... One of the inconveniences of studying a multidisciplinary topic is conceptual confusion, which is obvious in this case. To begin with, the vocabulary used to refer to the physical organizational context is diverse (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019), and the publications cited in this paper alone use various terms and phrases when referring to the physical space of organizations, including 'place' (Kristensen, 2004), 'physical context' (Kristensen, 2004), 'physical space' (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), 'spatial structure' (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), 'spatial arrangements of organizations' (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004), 'spatial configuration' (Sailer, 2011), 'spatial location' (Moultrie et al., 2007), 'workplace layout' (Moultrie et al., 2007), 'operating environments' (Moultrie et al., 2007), 'physical environment' (Franck, 1984), 'physical structure' (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006), 'physical press' (Williams, 2009), 'physical setting' (Ceylan et al., 2008;McCoy & Evans, 2002;Vithayathawornwong et al., 2003), 'physical facilities' (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005;Magadley & Birdi, 2009), 'physical layout' (Sailer, 2011), 'physical work environment' (Martens, 2011) and 'office design' (Martens, 2011). This underlines TA B L E 1 A three-dimensional framework for analysing physical organizational space Kristensen's (2004, p. 90) point when he states 'Concepts of space are often thought of in "vernacular" terms because of the difficulty of their articulation'. ...