A lot of threads here get in to how we define the position of architects as professionals in society - and especially how education and licensing mediate our relationship to the public and our clients. These two pieces are focused on artists (broadly) and MBA's (narrowly) but actually provide some interesting thoughts relevant to how architects operate.
What I find intriguing is the notion that professionalism was a particular reaction to the economy and social circumstances of the late industrial age in capitalist society - and the suggestion that the role of the professional is becoming outdated as we move into a more entrepreneurial, information economy. The implication being that professionals (architects included) are evaluated for consistency and fit into institutional structures - and that our economy is now moving towards a new focus on individual merit which looks at the personal brand and diminishes the value of institutions.
It's worth noticing that the 2nd piece (...Credentialism) was published in 1985 - 30 years later it seems spot-on about the problems of non-meritocratic evaluations. And gives a great background on the development of the professions in America.
I haven't decided what I think yet. I certainly agree with the gist of the 2nd piece. The 1st piece (...Artist) makes a point I hadn't considered, but tend to believe: that the role of the professional critic has been supplanted by a kind of critical-populism informed by Author/Creator web pages and public outreach (branding). Is this good? Maybe...
Professionalism has more to do with ethics than anything else. There are plenty of - in fact way too many - "professionals" providing services who put their own interests way ahead of their clients.
Donald Trump is the poster boy for meritocracy and as such it is laughable even to bring it up.
don't have time to look now, but i recall reading that crediatialism grew out of a ruling by the supreme court against standardized tests in employment - meaning that a college degree became a de facto intelligence test.
The problem in architecture though is that this fiduciary duty to the client is usually in direct oposition to the architects duty to the end users/public and the environment. The architect is almost always in a position similar to that of a doctor working for some big pharma company. The artist has been transformed into a beurocratic servant via "professionalism". Better off leaving the stupid "scouts honor" bullshit aside and relying on human decency (assuming such a thing still exists). In a way professionalism is like religion in that it mandates "morality" which imo isnt morality at all, its fear of consequence...its fire and brim stone shit.
All doctors aren't sell-outs. My wife went to her doctor with a perceived problem from over-exercising. After an exam he said she was perfectly normal. No additional tests, no referrals, no prescriptions, no follow-ups.
David Maistre, talking about his terrific book True Professionalism, said:
"How often can one repeat the basic advice of “Listen to your clients, provide outstanding service, train your people, look for and eliminate inefficiencies, and act like team players?’’ The problem, clearly, is not in figuring out what to do. Rather, the problem is to find the strength and courage to do what we know to be right.
The lesson is clear: Believe passionately in what you do, and never knowingly compromise your standards and values. Act like a true professional, aiming for true excellence, and the money will follow. Act like a prostitute, with an attitude of “I’ll do it for the money, but don’t expect me to care,’’ and you’ll lose the premium that excellence earns. True professionalism wins!"
Certainly, these words are worthy of consideration.
well said quizzical. i wrote a very nice thing to say something to that effect but then my browser crashed. however, i think your quote sums up my opinion probably better than what i wrote.
i'll add, you are not a special snowflake. you are part of a bigger team making up a snowball. everyone is needed to make the project work. the way a 'personal brand' is looked at today, especially relative to 'entrepreneurship,' is a short-lived fad that can't work. build up your team. it's not about you, it's about what your team is producing.
This can be a confusing topic because the meaning of the word "professional" is ambiguous depending on context. We need to make clear what we mean when we talk about it.
For instance, quizzical's excellent post quoting Maistre alludes to the sense of the word in which we are talking about individual behavior, integrity, and virtue. We describe someone as "professional" if they are committed to virtuous action in the pursuit of their vocation.
The other meaning of "professional" is, I think, more along the lines of midlander's original post starting this thread: one who is a member of a guild or trade organization.
This ambiguity is often used to the advantage of those who seek to exploit it for gain. For instance, professional associations such as the AIA and AMA have, as a central tenet of their self-justification and position, the assertion that they exist to establish and maintain ethical behavior among the members of their guilds. However, the actual, instrumental reason for their existence is not that, but rather to control and limit entry to a particular vocation in order to maintain a service cartel.
bobby jones was an amateur. i suppose the difference between 'amateur' and 'professional' is the difference between bobby jones and the paid professionals in his era.
curt, I agree with your point about teams to an extent, but the overall team is in a way responsible for this "diffusion of responsibility". Teams are good in many ways, but can also be destructive because they can become almost a non-human force like corporations for instance. its a tight rope act to create a moral team.
Professionalism is not a product of work experiance or oaths or credentials, its a product of character. an oath taken by a liar is not worth a thing. Imo we need to expect certain things as part of being a person in society. We dont need a special badge to know not to shit on our neighbors lawn and we shouldnt need one to know not to screw our clients and degrade out planet. call me old fashion but I believe in the idea that a society/community/family should be the force that molds certain character traits not some disconnected ethics organization or some bs boys club.
This is all related to a larger problem... There is a pervasive Detachment from our humanity taking place at every level. To people, to nature, to work, to water, you name it... I see professionalism as part of this..as a way to cope with our decaying society. The idea that we even need a seperate name for (not being a greasy shithead) is proof that we have a problem as if not being one is exceptional and being one is the norm. We constantly outsource the jobs of our social realm to some external police power.
The pervasive alienation and atomization of modern society absolutely are at the core of the problem of professional ethics, credentialism, and guild cartels. But they are inherent to the managerial order of our society. You can't change them without overthrowing that order.
To my mind, "professional" has less to do with being paid for our work and is more about performing at the highest possible standards of quality and ethical behavior. Jameis Winston will shortly become a professional football player, however - given his general attitude and behavior - I have my doubts about whether he'll ever be truly "professional" in the sense we're discussing that concept here.
Moreover, one does not become "professional" simply because one is licensed or belongs to an organization like AIA -- although both of those ideas are useful and can help set (and, in some cases, enforce) some basic minimum standards for performance and behavior.
At the end of the day, one is judged to be "professional" (or not) by the way one -- individually -- chooses to operate and behave. In the truest sense of the term, we can never become "professional" simply because we declare ourselves to be so.
We become "professional" when we operate consistently in a "professional" manner. We cannot look beyond ourselves if we fail to live up to that standard.
@gwharton, yes I was talking about professionalism as an institution like a guild.
By the decline of professionalism I don't mean a decline of ethics among practitioners, I mean a decline in the relevance of being a licensed professional - that being an architect compared to being a 'building designer' is less and less relevant. My sense is that clients and the public are both becoming more savvy to the fact that being licensed (as an architect, a doctor, etc) doesn't mean much in terms of the quality of service or ethical priorities of the provider and often view it as an onerous legal requirement.
Within architecture, critics once provided value in promoting architects whose work was believed (sometimes wrongly) to promote public interests - it seems such critics are becoming less influential as owners follow their own instincts on what suits their needs. The public's only protection in this process will be the laws and codes that may or may not provide real public benefit.
At the same time, this could be a good trend if it gives more priority towards letting talented and capable individuals advance more quickly as architects, rather than forcing everyone through the same filter of education, interns, exams, and experience...
architects and doctors are two completely different things. would I let an unlicensed doctor remove my tonsils? hell no. would I let an unlicensed landscape designer design my project? wouldnt matter one bit. anyone would make that decision based on seeing past work and based on personality. no one really cares because we do not work in real time we make plans. its apples and oranges. The regulation of design seems ridiculous to the average person. Its also that the insane price of education is making us question the accessibility of this career.
^Trump isn't what he claims. I don't think that discredits the idea of a meritocratic selection. Real estate development is also particularly susceptible to local politics and favors, and in that way one of the least meritocratic fields in business.
Anything that depends on large capital investment to start is going to favor people with the right backgrounds. But that also isn't the scope of the professions.
Quizzical -- thanks for posting this: The lesson is clear: Believe passionately in what you do, and never knowingly compromise your standards and values. Act like a true professional, aiming for true excellence, and the money will follow. Act like a prostitute, with an attitude of “I’ll do it for the money, but don’t expect me to care,’’ and you’ll lose the premium that excellence earns. True professionalism wins!"
The part I put in boldface -- this is prevalent. I see this often -- or at least one version of it -- and I think it can be a kind of easy fallback position for a lot of folks in creative fields when things don't go as planned... i.e., when they don't think they are getting their way. We've all been there at times.
An end to professionalism?
It's the first Monday of 2015 and I'm already bored. Anyone else up for a bit of discussion? Some reading required!
The Death of the Artist
The Case against Credentialism
A lot of threads here get in to how we define the position of architects as professionals in society - and especially how education and licensing mediate our relationship to the public and our clients. These two pieces are focused on artists (broadly) and MBA's (narrowly) but actually provide some interesting thoughts relevant to how architects operate.
What I find intriguing is the notion that professionalism was a particular reaction to the economy and social circumstances of the late industrial age in capitalist society - and the suggestion that the role of the professional is becoming outdated as we move into a more entrepreneurial, information economy. The implication being that professionals (architects included) are evaluated for consistency and fit into institutional structures - and that our economy is now moving towards a new focus on individual merit which looks at the personal brand and diminishes the value of institutions.
It's worth noticing that the 2nd piece (...Credentialism) was published in 1985 - 30 years later it seems spot-on about the problems of non-meritocratic evaluations. And gives a great background on the development of the professions in America.
I haven't decided what I think yet. I certainly agree with the gist of the 2nd piece. The 1st piece (...Artist) makes a point I hadn't considered, but tend to believe: that the role of the professional critic has been supplanted by a kind of critical-populism informed by Author/Creator web pages and public outreach (branding). Is this good? Maybe...
Professionalism has more to do with ethics than anything else. There are plenty of - in fact way too many - "professionals" providing services who put their own interests way ahead of their clients.
Donald Trump is the poster boy for meritocracy and as such it is laughable even to bring it up.
don't have time to look now, but i recall reading that crediatialism grew out of a ruling by the supreme court against standardized tests in employment - meaning that a college degree became a de facto intelligence test.
will try to find the link over lunch
The problem in architecture though is that this fiduciary duty to the client is usually in direct oposition to the architects duty to the end users/public and the environment. The architect is almost always in a position similar to that of a doctor working for some big pharma company. The artist has been transformed into a beurocratic servant via "professionalism". Better off leaving the stupid "scouts honor" bullshit aside and relying on human decency (assuming such a thing still exists). In a way professionalism is like religion in that it mandates "morality" which imo isnt morality at all, its fear of consequence...its fire and brim stone shit.
All doctors aren't sell-outs. My wife went to her doctor with a perceived problem from over-exercising. After an exam he said she was perfectly normal. No additional tests, no referrals, no prescriptions, no follow-ups.
"a doctor working for some big pharma company"
That's not your wife's doctor, is it?
David Maistre, talking about his terrific book True Professionalism, said:
"How often can one repeat the basic advice of “Listen to your clients, provide outstanding service, train your people, look for and eliminate inefficiencies, and act like team players?’’ The problem, clearly, is not in figuring out what to do. Rather, the problem is to find the strength and courage to do what we know to be right.
The lesson is clear: Believe passionately in what you do, and never knowingly compromise your standards and values. Act like a true professional, aiming for true excellence, and the money will follow. Act like a prostitute, with an attitude of “I’ll do it for the money, but don’t expect me to care,’’ and you’ll lose the premium that excellence earns. True professionalism wins!"
Certainly, these words are worthy of consideration.
well said quizzical. i wrote a very nice thing to say something to that effect but then my browser crashed. however, i think your quote sums up my opinion probably better than what i wrote.
i'll add, you are not a special snowflake. you are part of a bigger team making up a snowball. everyone is needed to make the project work. the way a 'personal brand' is looked at today, especially relative to 'entrepreneurship,' is a short-lived fad that can't work. build up your team. it's not about you, it's about what your team is producing.
This can be a confusing topic because the meaning of the word "professional" is ambiguous depending on context. We need to make clear what we mean when we talk about it.
For instance, quizzical's excellent post quoting Maistre alludes to the sense of the word in which we are talking about individual behavior, integrity, and virtue. We describe someone as "professional" if they are committed to virtuous action in the pursuit of their vocation.
The other meaning of "professional" is, I think, more along the lines of midlander's original post starting this thread: one who is a member of a guild or trade organization.
This ambiguity is often used to the advantage of those who seek to exploit it for gain. For instance, professional associations such as the AIA and AMA have, as a central tenet of their self-justification and position, the assertion that they exist to establish and maintain ethical behavior among the members of their guilds. However, the actual, instrumental reason for their existence is not that, but rather to control and limit entry to a particular vocation in order to maintain a service cartel.
bobby jones was an amateur. i suppose the difference between 'amateur' and 'professional' is the difference between bobby jones and the paid professionals in his era.
curt, I agree with your point about teams to an extent, but the overall team is in a way responsible for this "diffusion of responsibility". Teams are good in many ways, but can also be destructive because they can become almost a non-human force like corporations for instance. its a tight rope act to create a moral team.
Professionalism is not a product of work experiance or oaths or credentials, its a product of character. an oath taken by a liar is not worth a thing. Imo we need to expect certain things as part of being a person in society. We dont need a special badge to know not to shit on our neighbors lawn and we shouldnt need one to know not to screw our clients and degrade out planet. call me old fashion but I believe in the idea that a society/community/family should be the force that molds certain character traits not some disconnected ethics organization or some bs boys club.
This is all related to a larger problem... There is a pervasive Detachment from our humanity taking place at every level. To people, to nature, to work, to water, you name it... I see professionalism as part of this..as a way to cope with our decaying society. The idea that we even need a seperate name for (not being a greasy shithead) is proof that we have a problem as if not being one is exceptional and being one is the norm. We constantly outsource the jobs of our social realm to some external police power.
The pervasive alienation and atomization of modern society absolutely are at the core of the problem of professional ethics, credentialism, and guild cartels. But they are inherent to the managerial order of our society. You can't change them without overthrowing that order.
To my mind, "professional" has less to do with being paid for our work and is more about performing at the highest possible standards of quality and ethical behavior. Jameis Winston will shortly become a professional football player, however - given his general attitude and behavior - I have my doubts about whether he'll ever be truly "professional" in the sense we're discussing that concept here.
Moreover, one does not become "professional" simply because one is licensed or belongs to an organization like AIA -- although both of those ideas are useful and can help set (and, in some cases, enforce) some basic minimum standards for performance and behavior.
At the end of the day, one is judged to be "professional" (or not) by the way one -- individually -- chooses to operate and behave. In the truest sense of the term, we can never become "professional" simply because we declare ourselves to be so.
We become "professional" when we operate consistently in a "professional" manner. We cannot look beyond ourselves if we fail to live up to that standard.
@gwharton, yes I was talking about professionalism as an institution like a guild.
By the decline of professionalism I don't mean a decline of ethics among practitioners, I mean a decline in the relevance of being a licensed professional - that being an architect compared to being a 'building designer' is less and less relevant. My sense is that clients and the public are both becoming more savvy to the fact that being licensed (as an architect, a doctor, etc) doesn't mean much in terms of the quality of service or ethical priorities of the provider and often view it as an onerous legal requirement.
Within architecture, critics once provided value in promoting architects whose work was believed (sometimes wrongly) to promote public interests - it seems such critics are becoming less influential as owners follow their own instincts on what suits their needs. The public's only protection in this process will be the laws and codes that may or may not provide real public benefit.
At the same time, this could be a good trend if it gives more priority towards letting talented and capable individuals advance more quickly as architects, rather than forcing everyone through the same filter of education, interns, exams, and experience...
Miles - how do you see Trump as meritocratic? Because he fires all the interns who don't cut it?
architects and doctors are two completely different things. would I let an unlicensed doctor remove my tonsils? hell no. would I let an unlicensed landscape designer design my project? wouldnt matter one bit. anyone would make that decision based on seeing past work and based on personality. no one really cares because we do not work in real time we make plans. its apples and oranges. The regulation of design seems ridiculous to the average person. Its also that the insane price of education is making us question the accessibility of this career.
Trump, who promotes himself as a "self-made man", started with an inheritance somewhere between $40-$200 million and vast real estate holdings in NYC.
Thus meritocracy is a joke.
The Trump Rule: When you owe the bank a couple of million you're in big trouble. When you owe the bank a couple of billion the bank is in big trouble.
^Trump isn't what he claims. I don't think that discredits the idea of a meritocratic selection. Real estate development is also particularly susceptible to local politics and favors, and in that way one of the least meritocratic fields in business.
Anything that depends on large capital investment to start is going to favor people with the right backgrounds. But that also isn't the scope of the professions.
^ nice, midlander.
Quizzical -- thanks for posting this: The lesson is clear: Believe passionately in what you do, and never knowingly compromise your standards and values. Act like a true professional, aiming for true excellence, and the money will follow. Act like a prostitute, with an attitude of “I’ll do it for the money, but don’t expect me to care,’’ and you’ll lose the premium that excellence earns. True professionalism wins!"
The part I put in boldface -- this is prevalent. I see this often -- or at least one version of it -- and I think it can be a kind of easy fallback position for a lot of folks in creative fields when things don't go as planned... i.e., when they don't think they are getting their way. We've all been there at times.
The conundrum is of course when you are professional but you are working for or competing with those who aren't.
As my old man used to say: You can eat or you can sleep.
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.