PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 1, 2003Administrative Science Quarterly364 citationsOpen Access

Relating Physical Environment to Self-Categorizations: Identity Threat and Affirmation in a Non-Territorial Office Space

KEKimberly D. Elsbach

Key Points

  • This research investigates how non-territorial office environments impact employees' workplace identities and their responses to identity threat.
  • Qualitative methods were employed to gather data from employees in a non-territorial office space.
  • Participants discussed their perceptions of identity threat and tactics used for identity affirmation.
  • Employees perceived identity threat due to limited personal display options in non-territorial setups.
  • Key elements of identity threat included loss of office personalization, subjective importance, and reliance on physical markers.
  • Tactics for affirming identities varied based on effort required and alignment with company rules.

Abstract

I used qualitative methods to explore why some employees working in a newly created, non-territorial office environment perceived that their workplace identities were threatened and used particular tactics to affirm those threatened identities. Findings suggest that the non-territorial work environment threatened some employees' workplace identities because it severely limited their abilities to affirm categorizations of distinctiveness (versus status) through the display of personal possessions. Categorizations of distinctiveness appeared to be most threatened by the loss of office personalization because of three characteristics: (1) their absolute, rather than graded membership structure, (2) their high subjective importance and personal relevance, and (3) their high reliance on physical markers for affirmation. In affirming threatened identity categorizations, employees chose different tactics, in terms of the amount of effort required and their conformance with company rules, based on the acceptability and importance of affirming the threatened categorization.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kimberly D. Elsbach (2003) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f8932d13714ec96fe44e2https://doi.org/10.2307/3556639
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Workplace technology as a threat to worker identity: Evidence from Public Libraries2025
  2. 2Finding your place in a new workspace: Examining employees’ adaptation in physical workspaces2026
  3. 3Identity regulation and aesthetic control: The affordances and restraints of uniforms in service work2024
  4. 4‘Me, us, and Them’: Policing and the Dynamics of Identity Work2024 · 4 citations
  5. 5Keep Off My Turf! Low-Status Managers’ Territoriality as a Response to Employees’ Novel Ideas2024 · 6 citations