The Theory Behind Invisible Architecture™

Invisible Architecture didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from years of walking into buildings that were beautiful, expensive, compliant, and completely misaligned with what they were supposed to represent.

It came from noticing the small contradictions: a workplace that said “open and inclusive” but sent visitors to a separate entrance on the other side of the building. A leadership floor hidden behind a badge reader. A “flexible” layout that rewarded early birds and quietly punished caregivers.

It came from a career in facilities and real estate strategy—paired with a background in rhetoric, literature, and cultural theory. And while the Invisible Architecture™ concept is built for modern workplace leaders, it stands on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been naming this pattern long before the open seating office ever met a booking app.

Space as Message

Let’s start with the foundation: space is never neutral. Henri Lefebvre, in The Production of Space, argued that all space is socially produced (Lefebvre, 1991). That is: space reflects the power structures, ideologies, and priorities of those who shape it. A floorplan doesn’t just happen. It encodes decisions about who is seen, who is near decision-makers, who controls access, and who stays out of view.

In this context, Invisible Architecture becomes a practical extension of Lefebvre’s theory. It asks us to stop treating the workplace as a backdrop and start recognizing it as a medium. A communication system. A message delivered physically through layout, lighting, adjacency, circulation, and even silence (cf. Hillier & Hanson, 1984).

Signs, Not Just Spaces

To understand how that message lands, we turn to semiotics—the study of signs and meaning. Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure broke signs into two parts: the signifier (what we see) and the signified (what it means to us) (de Saussure, 1959/1916). In workplace design, the signifier might be an open floor plan with plenty of soft seating. The signified could be anything from collaboration to surveillance—depending on the culture.

When leadership talks about their workplace values like “trust” and “flexibility,” but the workplace layout tells a different story, employees believe the layout. It's not welcoming. It's not a magnet. For employees it's not resistance. That’s their interpretation of the space.

Invisible Architecture™ identifies these design contradictions. It maps the gap between what leadership says and what space actually signals—and shows why trust erodes when the two don’t align.

Conceived, Perceived, and Lived Space

Lefebvre’s spatial triad—conceived, perceived, and lived space—adds even more nuance to the model (Lefebvre, 1991).

• Conceived space is the architect’s vision, or the leadership intent.

• Perceived space is how people actually move through it.

• Lived space is what it means to them, emotionally and socially.

This model is incredibly useful for FM and CRE leaders. You can plan for conceived space. You can observe perceived space. But unless you account for lived space, how people interpret and adapt, you’re flying blind.

Invisible Architecture sits in the friction between those three layers. It gives you a language to describe why a beautifully designed office can still feel hostile, performative, or just…off.

Power and Control, Designed in Advance

Lefebvre also emphasized that space doesn’t just reflect power—it enacts it (Lefebvre, 1991).

That’s especially visible in what he called abstract space: space designed to appear neutral, modern, and efficient while quietly reinforcing hierarchy (Lefebvre, 1991). Think: glass-walled offices that promise openness but are inaccessible without a badge.

I would take that a step further and say space can activate power structures that weren't there to being with. Think: unassigned seating that’s technically democratic but practically territorial (e.g., Bernstein & Turban, 2018; Kim & de Dear, 2013). Think: executive conference rooms labeled “collaboration zones” that remain invitation-only. Competition for perceived scarce resources.

Invisible Architecture makes these contradictions visible. It shows how architectural choices reinforce who belongs, who waits, who gets daylight, who gets badge permissions, and who doesn’t even ask.

The Workplace as Semiotic System

This is where rhetoric meets real estate. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion — the way we use language, symbols, and structure to shape what people think and feel. Semiotics is the study of signs — anything that carries meaning, from words to logos to the placement of a door.

The workplace isn’t just where work happens. It’s where meaning happens. It’s part of what theorists call organizational semiotics — the internal language system of a company, expressed not just in acronyms, but in office logic, policies, hallway flow, and even the emotional tone of the breakroom (Liu, 2000; Ravelli, Van Leeuwen, Höllerer, & Jancsary, 2023; Stamper, 2001).

When the physical environment and leadership communication don’t match, employees stop believing the words and start feeling the cognitive dissonance in the workplace.

Invisible Architecture gives us a way to trace that disconnect. It doesn’t blame designers or overhype aesthetics; it surfaces the reality that space is persuasive, and the message it delivers matters.

Conclusion: Rhetoric You Can Walk Through

Invisible Architecture isn’t a metaphor. It’s a system — where space, story, and structure share the same conversation, and the consequences are something you can literally walk through.

The philosophers and thinkers laid the groundwork. If Lefebvre gave us the theory, and Saussure gave us the mechanics, Invisible Architecture™ puts it on the map for today’s workplace leaders (Lefebvre, 1991; de Saussure, 1959/1916). We’re no longer just designing offices — we are designing trust, power, and visibility, whether we admit it or not.

The question isn’t whether the building is speaking. It’s whether leadership is ready to hear what it’s saying.

References

Bernstein, E. S., & Turban, S. (2018). The impact of the “open” workspace on human collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8560–8565. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802875115

de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1916)

Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.

Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy–communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)

Liu, K. (2000). Semiotics in information systems engineering. Cambridge University Press.

Ravelli, L., Van Leeuwen, T., Höllerer, M. A., & Jancsary, D. (Eds.). (2023). Organizational semiotics: Multimodal perspectives on organization studies. Routledge.

Stamper, R. K. (2001). Organisational semiotics: Informatics without the computer? In K. Liu, R. J. Clarke, P. B. Andersen, & R. K. Stamper (Eds.), Information, organisation and technology: Studies in organisational semiotics (pp. 115–171). Kluwer Academic/Plenum (Springer).

Note: Invisible Architecture™ is a proprietary framework by Amanda Muzzarelli.

This piece was first shared on LinkedIn and expanded here as part of Amanda Muzzarelli’s ongoing work on Invisible Architecture™.