The two partners of my 20+ person firm are creating a structure for advancement to becoming a partner. Titles of Associate, Senior Associate and Partner are being established for the office. Does anyone have any insight from larger firms on what the typical requirements are for advancement from one level to the next?
It’s not like working for the government…whether stated or not it largely comes down to making money for the firm…guys that can sell usually get the fast track…reason is it’s measurable, the rest is harder to measure. A big firm will have sophisticated software to measure hours & performance and you can point to your segment and demonstrate that you are bringing in the dough, or preserving the dough to leverage advancement, but still it never trumps rainmaking.
In ARUP, they have a job grading framework (9 tiers) based on job description and work scope. They call this handbook "ARUP COMPETENCY GUIDE". You climb up the ladder based on the increase of your accountabilities.
partnership hierarchy needs to be established otherwise, you will never see a new partner being promoted from senior associate. it's why a lot of the big firms keep "associate partner" and "junior partner" titles in play.
Either you are an architect and you perform the work or you don't. Lots of big companies have fancy sounding titles that don't mean shit. Are you an architect (if not become one, take your exams)? Are you a stake shareholder in the company? Those are the only 2 questions that matter.
Unless you know that the title you are working towards means a shareholder percentage and decision making ability in the work - they don't mean shit.
When the recession hits - "associates" and "senior associates" get shit canned they are expensive do-nothing chair warmers.
Totally disagree with above seems like in a recession the people who actually do the work get laid off and the remaining productive ones are scared into taking on more work for "lost employees" and at the same time getting a pay cut while the higher ups just keep chilling.
It really depends on the firm and the kind of culture the senior-most executives/owners have created.
Ideally, an architecture firm should really have two tracks for advancement: professional and leadership. The professional track represents the function job description of what each person actually does (e.g. Senior Project Manager, etc.), and probably has sub-tracks for the different areas of specialty (e.g. technical, project management, design, etc.).
The leadership track is for people who have demonstrated the ability and potential to lead, all the way up to the senior-most level. People working for firms that follow this model will usually have two job titles, not one.
Most firms are not very clear-thinking about this, and default to a promotion model that does two things:
1. elevates successful project managers to firm leadership positions under the assumption that the two skill sets are basically the same (PROTIP: They aren't. At all. Leadership and management are two totally independent skill sets.)
2. people who are strong in business development and bringing work into the firm get promoted because they have leverage and can use their client relationships as trump cards in internal power struggles.
These two ad-hoc methods are the major reason why professional service firms have trouble with succession planning. They wind up top-heavy with "leaders" who don't or can't actually lead, but hold senior positions because of false assumptions and internal politics.
Architecture firm title/advancement requirements
The two partners of my 20+ person firm are creating a structure for advancement to becoming a partner. Titles of Associate, Senior Associate and Partner are being established for the office. Does anyone have any insight from larger firms on what the typical requirements are for advancement from one level to the next?
It’s not like working for the government…whether stated or not it largely comes down to making money for the firm…guys that can sell usually get the fast track…reason is it’s measurable, the rest is harder to measure. A big firm will have sophisticated software to measure hours & performance and you can point to your segment and demonstrate that you are bringing in the dough, or preserving the dough to leverage advancement, but still it never trumps rainmaking.
In ARUP, they have a job grading framework (9 tiers) based on job description and work scope. They call this handbook "ARUP COMPETENCY GUIDE". You climb up the ladder based on the increase of your accountabilities.
partnership hierarchy needs to be established otherwise, you will never see a new partner being promoted from senior associate. it's why a lot of the big firms keep "associate partner" and "junior partner" titles in play.
titles are so pointless and dumb.
Either you are an architect and you perform the work or you don't. Lots of big companies have fancy sounding titles that don't mean shit. Are you an architect (if not become one, take your exams)? Are you a stake shareholder in the company? Those are the only 2 questions that matter.
Unless you know that the title you are working towards means a shareholder percentage and decision making ability in the work - they don't mean shit.
When the recession hits - "associates" and "senior associates" get shit canned they are expensive do-nothing chair warmers.
Totally disagree with above seems like in a recession the people who actually do the work get laid off and the remaining productive ones are scared into taking on more work for "lost employees" and at the same time getting a pay cut while the higher ups just keep chilling.
true - but if I were in a position to dump dead weight it would be the top heavy do nothings.
It really depends on the firm and the kind of culture the senior-most executives/owners have created.
Ideally, an architecture firm should really have two tracks for advancement: professional and leadership. The professional track represents the function job description of what each person actually does (e.g. Senior Project Manager, etc.), and probably has sub-tracks for the different areas of specialty (e.g. technical, project management, design, etc.).
The leadership track is for people who have demonstrated the ability and potential to lead, all the way up to the senior-most level. People working for firms that follow this model will usually have two job titles, not one.
Most firms are not very clear-thinking about this, and default to a promotion model that does two things:
1. elevates successful project managers to firm leadership positions under the assumption that the two skill sets are basically the same (PROTIP: They aren't. At all. Leadership and management are two totally independent skill sets.)
2. people who are strong in business development and bringing work into the firm get promoted because they have leverage and can use their client relationships as trump cards in internal power struggles.
These two ad-hoc methods are the major reason why professional service firms have trouble with succession planning. They wind up top-heavy with "leaders" who don't or can't actually lead, but hold senior positions because of false assumptions and internal politics.
Firms don't really want you as a partner until after you have the skill set to start and run your own firm.
And why would they, considering that's the role of the position?
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.