Organization and leadership

Is the “open” office a way to control?

Christensen, Morsing and Cheney (2008) argue that research and practice in organizational communication seems to promote a kind of regulation of an employee who is opposed to participation and empowerment, in spite of a real-time picture of the commitment among employees. We can link this to a transmission perspective on communication, which in itself can suggest there are other reasons behind the open office landscape’s popularity than the pursuit of transparency and openness, and instead evolves about power. Deetz and Mumbay (1990, p.37, referenced in McPhee & Zaug, 2000, p.4) points out ”All communication necessarily involves the use of power […].” And an organization’s communication will thus always involve a production and reproduction of power.

From a management perspective, the open office can be seen as a strategy to control what is being said, something that can prevent negative rumors in the workplace. If managers are in the same room, employees should be more limited in what they dare to express. We can see traces from the rational school’s policies on staff and control (Scott & Davis, 2007).


Cornelissen (2012, p.171) talks about organizational silence as ”[…] corresponds to a ’closed’ communication climate because it involves a shared and widespread feeling among employees that speaking up is of little use, leading them to withhold potentially valuable information”. The focus here is the organizational culture and leadership as a basis for the communication climate being open or closed. On the other hand, one could argue the individual agent munity, and that this type of communication may find other channels, such as lunch breaks or digital communications in various forms (but that these channels themselves will have their implications in the communication process).

But Danielsson and Bodin (2008) and Toivonen (Larsson, 2010) points to the employees’ reduced motivation because of perceived reduced privacy and personal control. Jansson (2009) argues for the individual’s need for privacy and distance, and Galbraith (Scott & Davis, 2007) talks about the need for ”organizational slack” which means margins for error and reduced demands on performance. In an open environment where reduced performance does not seem socially acceptable, integrity, distance and margins may be difficult to create, and the open plan office fails to ensure these needs.


If open plan offices mean that employees keep quiet about what they perceive as sensitive information, such as negative results or incompetence, it could be bad for business in general, such as the ability for management to make decisions based on data existing in the organization. We can link this to Glauser’s (1984) perspective on unwillingness to communicate further if you feel that the information reflects poorly on your own work or character. The open office does not mean necessarily better knowledge sharing. The image of free communication flows may get dented if one reflects on the consequences of a boss or an employee no longer being able to invite to discussion in their private rooms. To ”invite” may well show a desire to create a personal meeting and also provide space for such physically, both factors that may be valuable for a personal relationship and better communication between the parties.

An introduction to Strategic Communication

What is a social intranet? Part I


On 25 September, Skåne University Hospital (SUS) went over to the same intranet as the entire County Council of Skåne as an organization now gathers under. All pages and news can be commented on, and opening day started with a live chat for SUS’s employees (Mattiasson, 2013). This is an example of what is called a ”social intranet”, which somewhat simplified terms is an internal organizational forum with information document and the opportunity for interactivity. The term ”social” stems from the term ”social media” which from a communication perspective can be understood as that new communication technologies are seen as social with active participants in relation to older media as having passive spectators as an audience. This is a blind historical glance since every time has had a similar discussion and each media form their social function and significance, such as the invention of the printing press, the velocipede, amusement parks, and cinema visits (Andersson, 1993; Ekström, 2010; Sjöholm, 2003). But an organization requires media to communicate internally. Cornelissen (2011) argues that organizations have to communicate with their employees in order to push morale and identification with the organization, and ensure that employees can perform their own specialized tasks. He sees it as a balancing act both to coordinate employee activities to achieve organizational goals, and also meet the individual needs. Larsson (2005) has a broader societal perspective and can explain social intranet as part of the trends of the time, that information should be disseminated by mass communication means, as well as a scholar perspective about two-way communication with active citizens.


But in contrast argues Christensen, Morsing and Cheney (2008 referenced in Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011) that research and practice in organizational communication seems to promote a kind of regulation of employee who is opposed to participation and empowerment, despite a contemporary image of promoting commitment among employees. This can be linked to the transmission view of communication (see among others Axley, 1984; Jansson, 2009; Varey, 2000; Botan & Taylor, 2004) and the traditional approach (Whittington, 2001), where rational planning from leadership direction leads to profit maximization which is seen as the organization’s objectives. Christensen and Cornelissen (2011) argues that the attraction seems to lie in the packaging of stability, order and predictability in an uncertain and segmented world. Coreen, Kuhn, Cornelissen and Clark (2011) is on the same track when they describe the conventionality in that communication itself organizes that stems from a sociological tradition of striving for social order. Here we see reflections in line with Jansson’s (2009) thoughts whether communication is inherently desirable and good.