IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v31y1985i9p1129-1141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity

Author

Listed:
  • Peter R. Monge

    (Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Lynda White Rothman

    (Standard Oil Company, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60680)

  • Eric M. Eisenberg

    (Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Katherine I. Miller

    (Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Kenneth K. Kirste

    (System Development Corporation, 500 Macara Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94086)

Abstract

The proximity among people in an organization is known to exert considerable influence on a variety of organizational outcomes such as performance, stress, and job satisfaction. Early research on proximity in organizations studied pairs of people in job locations that were at fixed distances (e.g., keypunch operators at their work stations). This research procedure ignores three critical features of organizational life. First, people are simultaneously proximate to everyone else in their organization. Second, this proximity changes throughout the day as people move about the organization. Finally, the opportunity and obligation for communication that people perceive by being physically close to others is often more important than the actual physical distance. The present paper develops a definition of organizational proximity that accounts for these previous limitations. Specifically, organizational proximity is defined as two or more people being in the same location where there is both the opportunity and psychological obligation for face-to-face communication. This measure, when aggregated across all people in an organization, provides a single value of how concentrated people are in the various locations of the firm. Further, given the proper data collection techniques, it reveals the degree to which organizational proximity changes throughout the workday and workweek. On the basis of this definition, research was conducted which examined the organizational proximity among employees in a research and development firm for each 15-minute interval of a typical workweek. Two major findings were obtained. First, the level of organizational proximity changed considerably during the course of a typical day, with peaks during the late morning and early afternoon and valleys during the early morning, lunch, and late afternoon hours. Second, the pattern was highly consistent from day-to-day. This consistency permitted the development of a model which enables accurate prediction of the level of organizational density for any time period during any day of the workweek. There are several rather interesting managerial implications in these results. First, they support Peters and Waterman's (Peters, T. J., R. H. Waterman. 1982. Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. Harper & Row, New York, 3--26, 119--155, 200--234.) recent recommendation of "management by wandering around," since that technique maximizes a manager's proximity to employees. Second, the results suggest managerial and electronic alternatives to traditional forms of communication such as face-to-face meetings and phonecalls. Third, they imply alternative strategies for managing the daily fluctuations in availability of people and communication that result from differences and changes in organizational proximity.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter R. Monge & Lynda White Rothman & Eric M. Eisenberg & Katherine I. Miller & Kenneth K. Kirste, 1985. "The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(9), pages 1129-1141, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:31:y:1985:i:9:p:1129-1141
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christine Cooper & Stephanie Hamel & Stacey Connaughton, 2012. "Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 433-453, August.
    2. Stephen P. Borgatti & Rob Cross, 2003. "A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 432-445, April.
    3. Laku Chidambaram & Lai Lai Tung, 2005. "Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 149-168, June.
    4. Christian Catalini, 2018. "Microgeography and the Direction of Inventive Activity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4348-4364, September.
    5. Kunz, Werner & Seshadri, Sukanya, 2015. "From virtual travelers to real friends: Relationship-building insights from an online travel community," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1822-1828.
    6. Francesco Bripi & Daniela Grieco, 2023. "Participatory incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 813-849, September.
    7. Abbasi, Alireza & Jaafari, Ali, 2013. "Research impact and scholars’ geographical diversity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 683-692.
    8. Brooke Foucault Welles & Noshir Contractor, 2015. "Individual Motivations and Network Effects," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 659(1), pages 180-190, May.
    9. Anya Johnson & Shanta Dey & Helena Nguyen & Markus Groth & Sadhbh Joyce & Leona Tan & Nicholas Glozier & Samuel B Harvey, 2020. "A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(3), pages 402-424, August.
    10. Heather Vough, 2012. "Not All Identifications Are Created Equal: Exploring Employee Accounts for Workgroup, Organizational, and Professional Identification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 778-800, June.
    11. Alberto Gherardini & Alberto Nucciotti, 2017. "Yesterday’s giants and invisible colleges of today. A study on the ‘knowledge transfer’ scientific domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 255-271, July.
    12. Jonathon N. Cummings, 2004. "Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 352-364, March.
    13. Esterling, Kevin & Neblo, Michael & Lazer, David, 2009. "Explaining the Diffusion of Web-Based Communication Technology among Congressional Offices: A Natural Experiment using State Delegations," Scholarly Articles 4481606, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Anna Maria Lis, 2020. "Development of proximity in cluster organizations," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(2), pages 116-132, December.
    15. T. S. Evans & R. Lambiotte & P. Panzarasa, 2011. "Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 381-396, October.
    16. Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2022. "A Call for Research on the Scaling of Organizations and the Scaling of Social Impact," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(2), pages 255-268, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    organizational proximity;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:31:y:1985:i:9:p:1129-1141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.