Artifacts and Organizations

Beyond Mere Symbolism

Anat Rafaeli, Michael G. Pratt, Anat Rafaeli, Michael G. Pratt

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780805850369
• eBook ISBN: 9781134811373
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

Artifacts in organizations are ubiquitous but often overlooked. The chapters in this book illustrate that artifacts are everywhere in organizational life. They prevail in how offices are decorated, language is used, business cards are designed, and office cartoons are displayed. In addition, artifacts can be seen in the name of an organization and its employees, products, buildings, processes, and contracts, and they represent people, organizations, and professions. Artifacts and Organizations suggests that artifacts are neither superficial nor pertinent only to organizational culture. They are relevant to a rich and diverse set of organizational processes within and across multiple levels of analysis. Artifacts are shown to be integral to identity, sense-giving and sense-making processes, interpretation and negotiation, legitimacy, and branding. The book seeks to communicate that artifacts are often much more than what is currently recognized in organizational research. The four sections of this edited volume address various aspects of what is known about and known through artifacts. Together, the full set of chapters challenge the field to move beyond a narrow conceptualization and understanding of artifacts in organizations.This book leads students to embrace the full complexity and richness of artifacts. In addition, the text seeks to inspire those who focus on artifacts as symbols to delve deeper into the complexities of artifacts-in-use, for individuals, organizations, and institutions.

I

KNOWING ARTIFACTS

What are artifacts? How should they be analyzed? What perspectives can be taken on viewing artifacts? The first part addresses these questions by examining a broad range of issues regarding how to view artifacts. Vilnai-Yavetz and Rafaeli (chap. 1) call to move artifacts outside of the exclusive domain of symbolism and culture. Antonio Strati (chap. 2) then focuses on the aesthetic dimension of artifacts and on the behavioral elements of artifacts-in-practice. Dvorak Yanow (chap. 3) continues by focusing on methodologies of studying artifacts. Kim Elsbach ends the section with a focus on perceptual differences between artifact displayers and artifact observers.

1

Managing Artifacts to Avoid Artifact Myopia

Iris Vilnai-Yavetz
Anat Rafaeli

Technion-lnstitute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Israel's national public transportation company recently tried to repair its suffering from increased competition by adopting a new physical image: It began a public relations (PR) campaign that was symbolized by painting its buses a dark green (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004a). The color was chosen by management as a symbol of environmental friendliness. However, responses to the color were far from positive, and referred not only to the symbolism of the color. The dark green bus was described as too dark for the hot Middle Eastern climate in which it needs to transport passengers. It was described as too dark for a public transportation vehicle, so dark that other drivers and pedestrians on the road cannot see it. It was described as a wrong green—a specific hue that symbolizes military camouflage, hospitals, garbage trucks, and terrorist groups. And it was described by some people as simply ugly—unaesthetic. We studied what we have come to call “The Green Bus Case” in depth (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2003, 2004a, 2004b), and these studies led us to the development of a conceptual framework that we believe can help managers avoid the damage of the green-bus mishap.

Building on the green-bus case, we suggest that assuming something is only a symbol may be a case of artifact myopia—not recognizing the full complexity of an artifact and its implications and potential implications. We believe that any symbol is better viewed as an artifact, and artifacts, as we argue next, require broader attention than the imagery that they seemingly represent as symbols. Awarding artifacts the breadth of attention they deserve, and recognizing their full potential influence, can help avoid managerial myopia in the management of artifacts.

PHYSICAL ARTIFACTS IN ORGANIZATIONS: A DEFINITION

Physical artifacts are defined by the Oxford dictionary as “artificial products, something made by human beings and thus any element of a working environment” (Hornby, 1974, p. 43). Gagliardi (1990) added to this definition that artifacts are always perceived by the senses and that they have certain intentions, aiming to satisfy a need or a goal. Research on organizational artifacts, building on Schein (1990) and Trice and Beyer (1993), has considered intangible notions, such as names (Glynn & Marquis, chap. 12, this volume), language (Cunliffe & Shorter, chap. 7, this volume), and contracts (Kaghan & Lounsbury, chap. 14, this volume). In this chapter we focus on tangible notions, concentrating on organizational artifacts that are inanimate objects introduced by organizational members into their organizations. Artifacts can include colors (Frank & Gilovitch, 1988; Sassoon, 1990), dress and accessories (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993; see also Fiol & O'Connor, chap. 13, this volume), furnishings (Baron, 1994; T. R. V. Davis, 1984), buildings (Nasar, 1994; Yanow, 1998; see also chap. 3, this volume), offices (Hatch, 1990; see also Elsbach, chap. 4, this volume), stores (Cappetta & Gioia, chap. 11, this volume), vehicles (Hirschman, 2003; Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004b), windows (Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, & Lawrence, 1998), cartoons (Scheiberg, 1990; see also Anand, chap. 5, this volume), logos and emblems (Heskett, 2002; McCall & Belmont, 1996; Stern, 1988; see also Baruch, chap. 10, this volume; Schultz, Hatch, & Ciccolella, chap. 8, this volume), and more.

Given this definition, organizations are one big conglomerate of physical artifacts. Stripping an organization of its artifacts is removing all physical evidence of its existence. Yet our understanding of what artifacts really are remains limited at best. Are they but a collection of physical matter? Most artifacts are more than that. Artifacts allow people to do things, and inspire people to feel or react a certain way. Our goal in this chapter is to propose a model for analyzing physical artifacts, and to illustrate how this model can help prevent what we call “artifact errors” or “artifact myopia.” Our presumption is that a systematic model for analyzing artifacts can significantly enhance the understanding of artifacts and facilitate effective artifact management.

THREE DIMENSIONS OF ARTIFACTS: INSTRUMENTALITY, AESTHETICS, AND SYMBOLISM

A systematic analysis requires understanding the dimensions on which artifacts may vary. One key problem in most prior research, however, is the unstated assumption that artifacts can be classified into distinct categories. Scholars who have written about artifacts as symbols (Hatch, 1997b; Ornstein, 1986; Pondy, Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983; Schultz, 2000), for example, tend to focus on and elaborate this specific aspect and may not consider additional dimensions on which artifacts may vary. A symbolism focus may provide an elaborate view of one of the dimensions; but we suggest that it may still reflect a certain form of artifact myopia if the full complexity of organizational artifacts—including additional dimensions, such as instrumentality and aesthetics—are not considered with sufficient care.

There are some hints in current theory that artifacts can embody conceptually distinct and independent qualities, for example, Frost and Morgan's (1983) suggestion for a “realization” of symbols and artifacts. Canter (1977) and Lang (1988) similarly suggest that places evoke both actions and feelings. T. A. Markus (1987) suggests that buildings can vary in form, space, and function. Hershberger and Cass (1988) identify multiple factors on which buildings can be evaluated, including utility evaluative and aesthetic evaluative. Yet these and similar efforts still analyze distinct aspects as having distinct implications. In Markus’ analysis, for example, the form of a building is considered “design” rather than “function.” In Goodrich's (1982) analysis the office environment is considered an instrumental cue, not a symbolic cue. Thus, current models maintain the implicit assumption that an artifact is to be categorized into one distinct category. We suggest this to be a narrow view, arguing that artifacts can have various qualities simultaneously, so any categorization necessarily leads to some form of myopia.

An important exception to this discrete approach is presented by Strati's (1992) “aesthetic approach” to artifacts, which argues that classifying artifacts into aesthetic objects and functional objects is inaccurate and misleading, because any artifact is likely to load on both factors. Strati illustrates that although a picture is typically classified as “aesthetic” and a chair is typically classified as “functional,” chairs and desks have aesthetic properties and pictures have functional properties. A picture of a boy on a door, for example, has the important functional property of informing people that behind this door is the men's (rather than women's) toilet. Important to note, such pictures can be aesthetic or unaesthetic, though equally functional. Thus, aesthetics can be separate but also complementary to function. As with pictures, degree of functionality and a degree of aesthetics can characterize any artifact, with no clear positive or negative correlation between the functionality and aesthetics of an artifact.

This argument—of separate and complementary dimensions of the same artifact—is the core assertion of this chapter. Based on Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz (2003, 2004b), we describe next three specific dimensions essential to analyses of artifacts: instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. We then suggest that artifact myopia, where the three dimensions of an organizational artifact are not considered, represent artifact errors of organizational members.

Instrumentality. The instrumentality of an artifact refers to the extent to which the artifact contributes or hampers performance of individual task or accomplishment of individual or organizational goals. Instrumentality is the impact of an artifact on the tasks or goals of people, groups, or organizations. Instrumentality can be high, or positive, if the probability of attaining a goal or accomplishing a task is increased by the presence of an artifact. Instrumentality is low, or negative, if the presence or the qualities of an artifact dampen or decrease the same probability.

The key to instrumentality is that people and organizations have goals to accomplish, and artifacts can be evaluated according to whether they help or hinder the accomplishment of these goals. Canter (1977, 1997) aptly illustrates instrumentality of physical places or environments, with some places suggested as highly instrumental to local goals whereas others dampen accomplishment of desired goals. Gibson's (1979) ecological approach suggests that what people perceive in the environment are “affordances,” namely the extent to which the environment supports or hampers desired activities. Nielsen (1994) referred to the “usability” of artifacts as a critical feature, and Flanders (2002) suggests identifying “web pages that suck” to “help identify whether a Web site succeeds or fails at its main mission—effectively communicating what it's about and what product or belief they're trying to sell” (p. 135).

Building on Shumaker and Pequegnat (1989), two models of impact of artifacts on efficiency and productivity can be suggested. In a model of “direct influence” the artifact directly supports or disturbs performance. If the artifact is a physical workstation, for example, it can hamper performance due to bad location or damaged or inappropriate equipment. If the artifact is an organizational Web site, it can facilitate performance through a good design (Nielsen, 2000). In a second model, of “indirect influence,” an artifact can cause stress or other emotional reactions, which in turn hamper performance.

Garling and Golledge's (1989) review of environmental psychology consistently emphasizes the key role that individual perception of an environment can play in facilitating performance in this environment. Thus, instrumentality is one dimension for assessing artifacts. However, this is only one dimension relevant to such assessments. Our review of the literature suggests two additional and essential dimensions—aesthetics and symbolism.

Aesthetics. A second essential dimension, suggested by Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz (2003, 2004b), regards the aesthetics of an artifact. Aesthetics is the sensory experience an artifact elicits. Nasar's (1994, 1997) typology of environmental cues echoes the idea of aesthetics as a key factor. Strati (1992, 1999; see also chap. 2, this volume) played a central role in rejuvenating the importance of aesthetics to organizations, and connected architectonic aesthetics and organizational experiences. Gagliardi (1990), Dean, Ramirez, and Ottensmeyer (1997), and Ramirez (1991) further position aesthetics as an essential, but independent, dimension in assessments of artifacts. Eisenman (2004) suggests aesthetics as factors that, separate from instrumentality, can determine product and organizational success.

Aesthetics is separate from instrumentality, but cannot be divorced from it, because aesthetics is judged in the context of the tasks or goals of the context of an artifact. In the example of a picture of a boy on a door, the same picture can be considered pleasantly aesthetic when on the door of the men's bathroom, but considered tacky and unaesthetic when appearing on a news Web site. Similarly, expectations of aesthetics from a logo of an auto shop, for example, are likely to be very different from aesthetic expectations for the decor of a boardroom, although both logo and boardroom are important organizational artifacts.

In product design, aesthetics is often an important criterion, occasionally at the cost of instrumentality, or performance of important goals. As Postrel (2001) describes, the good looks of the Apple computer “Power Mac G4 Cube” did not make it a successful product, most likely because its instrumentality was not up to par—it did not perform as well as its price demanded (see also Eisenman, 2004). However, as Postrel noted, aesthetics is not always easy to plan:

Everybody from industrial designers to city planners claims to be looking after our aesthetic interests, and there is ample anecdotal evidence that, on the margin, people do put a higher premium on the look and feel of things than they once did. But aesthetics doesn't come in neat units like microprocessor speed, calories, or tons of steel. Style is qualitative . . . it is hard to be assessed. As a general matter, aesthetics sells, not just in computers but in other goods and services.

A classic case of aesthetics taking a lead over instrumentality is with the design of cellular telephones. Ergonomic considerations recommend a certain angle of a telephone headset, but such angles produce bulky and less aesthetic cellular phones. The industry has navigated toward the more aesthetic even if less functional telephones (Yun et al., 2001).

Symbolism. The bus company with which we opened this chapter as well as many organizational theorists focus primarily on the symbolism of organizational artifacts (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Clearly symbolism is a dimension of artifacts, but, based on Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz (2003, 2004b) we suggest it as a third dimension, which acts in concert with and independent of instrumentality and aesthetics.

Symbolism regards the meanings or associations an artifact elicits. Csik-szentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) illustrate that even simple or mundane things such as chairs and tables have meanings. Trice and Beyer (1993), Stern (1988), and Schein (1990) consider artifacts as symbols representing the values of organizational cultures. A similar perspective is presented in this book by scholars who study the process of shaping and presenting personal and social identities via artifacts such as cartoons (Anand, chap. 5, this volume), buildings (Yanow, chap. 3, this volume), fashion stores (Cappetta & Gioia, chap. 11, this volume), and logos (Baruch, chap. 10, this volume; Schultz, Hatch, & Ciccolella, chap. 8, this volume).

Ornstein (1986) and Elsbach (chap. 4, this volume) empirically illustrate that the physical layout of an organization reliably elicits associations of certain qualities. Advertising campaigns are the most vivid context in which such symbolism is used (Aaker & Myers, 1987), to the point of using symbolism to create desired identities (Aaker, 1994; Avraham & First, 2003; Hirschman, 2003). Hatch (1990) reports attitudinal and behavioral responses to offices as products of meanings that individuals attribute to the work environment.

Importantly, however, attributions made to an artifact are not necessarily those intended by the organization. Key to symbolism is the process of observation and interpretation by observers, and as Elsbach (chap. 4, this volume) notes, misinterpretation of observations can and does occur. Observers can make unexpected inferences and attributions based on their own associations, rather than those intended when an artifact was selected or presented. Thus, artifacts can have both intended and unintended symbolic consequences (T. R. V. Davis, 1984; see also Elsbach, chap. 4, this volume). Gagliardi (1990) focuses attention on views of corporations afforded by symbols and artifacts. Berg and Kreiner (1990) discuss physical settings of organizations as “symbolic resources.”

In short, as we asserted earlier, three dimensions are essential to understanding artifacts and to effectively managing them in or for organizations: instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. Failing to recognize these three simultaneous dimensions can lead to artifact myopia and to various artifact errors, as we discuss later.

Why These Three and Only Thes...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• LEA'S ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT SERIES
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Foreword
• Preface
• List of Contributors
• Introduction: Artifacts and Organizations: More Than the Tip of the Cultural Iceberg
• PART I KNOWING ARTIFACTS
• PART II ARTIFACTS AND KNOWLEDGE
• PART III ARTIFACTS, BRANDS, AND IDENTITY
• PART IV ARTIFACTS AND LEGITIMACY
• PART V TOWARD FUTURE RESEARCH
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index