In publications such as The Atlantic Monthly and The Economist, articles have heralded a new economic era. An era that demands that business be done differently in order to survive not only the continuing recession but to create a new, more agile business model. As many economists have asserted, the effects of poor economic policies and deregulation throughout the 2000’s will be felt for years to come.
In essence, companies have to approach their businesses differently, regardless of their industry sector. That means that they have to be more flexible about the types of services they offer. They have to be smarter about the way they recruit clients. And they must make changes so that they can keep their talent pools productive and happy. Together, these elements ensure the continued success of the company itself.
One strategy is to create a better physical environment. For example, a cafeteria that offers free food (like Google), or at least good coffee and an array of other beverages. What’s more, as the CEO of Zappos, Tony Hsieh, argues, companies must also support a creative and enriching “extra-curricular” environment beyond the immediate workspace. That includes supporting arts and entertainment venues. Or instituting a program that reimburses employees who partake in such activities. Moreover, Mr. Hsieh thinks that dating amongst employees is a positive boon. After all, says Mr. Hsieh, you work better if you like the people you work with.
For creative-based jobs such as the tech and architecture industries, another key component is helping employees understand their own energy ebbs and flows. And then training employers to encourage their employees to take breaks when that energy ebbs. Because, as one Economist article asserts, one of two big challenges for firms who hire talented people for creative jobs is dealing with employee burn-out. For all sorts of creative-based work, one is expected to always be “on,” which is impossible to maintain. Instead, employees therefore need to manage their energy level for sustained, long-term performance without high turnover. Architecture firms, notorious for ignoring that their employees are people, should acknowledge and accommodate this basic fact.
Another practice for successful firms is telecommuting. From technologically-intensive environments like Google to universities like UCLA, telecommuting 20% of the time is becoming the norm. It seems counterintuitive, especially for the architecture culture which treats every project deadline like life and death. But as this author has asserted in a co-authored book, it’s architecture, not medicine. You can take a break and no one will die. What’s more, you can work from home 20% of the time (one day out of five) and still no one will die. If this were not possible, architects would not hire free-lancers who work from their homes. Other services provided include either child-care facilities or subsidies (which does not include Dependent Care programs which is technically not a subsidy). For the childless, an occasional visit by pets also improves morale.
Involving employees directly in decision-making, on everything from corporate policy to the next project, is equally crucial. Employees become invested not just in the success of the discrete projects they are involved in, but in the company as a whole. This tactic is deployed by IBM, an international company that has successfully remade itself from being a hardware firm into the ideas company for an ever-expanding pool of clients. Many firms have instituted some if not all of these policies in order to remain competitive and keep their talent. After all, satisfied employees not only stay put (instead of taking your company’s secrets with them to the next job), they also work better.
Another ubiquitous perquisite that is patently missing from architecture is holidays. They not only add to the impoverished vacation structure prevalent in the U.S. (of all developed nations, the U.S. offers the least amount of vacation days, ten paid days on average), the effect on morale as well as improving the quality of life outside of work is immeasurable. Significantly, architecture firms do not honor them. It remains to be determined why architecture firms feel it is necessary work on national holidays that everyone else recognizes. But the effect on employees is to reinforce a sense of exploitation and overwork.
Interestingly, employees’ perceptions at less successful firms, regardless of industry, are remarkably uniform. First, there is the issue of corporate structure. No employer likes to believe that they are coercive, controlling, or tyrannical. Yet the report found that both employers and those in human resources are 8 times more likely than the rest of employees to believe that their organizations are “self-governing” and do not demand blind obedience. By contrast, ½ the employees interviewed say that their firms were led by strictly top-down, coercive style of management; only 3% reported that their firms were self-governing. Thus while many employers believed that they provided an egalitarian environment for their employees, employees overwhelmingly disagreed. And this was the most important factor in determining company loyalty and turnover.
To compound this management delusion, almost 1/3 of these same bosses also
believed that their employees felt inspired by their firm. Significantly, only 4% of
employees agreed. The consequences of such management style are clear. First, there
is the inability to keep talent, which costs firms of all sorts money, in recruiting and
retraining. Furthermore, it creates an atmosphere in which employees feel they need
to somehow compensate for their exploitation. That can include behaviors that range
from “borrowing” supplies to showing up late, taking long lunches, or leaving early.
Sherin Wing is an independent scholar. She received her Ph.D. in the Humanities from UCLA. She has published articles on issues and subjects ranging from the economy and architecture to social and cultural history. She is also a frequent contributor to Metropolis, Architect Magazine and other publications. Follow Sherin on Twitter at @xiaying.
Sherin Wing, Ph.D., is a social historian who writes on architecture, urbanism, racism, the economy, and epistemology (how we know what we know by researching and examining the agendas inherent in our sources of information) to name a few issues and topics. She is dedicated to exploring issues in ...
8 Comments
I agree. It is high time to rethink the architectural business model! I was always fascinated with alternative business structures, particularly those that could benefit society, the environment, and the workers. As I confronted a job market with few to no opportunities for me, I decided to make my own. I developed Nestiv, my very recently launched online marketplace for professional home plans. Check it out at! http://nestiv.com
Yes, wonderful. More, More! Alas our little archi profit margins are the reason they make employees work like its Sparta. Little archi business doesn't compare to bluechip stock companies with profits gross enough to pay dividends. G isn't handing out free food just because its the right thing to do. They are a cash cow floating like a giant balloon in a parade. You know what; we should run our little archi business like we have so much cash we have to give it away or it turns into taxes. Most of those examples have employees with very high IQ and high demand for the services. It takes a meat head to draw compared to what G does at work. Archi just doesn't have the demand either. All very inspiring and I wish it would all come true.
"But as this author has asserted in a co-authored book, it’s architecture, not medicine. You can take a break and no one will die."
Love it. And when you're a student, your imaginary clients DEFINITELY won't die.
"Another ubiquitous perquisite that is patently missing from architecture is holidays. They not only add to the impoverished vacation structure prevalent in the U.S. (of all developed nations, the U.S. offers the least amount of vacation days, ten paid days on average), the effect on morale as well as improving the quality of life outside of work is immeasurable. Significantly, architecture firms do not honor them. It remains to be determined why architecture firms feel it is necessary work on national holidays that everyone else recognizes. But the effect on employees is to reinforce a sense of exploitation and overwork. "
sherin, i'd be willing to wager that less than .1% of firms have this as a standing policy and that a very small percentage actually coerce their employees into skipping holidays to do work. while no one is going to contest the validity of taking time off in general, you're simply drawing too broad a brushstroke across the profession. yes, there are going to be occasions where people have a deadline that causes them to work overtime (and through a holiday). and, of course, there are a very few firms that exploit their workers in something that approach what you've described. but it's not even close to being as systemic as you suggest.
finally, i'd suggest a better link to try and establish is this: why are tech companies doling out all these perks? as atom suggests, it's because they generate cash on an astronomical scale. but, more importantly, it's the difference in the business models - google is selling commodities that can be purchased by anyone in the world, without a lot of extra work involved. we're selling professional services that typically uniquely applied to a single client (even if we have multiple clients in the office). finally, 70% of all firms are 2 people or less. they probably enjoy as many of the benefits that you suggest simply as a result of the office structure itself....
regarding telecommuting, coworking offices might be an affordable option to place employees. Even if you're only a small 2-3 person team, your team can be a part of a larger office community. This promotes collaboration, and camaraderie. In other words, better morale in the team because you don't have to talk to only your 1-2 other coworkers.
This is a fantastic article addressing the major issues of reforming the business model of the architectural industry. I especially enjoyed the concept of working from home. In an age where both parents have to work, this creates the necessary time that is required in raising kids.
However, I have to address the main title of "poor economic policies and deregulation throughout the 2000’s will be felt for years to come." Deregulation is not the problem but too much regulation. There's an article in the Politico today from Steven Job's telling the president that “regulations and unnecessary costs” put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with China, where companies can build factories more cheaply." Contray to citing the Economist in favor or more regulation, they state an article here http://www.economist.com/node/17961890 that more regulation is creating uncessary red tape costing million of dollars of cost to businesses, which are then passed on the to consumer/client. The Washington Times wrote a similar article illustration how the new regulations, more than Bush and Clinton, have been totaled to 1 billion in new regulatory fees. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/obama-proposed-regulations-would-cost-1-billion/ This is called a regulatory tax which will entail corruption because it pertains to some companies but not all, depending how much lobbying power they have. This is felt in the supply chain of the architectural products which I'm sure everyone is familiar with here.
We need to deregulate to encourage business production but uphold the rule of law so that if an company breaks a law, there are reprocussions, not money set to washington that pick winners and losers.
renovatio - i'd argue the article doesn't look at business models at all. we're talking about working conditions, not fundamental business models...
Additionally, businesses, especially large corporations, have proven time and time again that they need regulation. They just won't play fair if given the opportunity, especially while they still enjoy the Bush tax cuts/loopholes. And while it may be true that "more regulation is creating...red tape costing millions...which are then passed on to the consumer..." no one forces companies to pass these costs on to the consumer. There are myriad ways to lower costs. For instance, maybe the average CEO ought not be bringing in a salary 525 times that of the average wage earner.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.