing members to work where, when and
52
t
53 how they want. However, this is a liberty of means, not ends. Employees, expected to become
54
55
56 entrepreneurs of the self, are incited to behave ‘freely’ in order to reach their organization’s
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 25
Page 28 of 37
1
2
3 performance standards. PSF management aims to achieve this ‘government of freedom’ through
4
5
6
spatial arrangements encouraging specific behaviors, notably by maximizing the likelihood of
7
8 encounters in central stairs, facilitating collaboration through alternative workspaces, and
9
Au
10 overcoming the barriers of hierarchy through open spaces free of closed assigned offices.
11
12
By showing how office design favors a sentiment of individual freedom and agency while
13
th
14
15 aiming to govern and constrain organizational behavior, we believe our analysis overcomes the
16
or
17 classic dichotomies of structure and agency prevailing in organization studies (Raffnsøe et al.,
P A
18
ee c
19 2019). Contrary to disciplinary spaces constraining movement to facilitate supervision, our
20
21
findings suggest that space may enhance employees’ sense of freedom while subtly favoring
r Rce
22
23
24 distinct forms of organizational control, particularly self-control and other ‘soft’ control devices.
25
evp
26 As Raffnsøe et al. (2019, p. 167) underline:

27
28
ietwe
29
Liberalism showed, according to Foucault, that to govern well is to govern less. Put
30 differently, the exercise of power understood as governmentality presupposes that
31 action on the actions of others only works where there is some freedom, a point that
32 has often been misunderstood.
33
dVe
34 As such, our analysis is coherent with Foucault’s account of neoliberal governmentality that
35
36 underlines the intensifying relationship between power and freedom, a relationship which is often
Mrsi
37
38 overlooked in the organizational literature. What our study brings to the fore is not only a
39
aonn
40
41
government of mentality being spatially inscribed in PSFs, but more importantly a project to govern
42
43 the freedom and the emancipation of individuals represented as self-entrepreneurs. Office space
us
44
45 now tends to be designed to provide firm members with significant freedom regarding work
46
cr
47
technicalities, but they must also deliver and perform, even if this requires working overnight.
48
49
Much is expected from them in terms of coopetition, productivity and performance.
ip
50
51
52 Our second contributory statement aims to enter into conversation with the PSF literature on
t
53
54 organizational control. As such, our analysis suggests that neoliberal office design will
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 26
Page 29 of 37
1
2
3 fundamentally change forms of control surrounding work and workers in PSFs. The vast, open and
4
5
6
fluid spaces we observed constitute a significant departure from traditional ways of coordinating
7
8 and controlling work in PSFs, which were predicated on some kind of spatial enclosure surrounding
9
Au
10 the individual (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). For a long time, the bureaucratic approach dominated
11
12
in the development and implementation of control systems surrounding work in PSFs (Dirsmith &
13
th
14
15 McAllister 1982; Greenwood, Hinings, & Brown, 1990). Yet the hot desking practice
16
or
17 fundamentally blurs the linkages between the individual and some controllable place (where
P A
18
ee c
19 different measures and observations could previously be produced on individual performance).
20
21
Fluid offices imply a move away from the assignment of specific physical places to individuals –
r Rce
22
23
24 which traditionally was understood as a key referent in establishing hierarchy and a sense of
25
evp
26 organizational commitment (Macintosh, 2002). In addition, the nature and meaning of teamwork
27
28
ietwe
29
may change as teams become characterized with ephemerality for the sake of fluidity and
30
31 innovation. These important changes should not be downplayed as they imply challenges in
32
33 controlling work and developing solidarity with the organization and one’s working unit.
dVe
34
35
Our findings also point to subtle controlling effects that may ensue from neoliberal spatial
36
Mrsi
37
38 designs. Whereas Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian, and Samuel (1998) maintain that control through
39
aonn
40 management by objectives and mentoring can transform PSF members into disciplined and self-
41
42 disciplining actors whose goals are reflective of the firm’s business imperatives, we suggest that
43
us
44
45 neoliberal office design in contemporary PSFs involves technologies that operate in a distinct way.
46
cr
47 By providing firm members with much flexibility regarding work technicalities, the workplace
48
49 aims to offer these individuals a sense of freedom that could allegedly allow them to ‘coopete’ in
ip
50
51
52
better ways, be more productive, and deliver higher value in terms of client service. Office design
t
53
54 can therefore be viewed as a control device used by PSFs to influence, in subtle ways, the mind
55
56 and behavior of organizational members to their firm’s business imperatives. Ultimately, our study
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 27
Page 30 of 37
1
2
3 demonstrates that neoliberal office design constitutes a template that conveys an ambitious agenda,
4
5
6
which is not only to control professional work, but also to mold employees’ behavior and shape
7
8 their identity as self-entrepreneurs.
9
Au
10 Future research is needed on the paradoxical phenomenon of government of emancipation

11
12
we brought to the fore as well as the range of consequences ensuing from the neoliberalization of
13
th
14
15 PSF office spaces. There is a need to explore further the relationship between spatio-neoliberal
16
or
17 power and entrepreneurial freedom in other kinds of organizations – as the neoliberalization of

P A
18
ee c
19 office space may unfold differently from context to context. Furthermore, future research could
20
21
examine how the consequences of neoliberal office spaces differ from our traditional understanding
r Rce
22
23
24 of socialization and control in PSFs. Although our study sheds some light on these consequences,
25
evp
26 we did not interview those being governed. Thus, future research could analyze how PSF members
27
28
ietwe
29
enact and navigate their ‘freedom’ along the tight boundaries of coopetition and performance.
30
31 Future work could also investigate how neoliberal design may influence (or not) firm members’
32
33 thinking and ways of working. As mentioned by Houghton (2019, pp. 622-623), ‘while we can talk
dVe
34
35
of neoliberal subjects, this is not to say agents will operate exclusively through that frame. […] No
36
Mrsi
37
38 one is born a neoliberal subject, but rather may become one.’ Accordingly, instances of resistance
39
aonn
40 to neoliberal spatio-arrangements could be examined through observation and discussions with

41
42 people increasingly pressured to act, behave and think as entrepreneurs of the self.
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47 Conclusion
48
49 Drawing on Foucault’s conceptualization of neoliberalism and Fletcher’s theoretical framework,
ip
50
51
52
we examined how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and promoted through office design
t
53
54 projects undertaken in PSFs. Our interviews with 23 firm representatives and our site visits
55
56 demonstrate that neoliberalism permeates office design technologies in large and mid-tier firms. In
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 28
Page 31 of 37
1
2
3 neoliberal spaces, fluid open plan layouts and adaptable workspace technologies are carefully
4
5
6
designed to promote behavioral ideals, namely cooperative competition, work efficiency, and free
7
8 self-entrepreneur spirit. PSF managers attempted to transform office spaces into centers of open
9
Au
10 adaptability with the aim of facilitating connectivity and enabling coopetition. From this
11
12
perspective, space is conceived not only as a means to increase efficiency but also through the
13
th
14
15 agenda of making office members feel as entrepreneurs of the self, endowed with significant room
16
or
17 to maneuver regarding work technicalities. Flexibility and freedom are promoted as the hallmark
P A
18
ee c
19 of these new workspaces. But this agenda is not neutral. Our data suggests that PSF office design
20
21
initiatives both reflect and promote key neoliberal tendencies and, in so doing, arguably act as a
r Rce
22
23
24 tool, not only to govern mentality, but also to govern emancipation. From a broader perspective,
25
evp
26 our analysis also brings to the fore unanticipated complexities regarding the concept of
27
28
ietwe
29
emancipation. That is, the aim of emancipating PSF members from the barriers of bureaucracy
30
31 intermingles with an agenda that seeks to ‘emancipate’ members from the very roots of
32
33 professionalism (Hall, 1968). Is this kind of ‘emancipation’ socially desirable?
dVe
34
35
36
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47
48
49
ip
50
51
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 29
Page 32 of 37
1
2
3 References
4
5 Arge, K., & De Paoli, D. (2000). Strategic workplace design. In B. Nutt & P. McLennan (Eds.),
6 Facility management: Risks and opportunities (pp. 149-156). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
7 Baldry, C. (1997). The social construction of office space. International Labour Review, 136(3),
8
365-378.
9
Au
10 Baldry, C. (1999). Space-the final frontier. Sociology, 33(3), 535-553.

11 Barnett, C. (2005). The consolations of “neoliberalism”. Geoforum, 36(1), 7-12.
12 Barnett, C. (2010). Publics and markets: What’s wrong with neoliberalism. In S.J. Smith, R. Pain,
13 S.A. Marston & J.P. Jones III (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Geographies (pp. 269-
th
14 296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15 Birch, K. (2017). A research agenda for neoliberalism. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
16
or
17
Birch, K., & Springer, S. (2019). Peak neoliberalism? Revisiting and rethinking the concept of
P A
18 neoliberalism. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19(3), 467-485.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Crown Publishing
ee c
19
20 Group.
21 Carmona, S., Ezzamel, M., & Gutiérrez, F. (2002). The relationship between accounting and spatial
r Rce
22 practices in the factory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(3), 239-274.
23 Chiapello, E. (2017). Critical accounting research and neoliberalism. Critical Perspectives on
24
25
Accounting, 43, 47-64.
evp
26 Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2006). Space, organization and management theory. Copenhagen,
27 Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
28 Cooper, C. (2015). Entrepreneurs of the self: The development of management control since 1976.
ietwe
29 Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 14-24.

30 Cornelissen, L. (2019). On the (ab)use of the term “neoliberalism”: Reflections on Dutch political
31
discourse. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 19(3), 487-512.
32
33 Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., Heian, J., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed:
dVe
34 techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big 6 public accounting firms.
35 Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 298–327.
36 Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational
Mrsi
37 control. Organization, 12, 649-678.

38 Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). Spaces of organization and the organization of space: Power,
39
aonn
40
identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
41 Dirsmith, M. W., & McAllister, J. P. (1982). The organic vs. the mechanistic audit. Journal of
42 Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 5(3), 214-228.
43 Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics
us
44 (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

45 Duffy, F. (1997). The new office. London, England: Conrad Octopus.
46 Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: the social origins of autism epidemic. American
cr
47
48
Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863-907.
49 Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2004). You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave: Spatial
ip
50 boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57(1), 75–95.

51 Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2011). Being yourself in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of
52 normative control. Human Relations, 64(2), 177–200.
t
53 Fletcher, R. (2010). Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of

54
the conservation debate. Conservation and Society, 8(3), 171-181.
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 30
Page 33 of 37
1
2
3 Fletcher, R. (2019). On exactitude in social science: A multidimensional proposal for investigating
4
articulated neoliberalization and its ‘alternatives’. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in
5
6
Organization, 19(3), 537-564.
7 Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris, France: Editions Gallimard.
8 Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault
9 effect (pp. 87-104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Au
10 Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979. New
11 York, NY: Picador.
12
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
13
th
14 research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

15 Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Brown, J. (1990). “P2-form” strategic management: Corporate
16 practices in professional partnerships. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 725-755.
or
17 Halford, S. (2004). Towards a sociology of organizational space. Sociological Research Online, 9,

P A
18 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/1/halford.html.
ee c
19 Halford, S. (2008). Sociologies of space, work and organisation: From fragments to spatial theory.
20
21
Sociology Compass, 2(3), 925-943.
Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review,
r Rce
22
23 33(1), 92-104.
24 Hatch, M. J. (1990). The symbolics of office design: An empirical exploration. In P. Gagliardi
25 (Ed.), Symbols and artefacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 129-146). Berlin,
evp
26 Germany: De Gruyter.
27
Houghton, E. (2019). Becoming a neoliberal subject. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in
28
ietwe
29
Organization, 19(3), 615-626.
30 Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2004). Bringing space back in. Organization Studies, 25, 1095-1114.
31 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, England: Sage Publications.
32 Macintosh, N. B. (2002). Accounting, accountants and accountability: Poststructuralist positions.
33 London, England: Routledge.
dVe
34 Meyerson, J., & Ross, P. (2003). The 21st century office. New York, NY: Rizzoli.
35
Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1-31.
36
Mrsi
37 Munro, I., & Jordan, S. (2013). “Living space” at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and
38 the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66(11), 1497-1525.
39 Parker, L. D. (2016). From scientific to activity based office management: A mirage of change.
aonn
40 Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12(2), 177-202.

41 Parker, L. D., & Jeacle, I. (2019). The construction of the efficient office: Scientific management,
42 accountability and the neo‐liberal state. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(3), 1883-
43
us
44
1926.
45 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edition). London, England:
46 Sage Publications.
cr
47 Raffnsøe, S., Mennicken, A., & Miller, P. (2019). The Foucault effect in organization studies.
48 Organization Studies, 40(2), 155-182.
49 Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
ip
50
Spencer, D. (2011). Architectural Deleuzism: Neoliberal space, control and the “univer-city”.
51
52 Radical Philosophy, 168(July/August), 9-21.
t
53 Spencer, D. (2016). The architecture of neoliberalism: How contemporary architecture became an

54 instrument of control and compliance. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
55 Springer, S. (2014). Neoliberalism in denial. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 154-160.
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 31
Page 34 of 37
1
2
3 Suddaby, R., Viale, T., & Gendron, Y. (2016). Reflexivity: The role of embedded social position
4
and entrepreneurial social skill in processes of field level change. Research in Organizational
5
6
Behavior, 36, 225-245.
7 Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job
8 satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 101-117.
9 Taylor, S., & Spicer, A. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational
Au
10 spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 325–346.

11 Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource
12
management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518-545.
13
th
14
15
16
or
17
P A
18
ee c
19
20
21
r Rce
22
23
24
25
evp
26
27
28
ietwe
29
30
31
32
33
dVe
34
35
36
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47
48
49
ip
50
51
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 32
Page 35 of 37
1
2
3 Table 1 – Interviewee details
4
5 #a Interview date Duration of Position and sector of activity Country Year of new
6 recording design
7 (minutes)
8 01 August 2014 35b Administrative assistant, Big Canada 2013
9
Au
Four
10 02 September 2014 60b Real estate/office design Canada 2005
11
director, Big Four
12
13
03 September 2014 35 Retired managing partner, Big Canada 2005
th
14 Four
15 04a October 2014 40b Managing partner, Big Four Ireland 2015
16 04b October 2014 40 b Real estate/office design Ireland 2015
or
17 director, Big Four

P A
18 05a October 2014 30c Real estate/office design Ireland 2013
ee c
19 director, Mid-tier firm
20 05b October 2014 30c Real estate/office design Ireland 2013
r Rce
22 06 October 2014 45b Partner, Mid-tier firm Ireland 2013
23 07 October 2014 35b Real estate/office design Ireland 2007
25
evp
08 October 2014 65b Real estate/office design UK 2013

26
27
director, Big Four
28 09 November 2014 90b Managing partner, Mid-tier Canada 2012
ietwe
29 firm
30 10 November 2014 40b Managing partner, Small UK 2013
31 accounting firm
32 11 November 2014 45 Partner, Big Four UK 2015
33 12 December 2014 75 Real estate/office design UK 2015
dVe

35 13 December 2014 45b Senior manager, Big Four UK 2014
36
Mrsi
14 December 2014 60 Partner and real estate/office Canada 2015

37 design leader, Big Four
38
15a March 2015 65b Partner, Mid-tier firm Canada 2014
39
aonn
15b March 2015 65 b Real estate/office design Canada 2014

40
42 16a March 2015 40b Managing partner, Big Four Canada 2014
43 16b March 2015 40 b Real estate/office design Canada 2014
us

45 17 March 2015 30b Managing partner, National Canada 2015
46 firm
cr
47 18 March 2015 30b Managing partner, Big Four Canada 2014

48 19 November 2015 60 Real estate/office design Canada 2015
ip
50 a Participants 04a and 04b, 05a and 05b, 15a and 15b, and 16a and 16b were respectively interviewed
51
together.
52
t
b These interviews were followed by site visits during which unrecorded discussion took place. Detailed
53
54
field notes were taken afterwards.
c Interviewees 05a and 05b completed their interview data with an email conversation.
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 33
Page 36 of 37
Au
2
3 Table 2 – Office design technologies and coding concepts
4
5 Office design Explanation Coding themes Subjectivities sustained by Empirical instances
th
6 technologies these technologies
7 Fluid open Refers to a fluid space Open Cooperative competitiveness: ‘In an open plan layout, it’s quick, you ask a question,
8 plan layout layout which minimizes Through fluid open plan layout, everyone answers. […] And that’s what makes our firm
Fluid
or
9 interesting in the sense that it’s not just the service we sell,
Pe
divisions by permanent office members are encouraged to
10 De-hierarchized it’s all the people who are going to make sure we offer the
walls and enclosed interact and cooperate
11 Unallocated best service.’ (Real estate/office design director, Big Four)
rooms, and allows firm significantly with their internal
er
12
members to freely competitors (i.e., colleagues).
A
13
choose where to seat,
14
Re
regardless of Efficiency: ‘I think [the open plan model] is more productive because
15
cc
hierarchical boundaries. The open plan model and its it allows for a lot more coaching and mentoring and
16 collaboration with staff.’ (Real estate/office design
underlying connectivity aim to
vie
17 director, Mid-tier firm)
18 motivate firm members for being
more efficient in resolving
e
19
w
20 problems.
pt
21
Free self-entrepreneur spirit: ‘So when we moved into these locations, we built out a
Ve
22
The open space incites firm whole new floor plate that was 100% agile. […]
23
members to think of themselves as Everybody had an opportunity to move around throughout
ed
24
rsi
‘entrepreneurs’ having the ability the day, to work in different environments […]. No one
25 actually had a nameplate on their office. […] So the biggest
26 to freely choose where, when and
change was actually moving from the traditional office or
on
27 how to work. cubicle world into a completely agile world.’ (Managing
28 partner, Big Four)
M
29
30 Adaptable Refers to a space Adaptable Cooperative competitiveness: ‘This environment is designed to make our staff more
31 workspaces adaptable to various Adaptable space, as strategic engaged for a greater level of collaboration through a
Alternative
an
32 work situations and gathering point, provides variety of new settings. […] And I think clients will see
Multifunctional that. […] So I think some of those enhanced collaboration
33 serving multiple incentives to coopete with
Collaborative things will definitely impact clients.’ (Partner and real
34 functions to respond to colleagues.
estate/office design leader, Big Four)
35 the ‘needs’ of firm
us
36 members. Efficiency: ‘We have installed showers for people who want to jog
37 over lunch time. They can go out, do their jogging, come
Adaptable space encourages firm
38 back, take a shower and get back to work.’ (Managing
members to work efficiently, for
39 partner, Mid-tier firm)
c
instance by shifting across tasks
40
41
and assignments.
rip
42
10.1177/0170840620964072
43
44 34
t
45
46
47
Page 37 of 37
Au
2
3 Free self-entrepreneur spirit: ‘[Firm members] might choose to work in this room one
4 Adaptable space promotes the idea day because they’re going to collaborate with five other
5 that firm members are free to use people. They might choose to work in an individual
th
6 the office space as they choose environment on another day. They might feel that they
7 need to book an office for a particular meeting. […] So a
while encouraging them to behave
8 palette of choices will be available to all of our customers
like entrepreneurs deeply
or
9 [meaning firm members].’ (Partner and real estate/office
Pe
10
motivated to serving clients. design leader, Big Four)
11
er
12
A
13
14
Re
15
cc
16
vie
17
18
e
19
w
20
pt
21
Ve
22
23
ed
24
rsi
25
26
on
27
28
M
29
30
31
an
32
33
34
35
us
36
37
38
39
c
40
41
rip
42
10.1177/0170840620964072
43
44 35
t
45
46
47
Page 38 of 37
1
2
3 Biographical notes
4
5 Claire-France Picard is an Associate Professor of accounting at Université Laval. Her research
6 focuses on the accounting profession and standard setting. In relation to the accounting profession,
7 she studies the cultural shift from professionalism to commercialism, cultural representations of
8
the profession, accounting firms’ office design and the introduction of marketing expertise into the
9
Au
10 accounting field. She also studies the implications of standard setting for accounting practitioners.
11 She is a member of the editorial board of Critical Perspectives on Accounting and Accounting,
12 Auditing and Accountability Journal.
13
th
14 Sylvain Durocher is Professor of financial accounting at the Telfer School of Management of the
15 University of Ottawa. His main research interests relate to standard-setting issues that he studies in
16
or
17
the perspective of financial statement users, preparers, auditors and standard setters. He is also
P A
18 interested in the various phenomena surrounding the work of public accountants, including office
design, diversity, and recruitment. He also conducts research on social and environmental
ee c
19
20 reporting. He is a member of the editorial board of European Accounting Review, Critical
21 Perspectives on Accounting, Contemporary Accounting Research and Accounting, Auditing and
r Rce
22 Accountability Journal.
23
24
25
Yves Gendron is Professor of Accounting at Université Laval. One of his main research trajectories
evp
26 is to better understand key features of public accountants’ daily lives, such as how they make
27 decisions in action or how they go through stressful situations. Yves has also studied corporate
28 governance within public companies. He realized epistemological studies, examining the birth of
ietwe
29 the interpretive paradigm of accounting research, and the extent of performativity pressures in
30 contemporary academia. Yves is Co-Editor in Chief of Critical Perspectives on Accounting and
31
Associate Editor at Contemporary Accounting Research.
32
33
dVe
34
35
36
Mrsi
37
38
39
aonn
40
41
42
43
us
44
45
46
cr
47
48
49
ip
50
51
52
t
53
54
55
56
57
10.1177/0170840620964072
58
59 36

Peer Review Version: Author Accepted Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Peer Review Version: Author Accepted Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peer Review Version: Author Accepted Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Au

Office design, neoliberal governmentality and professional

Journal: Organization Studies

Special Issue on Organizational control and surveillance of new work

accounting firms, governance of freedom, neoliberal governmentality,

entrepreneur, social control, space

This paper examines how neoliberal governmentality is conveyed and

promoted through office design technologies within professional service

motivates office designers is to provide PSF members with the freedom

14 firm members as accomplished self-entrepreneurs.

26 conduct of conduct as neoliberal agents.

26 design constitutes a critical issue – both theoretically and socially.

47 With an ever-expanding variety of conceptual traditions, the analytical usefulness of

10 thought and designed constitutes a relevant intellectual endeavor.

26 governmentality articulating and disseminating a set of market-centered beliefs that aim to

47 governmentality, Fletcher (2019, pp. 544-545) contends,

53 describes, ‘an environmental type of intervention instead of the internal subjugation of

17 themselves (Fletcher, 2019; Foucault, 1975). Sovereign governmentality, in contrast, is based on a

47 develops a four-part typology of neoliberalism comprising: (1) an overarching governmentality

10 project of governmentality, can be understood as a set of incentive structures designed to shape

47 which promotes incentives in line with an entrepreneurial environment: offering opportunities to

26 various forms of subjectivities. Under neoliberalism, individuals are encouraged to transform

14 workspaces, PSF management seeks to create a web of spatio-organizational features reflective of

a neoliberal governmentality project. In so doing, management pursues a core principle of

10 Sources of data and data collection

26 project was developed and implemented.

47 minutes, averaging 30 minutes and resulting in over 300 photographs.

47 subjectivities sustained through these technologies: cooperative competitiveness; efficiency; and

53 (Managing partner, Small accounting firm)

10 is dedicated to client service and innovation in serving clients:

34 people in terms of desking, in terms of furniture, in terms of different kinds of features,

10 as they want to:

26 As Raffnsøe et al. (2019, p. 167) underline:

10 Future research is needed on the paradoxical phenomenon of government of emancipation

17 power and entrepreneurial freedom in other kinds of organizations – as the neoliberalization of

40 to neoliberal spatio-arrangements could be examined through observation and discussions with

10 Baldry, C. (1999). Space-the final frontier. Sociology, 33(3), 535-553.

14 296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29 Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 14-24.

37 control. Organization, 12, 649-678.

44 (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

50 boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57(1), 75–95.

53 Fletcher, R. (2010). Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of

14 research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

17 Halford, S. (2004). Towards a sociology of organizational space. Sociological Research Online, 9,

40 Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 12(2), 177-202.

53 Spencer, D. (2016). The architecture of neoliberalism: How contemporary architecture became an

10 spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 325–346.

17 director, Big Four

08 October 2014 65b Real estate/office design UK 2013

34 director, Big Four

14 December 2014 60 Partner and real estate/office Canada 2015

15b March 2015 65 b Real estate/office design Canada 2014

44 director, Big Four

47 18 March 2015 30b Managing partner, Big Four Canada 2014

You might also like