AN ESSAY ON AESTHETIZATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE

A Sociological Discourse of Daily Life in LECO

Subject: Organizational Behavior

Subject Lecturer: Dr. Dhamikka Jayawardena

By

1. DILSHAN DE SILVA 5266FM2013012

2. M.A.N. COORAY 5266FM2013008

3. T.P.G.D. DE ALWIS 5266FM2013010

4. S.P. DHARMAPALA 5266FM2013013

5. T. KARTHIKA 5266FM2013033

MBA/ MPM/ M.Sc. Year: 2014

i

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2

2. ‘Organization Space’ as a Social Construct ............................................................................ 5

3. Space and Power ...................................................................................................................... 7

4. Spatio (Spatial)-Temporal of Space and Non-pedigree Architecture ...................................... 8

5. Inside/ Outside and Order/ Disorder ........................................................................................ 9

6. Aesthetics of Organization (Space) ....................................................................................... 10

7. Aesthetic Life in LECO ......................................................................................................... 12

8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18

References ..................................................................................................................................... 20

2

1. Introduction

Work is part of daily life of a ‘human being’ in form of economy and socially. Fiona Wilson (2014)

finds, in fact, “[it] occupies a substantial proportion of our [humans’] lives”. Therefore, it is natural

the ‘human beings’ behavior within the confinement of ‘the work place’ (space) matters

irrespective of whether it is a social or psychological discourse, or more even it is the construct of

‘organizational (or management) theory’. As generic understanding1 on Organizational Behavior

(OB) goes on to imply it is a study of individuals and their behavior in context of organization as

a workplace setting, it is quite spontaneous to evoke the understanding of causality (mostly non-

linear) and consequences of behavior of the individuals (human beings) and the interrelationship

with ‘the work place setting’.

Now the question would be what is this ‘work place setting’? Is it merely a physical, material

environment, which is tangible and conspicuous, with a definite shape (obviously spatially

constraint by a ‘boundary’) and colour, or is it intangible, something of discreet, without definite

shape (confined by boundary) and colour, which could be something of much of social, a nexus of

interacting individuals (human beings)? or could it be both at concurrent interplay, which generates

a complex, chaotic, and abstract ‘cognition’ or may be ‘non-cognitive’ intelligence, a ‘intrinsic

human awareness or awakening’ of ‘human-material’ interface? Answer to this question (though

it may not sounds direct) sought by evoking the doctrines of Martin Kornberger and Stewart Clegg

(2003), where they have recognized the necessity of ‘space’ for organizations to ‘unfold’, “even

though if it [these entities] is [are] temporary”. Thus, is it something of ‘space’? Ibid, continue to

describe that it is organizing of ‘organization space’. Zooming on ‘space’, they proceed to identify

‘it’ as a social construct while, it is being a ‘material’ construct of architectural nature. Althusser,

1971, found that ‘space’ as ‘ways’ of filling up or denying an absence with “meanings and

presences”, “which future generations might inherit”. Rosen et al. (1990), articulate this construct

by recognizing ‘space’ as simultaneity of both “the medium and outcome” of “the action” [action],

where “it” (the space) repeatedly (“reclusively”) arrange (“organize”). In addition, ibid, went on

to recognize ‘space’ as “experience” and as “limit and enabler of possibilities of further social

construction”.

1 Ref: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/subjectguides/organizationalbehavior.html

3

Thus, these discourses lead us to imply on understanding, ‘the organization space’ is part of lives

of individuals of work-force, which could as a social construct that conspires as ‘living (or life) in

organization space’ or ‘organization life’.

The next question comes to our curious minds when pondering into the notions of life in

organization and “filling up meanings and presences” in organization as a space (or work setting),

how the lives individuals (beings) as ‘subjects’ (Witkin, 2009 p.63) of variables in physical space

would be affected? How they would react, interact, or even be passive in their behavior of ‘the

work life’? Roethilsberger and Dickson (1939) suggest that “changing variables in physical

space” alter social behavior of the subjects and create “[a]new and unanticipated social space”

[social behavior]. Louis (1981) finds that organizations are not only merely “social structures”,

which are “governed by instrumental rationality” (the notion of linear casualty between cause and

effect of problem and solution), but it is the social environment (milieu) of those who are presence

and the container of culture of those inhabitants. Becker (1982) and Hatch (1997), independently,

showed that “office space influences human interaction and its symbolic functions” (Korngberger

and Clegg, 2009). And Dandridge et al. (1980) implicated “organizational symbolism” to

organizational culture, which in generic term the collection of artifacts, believes, rituals, etc. of the

inhabitants. Alternatively, Cohen (1976) finds symbols as “objects, acts, relationships or linguistic

formations that [,which] stand ambiguously for a multiplicity of meanings, evoke emotions, and

impel men [individuals] to action”. Thus, these two notions, viz. the culture and symbols

intermingle and complement (metaphorically) to manifest in organization space. Gagliardi (xx,

p.7) cites that ‘symbols’ exist (or manifest) in three forms, viz. verbal, actions, and artifacts and

aesthetic knowledge. The latter, artifacts and aesthetic knowledge comprise “material artifacts”.

According to Gagliardi (2009, p.10), “the material artifacts, or intentional products of human

action which exist the organization independently of their creator and which can be perceived by

the senses: products, images, buildings, furnishings, arrangements of physical space. Given the

durability of physical matter, [the] artifacts are able [to] tenaciously [stubbornly] and

increasingly to transmit particular messages and cultural stimuli, thereby encouraging the

diffusion and sharing of special ‘modes of feelings’ in ways that all are more efficient because they

evade intellectual control”. Ibid further finds, the aesthetic nature of “the material artifacts” as

“vehicles of sensory knowledge” and defines as “corporate pathos” (a quality that evokes pity or

4

sadness) [or ethos, the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its

attitudes and aspirations]. In the modern symbolism thinking, material artifacts are of symbols and

alternatively, symbols are of signs. Witkin (2009, p.57) finds “aesthetic symbolism”, as signs, is

not arbitrary in relation to their referents. Signs of nature creating stimuli on their subject. Ibid,

finds the same property exists in aesthetic symbolism, but as a system, their stimulus properties

“directly and qualitatively” manifested with meaning of these symbols. Furthermore, ibid finds

aesthetic signs are subject-centric. Articulating this nature, ibid describes, “they [aesthetic

symbols] find their “reciprocals” in the “readiness”, the subject’s presence or I-sense. To have

presence is to form a being [individual], it is to be in a particular way. Aesthetic symboling works

through “calling out” this presence in the subject [individual]”.

Witkin (2009 p.58) further argues that a stimulus to become aesthetic, it must be capable of

evoking “presence” in subject, once it (stimulus) mingle with aesthetic system, meaning mingled

with and affected by other stimuli in the system. Ibid, finds codes in aesthetic symbols and suggests

that they are relatively consistent. Furthermore, ibid suggests that the subjects (individuals)

internalize and adapt these codes to form aesthetics of his/ her own through a process of responsive

relationship (attunement) with the surroundings of everyday life. Ibid (p.59), identifies aesthetics

as phenomena (an integral part) in organizational life, but cautioned of trivialization if considered

them as ‘esthetic’ or sensuous experience of pleasure of pleasing senses. Rather, Dewey (1934),

Langer (1967), and Reid (1969) understood aesthetic “as a mode of understanding, of knowing,

and as intelligence”, while Witkin (1974, 1995, 2005) realized it as “intelligence of feeling”.

Witkin (2009, p.60) suggests that “actions itself, even the actions through ……….., is an aesthetic

accomplishment”.

Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to contemplate how the phenomena of aesthetics are taking

place in everyday organizational life and in what manner. We are doing so, compelled to invoke

propounding and profound discourses of ‘space’ as a social construct and their implication to and

from material environment to be informed of the compelling arguments on labyrinth relationship

between space and aesthetics; and so to say, aesthetization in organizational life. However, our

work would not be complete, unless, a real world example (life) being examined (experienced) by

adapting visual methods.

5

2. ‘Organization Space’ as a Social Construct

Kornberger and Clegg (2003) found the organizing of space is a prerequisite of “evolvement and

development” of organizations. Scholars like them argues quite contrary to the ‘rational’ thinking

of scientific management that was originated in early 20th century, the discourse which doctrines

of Taylor and Weber dominant. Kornberger and Clegg (2003) found that such theories are

cognitive and invoke rationality and linearity in causes and their relations. Ibid, reflect this is a

“fashion” and dominates the management thinking to adapt as “driving forces behind

organizations”.

‘Cartesian rationality’, the basis of scientific management thinking, implies the notion of “strategy

determines structure” or alternatively, “form follows function” (ibid), the discourse which trivial

the influence and power of architecture or material settings of organization space for organizations

and their functioning. However, Strati (1999) criticizes hierarchical relation between ‘mind and

matter’ and suggests this is rather “mutually constitutive interrelation” (Kornberger and Clegg,

2003). The works Hetherington (1997) and Zukin (1993), had brought to light, anew perspective

of the importance of “materiality of space as it is organized” (Kornberger and Clegg, 2003) and

lead the discourse of reckoning “importance of space and its powerful influence on organizational

process” (ibid). Hiller and Hanson (1984: 2) realize this as the “ordering of space in buildings is

really about the ordering of relations between people”. Hiller and Hanson (1984:ix), articulate this

notion by stating:

“By giving shape and form to our material world, architecture structures the system of space in which we

live and move. In that it does so, it has a direct relation – rather than a merely symbolic one – to social life,

since it provides the material preconditions for the patterns of movement, encounter and avoidance which

are the material realization – as well as sometimes the generator – of social relations.”

What really imperative in this discourse is the relational aspect and the nature of its influence thus,

being precondition, direct, and affect the individuals of space on their moves or actions;

alternatively implying the ‘active and live’ nature of spatial dimension on the human movements

or rather the behavior. The movements, as it is discussed in this discourse, how Kornberger and

Clegg (2003 p.77) define is as ‘communications, interactions, and occupations of variety’ of the

inhabitants of space.

6

Lefebvre (1991: 94) suggests space as of what it contains, while Munro (2001a) identifies space

as ‘social morphology’ (a study of forms, shapes, etc.). However, in this discourse there are two

distinctive schools of thoughts, stems from different paradigms of ‘Cartesian rationality’ that is

the discourse advocates, complement the Taylor and Weber’s management theories (modernist

thinking), and other, the sociological, post-modernist, liberal thinking of ‘human and material’

interface and interaction of complexity and uncertainty.

The Cartesian rationality implies standardization of organization space. As Walter Gropius (1935:

24), an advocate of the modernist rational thinking, perceived success of architecture would be

through standardization of space (and he was in a prime stage of industrialization of the West).

Ibid, conceptualized the standardization as a criterion for “polite and well-manned society” aiming

at realizing standards of excellence, rather creating short-lived (transient) innovations (novelties).

Schools of thought alike Gropius found chaos (dis-order) and dis-organization is not acceptable,

something of ‘evil’. Le Corbusier (1923: 110) complementing the thoughts of Gropius realizes:

“A standard is necessary for order in human effort. A standard is established on sure bases, not capriciously but

with the surety of something intentional and a logic controlled by analysis and experiment. All men have the same

organism, the same functions. All men have the same needs”.

What strikes about Le Corbusier’s notion was the emphasis on uniformity and homogeneity in

functionality and needs of all human being (individuals). As Clegg and Dunkerley (1980) founded

that, this notion was not surprising, since both the architectural designs and organizational designs

(based on modernist organizational theories) invoke the Cartesian rationality.

Challenging the modernists’ view on organization space, the modernists argue as considering the

organization space as architectural complexity, where the behavior of its inhabitants more than of

linear rationality, where ‘invisible hands’ generating and leaving space for uncertainty and

sprouting of unexpected presence or absence. As Kornberger and Clegg (2003 p.77) sought:

“Architecture of complexity, which is always, simultaneously, a politics of complexity, explores these fields

– not in order to define them but to create openings that lead into an unknown future, full of ambiguity and

chance”.

7

The scholars of liking of these found spatial dimension of organizations as powerful tools whereas,

to their contenders, the modernist-rationalists, who found the organizational space a trivial element

of managing organizations or as a vehicle of creating order. Peters (1992: 413), management of

space is imperative and has direct influence on communication, generating creativity, cultural

change speeding up innovation projects, and enhancing learning process. Kornberger and Clegg

(2003 p.77) suggest buildings should be reckoned as social objects of providing or preventing

opportunity for innovation, creativity, (dis)order, enhance or hinder communication and

movements, and so forth. Ibid, also found material organization setting accommodates complexity

of sociality of its inhabitants, their politics of complexity – that challenge the spatial power relations

and finds way to alter or re-organizing of spatial arrangements for generating intrinsic creativity

and innovation.

Therefore, this provide us the point to emphasize the complexity and vivid nature of phenomena

of the consequent of the complexity, in the next sections of the article.

3. Space and Power

Markus (1993) and Hirst (1995) found space, consequent to managing and organizing of

communication flows, has direct influence to and from power. Girard (1995), space engages in

politics of complexity. Markus (1993) finds buildings as cultural objects of crating social space

and provider of answers to the questions of power, order, classification, control, and function,

while accommodating aesthetics, creativity, innovation, and freedom.

Michel Foucault (1995) explicitly explored this aspect of space on organization in his doctrine of

“panoptical space”, which in his thoughts is an “architectural apparatus” of creating and

indwelling power in organization space. Ibid, finds, panopticon as an analytical space for ‘workers

of higher hierarchical order’ (managers) to observe the workers of relatively lower hierarchical

order (subordinates) however, as a corporate ethos (as a part of its culture) of being seeing at work.

Thinkers of linear rationality would find material space and its artifacts (partitions, ground floor

and upper-floor, cubical, signboards, etc.) are of creating order in management of organization.

Alternatively, this could also be controlling movements of people in organization space on their

8

movements – where to go or not to go, communication – whom to connected and whom are not be

connected, and so forth. Markus (1993: 96) finds, “power through the material space defines

people as members (of different kinds) and strangers”, and this implies that it is something to do

with communication and accessibility amongst people and information. For instance, as cited in

scholarly articles, “the penthouses in large corporates and dedicated elevator for those who are of

higher management like directors and Chief Executive Officers or senior partners of large legal

companies and ‘the need to know basis’ files of the nature, kept in a secluded, some remote place

of uneasy access” symbolizes the space of power or space for power; which gives stimuli or

implicit (not necessarily, sometimes explicit) a message of ‘you are out of the league’. Thus,

material space by encouraging or discouraging accessibility, advocate application of power in

organizations.

Alternatively, power in organization could be seen as relational to boundaries of organization

space. As Markus (1993) suggested, buildings (as boundaries) separate members from strangers –

the inside/ outside. On the other hand, power is control for organizational order from disorder.

4. Spatio (Spatial)-Temporal of Space and Non-pedigree Architecture

As Wieck (1979) quite explicitly informed, “……what might seems useful [strategy] today [to

organization] can become the obstacle to tomorrow’s [organizational] success”, strategies and

plans of organizations are contingent to situations, which are of subjected to the change of time

(temporal variation). This notion challenges the rational thinking of structure follows strategy (or

form follows function – as Davinsm suggest). Despite being logical and cognitive, if this is the

case there should not be structural changes encountered in real world organizational settings – so

to speak of evoking the postmodernist scholarly thoughts. As Pawley (1998) informed, if structure

follows strategy and form follows function, then in architecture we could find what it is called

“terminal-architecture”. This notion implies us the domination of structural strategy over the

functional strategy.

The notion of function flows the form implies the unstable nature of organization space as a space

for filling in the actions (function), which is subjected to the variation of contingent of time

(spatial-temporal). In the modernist-rational thinking, time was found to be trivial and linear

9

process in changing management or change management (Masokowski and Earley, 2000).

Whereas, the postmodernists argue contradict the triviality and linearity of change by expressing

space as “bearer of complexity and contradiction”, while time forces these changes

(transformation) from one state to the next. However, Clark and Clegg (1998) found that change

in organization is not linear, meaning transformation of one state to the next in uninterrupted

manner. It is rather the change is already there, existing, lurking in the dark shadows of the one it

is already existing, constantly threatening the existing, for changing.

As Kornberger and Clegg (2003 p.78) pointed out “the new comes into being when the figure-

ground” relation changed, once the inside/ outside or order/ disorder is challenged. Ibid, evoking

the thoughts of Foucault (1970, 1998) and Deleuze (1998, 1993, 1995), inform such changes are

taking place in pockets of folds, where order is dis-ordered and heterotopias, where dominant

culture being placed with anew. Alternatively, this is speaking of challenging the order or power

of control in organization space, which was legitimated or created by legitimate architecture or

“pedigree architecture”; whereas, the driver of change or challenge to order or control comes from

“non-pedigree architecture” – “architecture without architects” (Kornberger and Clegg, 2003

p.78).

5. Inside/ Outside and Order/ Disorder

The notion of inside/ outside of organization of space cognized as structural demarcation or

boundary of what it should be filled (or included) or not to filled (or excluded) as expressed by

Kornberger and Clegg (2003 p.82). Watson (1994: 222) finds this as the way of control over the

inside of organization from uncertainty of the outside world. Chia (1996) finds organizations (their

boundaries) provide order, codes, mechanisms, etc. to provide sense of stability and certainty

against both the internal and external turbulences, uncertainties, and disorders. However, Foucault

(1998) points the dialogic nature of ‘human rationality’ as to make sense or provide meaning to

phenomena or ‘idea’. For instance, ibid finds that rationality understood where there is madness,

civilized requires savage to discernment itself.

Kornberger and Clegg (2003 p.82) find that there is no connection between inside and outside and

the boundary exist between them to create the separation, blurs in the “labyrinth” of material

10

structures of space. Gilles Deleuze (1998) found fold, in organization space, is exactly a space in-

between, where the order of inside/ outside and its linear causality interrupted. Ibid, explains it is

absence of a ‘center’ that determines periphery however, it by nor mean in absence of actions,

rather active play of forces can be found, while in fading separation between cause and effect. In

fact, fold is a space in-between and space with nor inside or outside (Le Corbusier, 1924). Folds

find themselves filled with members as well as strangers, use as well as ab-use, privacy as well as

common/ public, and order with disorder, creating anew space, a space of ambiguity (Kornberger

and Clegg, 2003 p.83).

While Deleuze’s folds provide ‘space of ambiguity’, Foucault’s heterotopias provide space of

“anarchy and absence of logic (un-decidability)” (Kornberger and Clegg, 2003 p.86). Foucault

(1998) found heterotopias as space that never being normal, rather they are ‘ab-normal’. He

thought they seek no unity or homogeneity, rather space of challenging ‘the established order’ to

open up for ‘new order’ or ‘change identity’. Kornberger and Clegg (2003 p.86) saw heterotopias

as space of creating new power relation by breaking the figure-ground relation. Alternatively, as a

social construct, heterotopia challenges hegemonic culture, practices, or order to create its own

identity or to form a new form.

6. Aesthetics of Organization (Space)

Earlier in this essay, in the introduction, we have discussed what it is meant to be aesthetic or

aesthetics of (organization) space. Gagliardi (2009) finds aesthetics in material artifacts, while

Witkin (1995) found it is as organization symbolism. Meanwhile, Witkin (2009), again found

organization aesthetic as readiness of subject for evoking ones presence or sense in his/ her

surrounding or artifacts, which surround him/ her. Aesthetics are not of arbitrary in stimulating

individual. There is distinct code to stimulate the subject in creating ‘sense’. Ibid (p.61), describes,

aesthetics of organization (space) and their influence on subjects (individuals), phenomenon what

we call aesthetization, as:

“Insofar as organizations design situations of action for their members in a sensuously coherent

and consistent way, they call out in individuals a certain “presence” — a structured tension, a

readiness for action, a preparedness for experience — which corresponds to the sensuous values manifest

in the design of the action situation. Physical artifacts are integral to the design of action situations, and they

play an important part in calling out “appropriate” attitudes and responses in members. It is in and through

11

the design of action situations that organizations indicate, in the “presence” that they awaken in their

members, how they are to be navigated and lived”.

Witkin’s discourse leads us to a notion of interrelation, interplay between subject’s sense, feeling,

intelligence of feelings and his/ her physical setting, what ibid called it as “the action setting”. Ibid

challenges the linear, rational thinking of causality, which determine ‘effective of being at work’

or organizational effectiveness. He argues to compel the idea that the ‘aesthetic character of

action’, and its ‘qualities’ are core to effectiveness of the action and yields what he calls as

‘demand characteristics’, which he found as imperative to performing the action whilst, preserving

to its specific qualitative values. Physical artifacts sets off the action settings and thus, determining

demand characteristics for one to perform the action. The sense binding of individual to these

demand characteristics, which manifested in the physical space or artifacts, which filled it with,

appeal to the presence or awakening of the being to be prepared for the action. In Witkin’s

thoughts, such realization is “aesthetic accomplishment” and finds that organizations’ values

[destruct] are continuously recreated in work of organization members. Hence, one could visualize

aesthetization as dynamic, expressive, linguistic (not necessarily verbal), and vivid in

manifestation as a sensory outcome. Alternatively, it could be perceived as ‘living’ or ‘related to

being of subject’.

Collating with the discourses of ‘different spaces and differences of space’ in the thinking of

postmodernists, one could see a relation emerging between space and aesthetization or we could

say spatiality in aesthetics of organizational life. We could argue that per se the constructs of these

arguments, space is aesthetic and what filled or conspires in it, are aesthetic.

So to say, we could extend this argument as folds and heterotopias or power implications of

material boundaries and artifacts, panopticans are aesthetic as phenomena and in manifestation.

Of course this may differ in terms of reinforcing or hindering or even positive or negative in

stimulating the awareness, preparedness, and sense of feeling in the subject because the vivid

nature of aesthetics or its phenomenon – the aesthetization.

12

Witkin was informed by Ryner Banham (1960, p.210) on ‘geometric spectacle’, an architectural

simplicity lineage to the industrialization in the West. Heskett (1980) and Sparke (1986) inform

which as consequence of the relentless progress of rationalization and standardization of products.

Witkin (2009, p.60, 61) find this phenomena, as a social construct, as ‘aesthetic imperative’ or

‘machine aesthetic’. Ibid furthering the argument implies this aesthetic nature as Cartesian

rationalism and modernists order of rational thinking. Witkin further informs us that this flatness

of architectural nature is not accidental or unintentional, it is in fact was conscious efforts of

corporate world to assure order of effectiveness and efficiency, separation of industrial world

(organizations) from private (domestic). Ibid sees rectilinear-flatness of architecture in work

surroundings informing or stimulating the inhabitant to sense that space as order, bureaucracy,

hierarchy, and disciplined management only legion to accomplishing organizational strategy.

7. Aesthetic Life in LECO

What more-better way to understand and convenience of discourse than actually experiencing it.

This was exactly the intention, when we decided to intrude the daily life ‘of’ and ‘in’ LECO to

experience the discourses, which pertain to spatiality of aesthetization and phenomena suggested

in organization space.

LECO, which stands for Lanka Electricity Company (Pvt.) Ltd., was established for the purpose

electricity distribution of Sri Lanka (Ref: www.lecko.lk/). It is vision and mission voice serving

customers as people, earning profit, caring for nature for its sustainability, and allow space for

innovation to address the customer needs and as service for society. Assuming the linearity of

vision, mission with corporate strategy, this what we could see as transpiring as strategy for the

organization. Ideally speaking, this strategy should be embedded, internalized, and ‘in functional’

in the all aspect of the organization as a harmonize system. We have selected one of the branch

offices of LECO, which is in Rathmalana, selected as the organization space for the experience.

On an ordinary office or working day, we visited this office. Once we reached the office or

organization space, we were ‘greeted by a large gate made of intimidating, black iron bars with

spikes. Immediately, we were under the impression of ‘not all are welcome’, ‘authorized people

only allowed through this gate! (an inside/ outside); although the security guard, who was guarding

13

the gate did not tell us as this, but that was how we felt. Later, politely, though with a subtle insist

guided us to “the customer car park”, which was virtually a bear ground with a boundary wall and

an interior-peripheral portioning, ivory white, picket fence, outlined by bright red flowery plants.

Although we felt bit like an outsiders, slightly offended of discrimination, once we saw this bright

red flower terrace against sparkling, pure white background of the picket fence, a feeling of

homely-ness warmth in on us.

We were guided to ‘the front, main entrance’ to the office by the pretty picket fence and nicely,

orderly concrete paved walkway (passage), we were at a tall, not so bright, but neat, building of a

rectangular shapes and perfect, tall, cubical columns – a symbol of order and authority (Cartesian

rationality in function). This site gave us sense of ‘power and authority’, ‘wealth and command

over the wealth’.

The intimidating, ugly, black gate/ Warm and pretty, bright picket fence

An image of authority, a symbol of order and power expressing though tall and stern in shape

– the building, boundary of the inside, a sort of ‘panoptican’ watching over the outside

14

Walk our way through to the ‘front, main entrance’, we were experiencing a complex of perfectly

rectangular shapes of windows and doors there to greet us. Again, we were witnessing the

Tailorism and Weber’s rationalization and standardization, a geometrical spectacle, the aesthetic

imperative of flatness. Later we would experience and learn more of this spectacle through seining

the interior walls, windows, passageways, doors at passageways, furniture (tables and filling

cabinets), and even the stationeries in the office.

Once we entered to ‘the inside’ of the office, a ground floor, we were facing a lobby area of the

building, which is the area for customers, cashiers, technical officers, and receptionist (public

relation officer), which we would later realize as space for customers (the outsiders) and

operational and front line personnel (the members) to interact, communicate, meet together for

daily business of bill payment, negotiating to prevent disconnections, lobbying for wavers, favors,

etc. – a place fill with voices, discussions, chit-chats, constant movements. A space of movements

and vivid voices and actions. A space lived with busy bodies of people!

Aesthetic imperative/ mechanistic aesthetic in function and maintaining the order

15

Our curious minds were noticing the abrupt change of ‘tone, the atmosphere’, the sense, the

impression from seeing the inside outside separation blur in the midst of this busy space. We were

slowly started to see the change of material shapes, the pattern from flat, order geometrical flatness

to a place of vivid shapes, strange artifacts intruding and disturbing geometrical order by bringing

different in shapes of circles against rectangles, lurking in corners are vivid shapes of ‘greenery’

(plants), a water dispenser and a mounted flat-screen, 52inch colour television flicking in low

volume; a one or two bodies standing and watching, the almost silent image flickering on the

screen…..,

A fold in ordered office space of neat cabinets, rectangular tables, files was competing with

intruders of greenery, the water dispenser, filled-emptied large, 20 liter water bottles, and were

creating sudden disturbance to what supposed to be an ordered, organizational, formal space with

space of domestic, personal, and informal. This was a fold that dis-ordered the order of inside-

outside as well as formal and informal.

Customer lobby area – a fold, allowing space for insiders and outsiders to mix

A fold – fading boundary of inside-outside, from geometrical harmony to geometrical chaos, order

– disorder, from synthetic to natural

16

Even the fading boundary of inside-outside was vivid in the customer lobby area. What we would

observe later was ‘the office space’ of the customer serving, busy space was unfolding

encapsulating a disordered fold of a middle-garden. This was a total contrast to what it is the inside.

In addition to the total change of geometry, shapes between these two spaces, the actions, which

take place in them also differ. The inside, the inhabitants, the personnel find formalities, work, the

desk-work, attending to customers. The outside, the inside garden, we could see occasions of

personnel walking outside to the garden to answer a private call, to have private, quick chat with

a colleague, etc. A space for misbehavior, abuse, informality. Momentarily, contrarily, the

members, the personnel become outsiders, intruders to the formal order - the management. At the

same time, while they are abusing the time and space, these inhabitants find serenity over

preoccupation of personal or formal issue, the change - leisure while working.

Once we were in the upper floor of the building and overlooking the surrounding outside, we

realized that the aesthetic of the inside and outside spread out from inside. The customer care park,

a randomness, disorder, lack of shape were contrasting on the ‘members’, personnel’s car park,

which we could observe of order in manner of physically separated space and roof covering these

separated spaces. This creates a sense of order to prevent customers’ intruding into the stable,

ordered space for parking office cars, informing customers, subtly, voicing, “you are not an insider,

a member”.

A boundary, separation of outsiders (customers) and insiders (personnel)

17

The upper floor of the building was exclusively for the executives, the hierarchically up of the

management. Unlike, the ground floor, the space has filled with series of partition walls, glass

screens, and a connecting passage way. These artifacts were expressing authority and power in the

hierarchical ladder. What was striking for us is the ‘panoptican’, cubical – the separation between

the managers and subordinates. While subordinates were stationed in a room of rows of tables and

chairs, sometimes connecting to each other, face-to-face, and clustered, the managers were seated

in solitary, overlooking the subordinates through half glass screen partition.

However, our experience was coloured by the realization of existence of heterotopias in the

pockets of this organization (action) setting. We found the work of art, the masterpieces of non-

pedigree architects in this action setting. One of the heterotopias was the subordinates of accounts

department of the organization to seclude from the watching eye of the manger, the branch

accountant, had created space for their own for privacy, camouflage as a file storing area in their

legitimate office space. Non-pedigree architecture of janitor of the office was seen in corner of

entrance to male restroom (toilet). The janitor has (ab)use this secluded corner in ‘the space’ and

created ‘anew space’ by giving new identity of ‘storage area’ for his cleaning materials. Another

heterotopia was the (ab)use of space in upper floor, in remote, unnoticed space, a room, without a

door, in status of decay, converted into storing bulky files and documents. Heterotopias were also

observed in bends of passages to stack, packet of documents. However, the most fascinating

(ab)use of space was seen in the backyard garden of the building. The non-pedigree architect of

this heterotopia is “Prame”, the office-aid. His aesthetization was so vivid and live, and challenging

the ‘order’, the normalcy, the very purpose of the organization and its strategy. What Prame has

done was convert the office backyard space, which supposed by the management to use as dump-

‘The panoptican’

18

yard for broken equipment like air-conditioners, tables, chairs, into a ‘home-garden’. His

masterpiece has given new identity to that space, the backyard strip. Managers and subordinates

alike ab(use) this anew space as place for smokers to congregate in tea-break in morning or

relaxation and leisurely chat in afternoon, or for female members of the organization to share

domestic concerns, and so forth. This anew space has provided unexpected, uncertain, and un-

found meaning to the whole action setting and diversity to their routine, controlled work actions.

8. Conclusion

We started this essay, by attempting to understand the interrelation between work place setting and

behavior of human individuals at work. We understood, by evoking the thinking of Fiona Wilson,

the work life comprise major portion of human life. We went on by referring to the doctrines of

Kornberger and Clegg to define and establish arguments about discourses central to work place

setting and organization life. We were able to establish direct relationship between the two by

invoking both the modernists and postmodernists constructs. We found the profound arguments of

“Heterotopias”

19

Witkin, unfolding and establishing sense about aesthetization and its manifestation of different

forms. Later we were to see that his discourses compliment and complimented by social construct

of space and central discourses of Korngberger and Clegg (generative space), Gagliardi (aesthetic

symbolism), Foucault (heterotopias), and Deleuze (folds).

All these theories and thinking lead us to construct the notion of aesthetization as a consequent

and an outcome of being intelligent about feelings or I-sense or coming to presence as an interplay

between action setting and subject. We learned that aesthetization is found in space in between

and it could be even in space of rationalization and standardization, spaces, which separate the

organizational and persona lives; and we realized those as “aesthetic imperatives”. All these were

informing us that any given organization space, there could be more than one type of spaces or

aesthetics could be found in a constant interplay to enhance or hinder their relative actions or

challenging the existing identities to give rise to anew.

Informed by the compelling, abstractive discourses and of cause fascinated by them, we were

excited to reflect on our experience at LECO, the selected action setting or organization space. The

visual evidences proved the fact of more than single form of space and aesthetics are in existence.

We were also informed by these observations that form does not follow the function, as in the case

of LECO, which supposed to be an action setting of encouraging innovation and creativity to serve

people and business is central to this notion. However, legacies of being a modern organization,

give rise to the inherent aesthetic imperatives to stimulate quite the opposite in functioning. So to

say, authority and power of symbols of LECO free movements, communications between

customers and organization’s inhabitants, and sometimes, even within the inhabitants themselves.

We have witnessed the existence of folds and heterotopias in LECO’s action settings, some of

which has provided anew, unique identity of use or abuse of the space in between. LECO could

capitalize on some of these unorthodox, uncertain, dis-ordered spaces to generate new ideas and

creating positive energy to drive forward the organization to be innovative and people (customer)

caring.

20

References

Robert W. (2009), ‘The Aesthetic imperative of a rational-technical machinery: A study in

organizational control through the design of artifacts’, Symbols and artifacts, Music and Arts in

Action Journal, vol. 2, pp56-58.

Pasquale G. (1991), ‘Organizational Anthropology, Organization theory , and management

practice’, Hallinnon Tutkimus, pp 173-179

Pasquale G. (1991), Designing organizational setting, The interplay between physical, symbolic

and social structures, pp 67-77

Martin K, Stewart C. (2003), Culture and Organization, The architecture and complexity, Vol.

9(2), June, pp. 75–91

Martin K., Tyrone P. (2011), Management & Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and

Practice, ISBN-10: 1412948789

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1968) Man in organization, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA.

William G. Ouchi, Alan L. (1985), Graduate school of management; Annual article review ,

Martin K.,Stewart R. Clegg,B. (2004), bringing Space Back in: Organizing the Generative

Building, Vol 25; DOI: 10.1177/0170840604046312

Martin K. Stewart C. (2010), Culture and Organization, 2003 The Architecture of Complexity, Vol

9,2, pp 75-91, DOI:10.1080/14759550302804

Hillier B. and Hanson J. (1984), The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

Vonne Y. Masakokski , Steve K. (2011), Human performance in virtual environments,

Computing instinct, pp107-118

Rolland M., Karl Weick (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizion, Disorganisation, Centre

for Social Theory & Technology, Keele University, UK

Cooper, R. (1997) 'The Visibility of Social Systems’, Ideas of Difference: Social Spaces and the

Labour of Division, pp. 32-41

Vivien W. (1996), Research Policy, Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm , DOI:

10.1016/0048-7333(95)00847-0

Praeger. (1960), Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, Theory and Design in the First

Machine Age.