Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Graduate Capstone Projects 2018 The evolution of architecture faculty organizational culture at the University of Michigan Linda Mills Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.emich.edu/theses Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons Recommended Citation Mills, Linda, "The ve olution of architecture faculty organizational culture at the University of Michigan" (2018). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 933. https://commons.emich.edu/theses/933 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Running head: ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE The Evolution of Architecture Faculty Organizational Culture at the University of Michigan by Linda Mills Dissertation Eastern Michigan University Submitted to the Department of Leadership and Counseling Eastern Michigan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Educational Leadership Dissertation Committee: Ronald Flowers, Ed.D. Chair Jaclynn Tracy, Ph.D. Raul Leon, Ph.D. Russell Olwell, Ph.D. September 27, 2018 Ypsilanti, Michigan ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ii Dedication This research is dedicated to all of the non-academic staff at the University of Michigan, at-will employees, who are working to support the work of faculty who operate with different norms, values and operating paradigms, protected by tenure, and unaware of the cognitive dissonance that exists between their operating worlds and ours. Increasing cultural competency through researching, documenting, tracing the origins and motivations for the cultural differences operating within the University of Michigan might help the faculty and staff to work together more productively and enjoyably. ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE iii Acknowledgments The many years of working on this research project was made possible by the forbearance and support of many people. The faculty of Eastern Michigan University’s Educational Leadership program were exceptional in their willingness to advise, support and direct my efforts. My dissertation committee chair, Dr. Ronald Flowers, spent many hours pushing me to consider concepts and findings from other vantage points. My two original EMU mentors Dr. Jaclynn Tracy and Dr. Eboni Zamani-Gallaher gave freely of their time and their feedback gave me the confidence to succeed. The dissertation committee was wonderful in accepting the burden of reading a 600+ page dissertation and providing feedback. I thank them. One of the motivations for completing this project was to develop an understanding of the behaviors and choices of the people I work most closely with at the U-M. The leadership and my colleagues at the University of Michigan were wonderfully supportive throughout this process and seemed to share in the wonder of some of the materials and information uncovered about the evolution of the college that lay buried within the U-M archives. I have to give special thanks to Dean Robert Beckley and Dean Monica Ponce de Leon for their support for this project. They understood that by supporting the development of a staff member, not just the faculty and students, they were signaling to the administrative team that they believed in their value to the organization. I thank them. The faculty and academic leadership of Taubman College were wonderfully willing and supportive as well, providing me with hours of their time, insights, and feedback on the intricacies of architecture culture. Their trust and openness made this project more enjoyable than I expected. I thank them. ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE iv In addition, colleagues Sandra Patton, and Amber LaCroix provided much support. It was helpful to discuss certain aspects of the projects with staff members who also worked within the Taubman College, and sometimes struggled with the operating paradigms used by architecture faculty members that were initially so foreign to each of us when we joined the College administrative team. I thank them. Part of the motivation for this project was to make my parents proud. Unfortunately, they both passed away before this project was complete. Most importantly, I need to acknowledge the sacrifices that my family has made while I researched, wrote, and edited this work. My children, Meghan, Sarah, and Andrew, along with their partners, and my grandchildren, Jacob, Charlie, and Paige, were patient with me as well as encouraging – part of the motivation of finishing this was to show them it can be done while working full-time. My husband, Douglas, took on the lion’s share of our other responsibilities, all the while providing emotional support and sitting through hours of my discussing the process, my findings and the project. His love and support has made this project possible. I thank my family. ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE v Abstract Understanding and navigating the multiple academic disciplines and administrative subcultures, which operate within higher education institutions, is challenging for both internal and external stakeholders who may be unfamiliar with the disparate normative, regulative, and cultural cognitive systems that guide social behavior of each area. Higher education leaders need to understand the cultures operating within the organizational groups and subgroups in order to coordinate, integrate, and foster collaboration toward organizational and institutional goal attainment activities. This case study, which focused on the emergence and evolution of the organizational culture of the architecture faculty at the University of Michigan, provides insights into this particular organizational unit as well as a conceptual framework and research process from which to examine other faculty subcultures. Findings included explication of historical, societal and technological influences; the sociocultural, norms, roles and structural elements developed by the organizational members to structure their social behavior; a list of norms, roles and statuses used by members; as well as an explication of leadership actions that were accepted or rejected by faculty members as the organizational culture developed. ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE vi Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgments iii Abstract v List of Tables xi List of Figures xii Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 2 Purpose of the Study 3 . Situating the study. 4 Institutional influences. 4 Significance of the Study 12 Research Questions 14 Chapter Organization 16 Chapter 2: Research Methodology 17 Self as Researcher 17 Research Tradition 19 Research Methodology 23 Research Design 24 Chapter 3: Review of the Literature 45 Organizational Culture 46 Organizational image and identity theories. 52 Leadership influence on organizational culture. 54 Organizational Types 55 Architectural Theories 56 Collegiate Architecture Education 59 Shared responsibility and service. 65 Professionalization and architecture education. 67 Chapter 4: A Brief History of Architecture Education 71 Education of Architects 75 Overview of the Classical Influences 77 Vitruvius' influence. 83 Earliest university scholars supporting architecture. 87 Italian renaissance. 93 Alberti's influence 94 Palladio’s influence 96 The Emergence of Architecture as a Profession 97 Delorme’s influence. 97 European Architecture Education 100 British educational model 101 German educational model 107 French educational model: The Ecole des Beaux Arts. 110 ARCHITECTURE FACULTY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE vii Problems in Translation to American Environments 115 Emergent American models. 120 American collegiate architecture education. 126 First American schools of architecture - 1865-1898. 133 Second phase of development. 151 Third phase: Modernism post-modernism 1940’s -1970’s. 169 Fourth phase: Expansion and the baby boomers 182 Fifth phase: Technology, identity, ideology 193 Summary 198 Chapter 5: College History 201 Founding Stage 206 William Le Baron Jenney (1876): Inaugural instructor 208 Typology (institutional influences). 208 Topography (contextual influences). 210 Tectonic (mode of construction). 211 Historical, societal, and contingent influences. 213 Sociocultural influences. 215 Socio-structural influences. 216 Norms, roles, and status. 216 Emil Lorch (1906-1936): Pure design. 217 Typology (institutional influences). 219 Topography (contextual influences). 220 Tectonic (mode of construction). 221 Genius loci (spirit of place). 222 Historical, societal, and contingent influences. 228 Sociocultural influences. 229 Socio-structural influences 237 Norms, roles, and status. 243 Wells Bennett (1937-1957): Growth, differentiation, fracturing. 246 Typology (institutional influences). 246 Topography (contextual influences). 247 Tectonic (mode of construction) 248 Genius loci (spirit of place). 250 Historical, societal, and contingent influences. 252 Sociocultural influences. 254 Socio-structural influences. 267 Norms, roles, and status 274 Summary of the founding stage. 277 Transition Stage 278 Pursuit of reputational capital 279 Changes in