Architecture and Organizations

Conceptual Overview

Although architecture does not often explicitly feature in management theory and practice, the two concepts have always been closely linked. Early 20th-century architects such as Le Corbusier or Walter Gropius share with orthodox management thinking a fascination with machine metaphors, standardization, and control. For most early modernist architects, architecture was a means to achieve a balanced society in which harmony would prevail. Classic management theories understood and utilized the power of space: Within scientific management Frederick W. Taylor reorganized the spatial arrangement of the organization by dividing space into individual cells. Henry Ford sought to redesign the use of space, introducing assembly lines that were inspired by the Chicago slaughterhouses. Roethlisberger and Dickson's reflections on the consequences of changing variables in physical space created a new, unanticipated, kind of social space: The Hawthorne experiments showed the tremendous—if unpredictable—impact of social (if not, as intended, interior) design on organizational behavior. As these examples show management scholars theorized and used architecture as a device to change organizations.

More recently, research in the area of organizational culture sparked interest in the visible artifacts of organizations. This stream of thought puts emphasis on the symbolic function of architecture (e.g., headquarters) and design (e.g., design of workspaces). Additionally, studies of workplaces focus on the impact of work-place design on performance, effectiveness, and other organizational issues.

The Space and Organization Workgroup (SPORG) at MIT's School of Architecture and Planning, created in 1990, is explicitly directed toward exploring the interdependence between physical space and organizational behavior. The main focus is on optimizing the use of space and understanding the impact of design on organizational effectiveness.

...