Power symbols in office workspace: impact on creativity as microfoundation of the dynamic capabilities of the firm

Keywords: dynamic capabilities, microfoundations, creativity, office workspace, power symbols


Purpose – to analyse the role of artefacts in creativity as a microfoundation for dynamic capabilities.

Design/Method/Approach. This conceptual study aims at identifying core aspects of the physical workspace towards power representations and power symbols and delineates impact factors on creativity and its possible implications on the dynamic capabilities of the firm.

Findings. We suggest that creativity, believed to be a core aspect for innovation, is a microfoundation and one of the most critical elements of dynamic capabilities to sustain and foster the evolutionary and entrepreneurial fitness of the firm.

Practical implications. While it has been shown that hierarchies and power symbols affect the creative performance within a firm, research on the role of physical space as representation of power and its effect on creativity is still limited. Focusing on artefacts might help firms to evoke creativity and, thus, increase innovativeness and dynamic capabilities of a firm.

Originality/Value. In fast-paced, globally competitive business environments, sustainable advantage requires unique and difficult-to-replicate dynamic capabilities. Analysis of microfoundations of dynamic capabilities usually goes only one level deeper, e.g. to the concepts of creativity and innovativeness. We made a further step and analyzed artefacts influencing these and other microfoundations.

Paper type – conceptual.


Download data is not yet available.


Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. CrossRef

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.

Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining: Power, tactics and outcomes. Jossey-Bass Inc., 433 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Berleant, A. (1988). Aesthetic perception in environmental design. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, 84-98.CrossRef

Bogodistov, Y., & Botts, M. (2016). Dynamic capabilities in extremely dynamic environments: “competitive advantage” equals “lives.”. In 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

Ching, F. D. (2014). Architecture: Form, space, and order. John Wiley & Sons.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The creative personality. Psychology Today, 29(4), 36-40.

Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2011). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics, 54(1), 12-20. CrossRef

Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and innovation Management, 6(4), 195-205. CrossRef

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351–1374. CrossRef

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological review, 99(4), 689-723. CrossRef

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual review of psychology, 44(1), 155-194.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The Basis of Social Power, in. D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(6), 1450-1466. CrossRef

Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Muller-Clemm, W., D’Arcy, J. R., & Shaw, K. T. (2000). Decoding Modern Architecture A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163-187. CrossRef

Glenday, D. (2011). Power, compliance, resistance and creativity: Power and the differential experience of loose time in large organisations. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(1), 29-38. CrossRef

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2012). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press.

Heft, H. (1997). The Relevance of Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Perception for Environment-Behavior Studies. Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization, 71–108. CrossRef

Howell, W. C. (1994). Human factors in the workplace. In M. Dunnette, L. Hough & H. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., 209-269).

Hummon, D. M. (1989). House, Home and Identity in Contemporary American Culture. Housing, culture and design: A comparative perspective, 207-228. CrossRef

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265-284.CrossRef

Kristensen, T. (2004). The physical context of creativity. Creativity and innovation management, 13(2), 89-96.CrossRef

Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (2008). Motivation, affect, and hemispheric asymmetry: power versus affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 456-469. CrossRef

Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach. International journal of innovation management, 5(03), 377-400. CrossRef

Lawrence, D. L., & Low, S. M. (1990). The built environment and spatial form. Annual review of anthropology, 453-505. CrossRef

Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology, 95(4), 489-508. CrossRef

Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). 2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 43-91. CrossRef

Marans, R. W., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Evaluating open and conventional office design. Environment and Behavior, 14(3), 333-351. CrossRef

Maslow, A. H., & Mintz, N. L. (1956). Effects of Esthetic Surroundings: I. Initial Effects of Three Esthetic Conditions Upon Perceiving “Energy” and “Well-Being” in Faces. The Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 247–254. CrossRef

Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (1997). Intergroup social relations and architecture: Vernacular architecture and issues of status, power, and conflict. Environment and Behavior, 29(3), 374-421. CrossRef

McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 409-426. CrossRef

Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1981). Interior office design and visitor response: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 646-650. CrossRef

Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U. E., Janssen, S., & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 53-65. CrossRef

Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Elsevier.

O'Connor, G. C. (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach. Journal of product innovation management, 25(4), 313-330. CrossRef

Parker, D. R. (1994). Designing the Future Workplace. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 20(5), 21-22.

Peters, T. (1992). Liberation Management: necessary disorganisation for t he nanosecond nineties.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California management review, 34(2), 29-50. CrossRef

Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. G. (2013). Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism. Psychology Press.

Rafaeli, A. & Worline, M. (2000). Symbols in organizational culture. In Ashkanasy, NEAL M., & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, 2, 398-415. CrossRef

Rapoport, A. (1980). Vernacular architecture and the cultural determinants of form. Buildings and society: Essays on the social development of the built environment, 283-305.

Sligte, D. J., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 891-897. CrossRef

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(4), 578-596. CrossRef

Sommer, R. (2002). Personal space in a digital age. Handbook of environmental psychology, 647-660.

Stegmeier, D. (2008). Innovations in office design: The critical influence approach to effective work environments. John Wiley & Sons.

Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. The Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 568-581. CrossRef

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. CrossRef

Vale, L. (2014). Architecture, power and national identity. Routledge.

Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Yaacov, C. S. (2005). Instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design.

Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 533-551. CrossRef

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. CrossRef

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132-140. CrossRef

How to Cite
Amigoni, G., & Gaedicke, J. C. (2017). Power symbols in office workspace: impact on creativity as microfoundation of the dynamic capabilities of the firm. European Journal of Management Issues, 25(1), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.15421/191701