...and then pay them in increasing amounts in order not to lose them when five years down the road they look at their peers who get a new job that comes with a 40% salary bump.

Yeah but isn't that a given? Architecture is a team working environment and that is to be expected and I would argue (at least in my region) that is the norm.

Raises that keep pace with the attractive bump that causes the minor issues to become enough to become the straw that breaks the camel's back? No, that's not the norm.

GridBubbles, you'd be surprised. Some firms work as a team, others work as a dictatorship. It's all about the management style of the partners.

We're never going to get the "perfect" work environment no matter how much you push for "equity" in the office. Someone somehow will find a reason to be dissatisfied with another's working style and management (be it culture, attitude, temperament, emotion etc.). Design is subjective thus conflict arises but unless management is run by a bunch of hostile a**holes who break the law (ie harassment etc.), team collaboration is needed regardless if it is a dictatorship or not. You simply can't get a project completed without team effort, period. "Money isn't everything, but not having it is" - Kanye West

Sorry for my poor phrasing. I wasn't referring to everyone working for a common goal - that's a given regardless of someones role in an architectural firm . I was referring to the management style where your principal dictates everything you do where staff have little to no autonomy and all decisions are made by the principal.  I've seen this happen in a lot of firms and to me that isn't being part of a team but nothing more than a sharpened pencil.  

I think it is hard to quantify "emotional" feelings of management without specifics. Just because one doesn't get their way, doesn't mean the other-side is to blame. As I stated earlier, design is subjective. In any creative profession, it is extremely hard to divorce the sense of control from the author because of the inherit conflict of in interest. Every designer thinks they have the next greatest original solution, but seriously, leave that ego at home. As an employee, we are nothing but an expense line item on their balance sheet. If an employee is consistently disagreeing and disobeying "orders" to perform their task, they're nothing but baggage to the team. I've seen too many of my colleagues and fellow graduates that think they're "hot sh*t" only to find themselves unemployed after their probationary period is up. Their resumes are riddled with short stints at many firms in a short period of time. The common denominator you ask? Its their bloody ego that they can't keep in check. I am in the position that being part of the team (as far as the profession is concerned) means that you listen and be a good follower in addition to the fiduciary duties. Obviously don't make decisions that are illegal or not advisable from a professional point of view. HR buzz words like "transparency", "inclusion", "equity" are nothing more than just legal jargon to not get sued. Unless you're at a pro-bono/ non profit firm that is just the way it is. Look, I get it, designers want autonomy when it comes to design but you're truly never going to get it unless you go out and start your own firm. Ces't la vie. Just my 2 cents.

That's fair. My view is that firms should be hiring talent. Your talent could be a variety of areas, CA, details, conceptual design, ect. My point is that it makes no sense to hire talent then disregard what they have to contribute to the process. A firm won't always go with your ideas but a good firm will at least listen to them. This is assuming you're good at what you do.

Well said Chad, firms SHOULD be hiring talent and retaining them where possible. The unfortunate reality is that most firms don't because there is little to no incentive to do so (be it financial, convenience or just laziness). Companies that truly want to retain talent can't afford to, those that can won't. There is always a balance to what the market can accommodate. I think its healthier to lead realistic expectation about the architectural profession and what you value really. Some people accept not "designing" but get paid much better so they can lead a happy family life/ house/ kids etc. Others chose to sacrifice pay and work life balance so they can be part of high profile design projects. It really just depends on the individual because at the end of the day, architecture (as a profession) is not just theory, its a business. What are the fundamentals to business? Supply and demand, hence its all about the money Lebowski! No point in worrying about management when you don't have money to feed your family! (Sorry, I hope I'm not coming across as a condescending prick, but that is the capital T truth.)

All depends on what firm you work for and how talented you are.

"Some people accept not "designing" but get paid much better so they can lead a happy family life/ house/ kids etc. Others chose to sacrifice pay and work life balance so they can be part of high profile design projects. "

This simplistic dichotomy fails to include the rapacious individuals in the market that RELY on the latter in order to maintain the status quo. If the profession stood up for ALL of its members we'd ALL be better off, and the choice wouldn't be money and shit design or great design and shit pay.

Supply and demand. Employers will ALWAYS pay whatever the market is willing to accept. It up to the individual employee not to sell themselves short of their value. You will never find a firm that will pay higher for the same work and talent that someone else is willing to work for less, period. Firms of high caliber know this and hence when there is excess talent, they get the upper hand to dictate the terms. They are "opportunistic" not "rapacious" as you put it. No one is forcing employees to sacrifice pay for design, either calibrate your own expectation of design or start your own firm. I'm tired of hearing people whine and complain about not having the opportunity to work on "design" projects yet not willing to put in the sacrifice. If you want to be paid better, you're in the wrong industry. Employees need to demand higher wages collectively and force the employers hands to pay better. As long as naive "design hungry" employees are desperate to make their shot at the big leagues, the problem with exploiting low wage high output labour will continue to persist.

Good to see the Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well in Architecture. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, simultaneously bemoaning the lack of willingness to accept lower wages for higher design focused positions and the lack of employees demanding higher wages. 

Supply and demand. What is hard to get? My message has always been consistent.

People beaten down and convinced that demand isn't a good idea get high enough to be part of the supply and suddenly decide to enforce the "I PAID MY DUES SO NOW THEY HAVE TO AS WELL" bullshit cycle that keeps us at the mercy of stingy clients who don't understand our value because we're too fucking busy eating our own to make it known.

At this point, I'm just really confused on what you're getting at. I'll just end it with this... in life you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.

Part of the confusion is stemming from GridBubbles and SneakyPete using opposite understandings of the terms "supply" and "demand". GridBubbles is using these terms in the conventional sense: "demand" is the employer who needs to fill a role and has a job to offer. "Supply" is the talent seeking to fill that role. But SneakyPete seems to be using "demand" to mean the job seekers who he thinks should be doing the "demanding" for better compensation and conditions, and the employers as "supply" - of employment, and projects on which to work.  I'm not sure if this is a deliberate flipping, or a misunderstanding.

In the context of the discussion, the economic definition of supply and demand is implicit. I don't understand why SneakyPete would be flipping the definition unless they're obviously changing the vernacular definition of the term or just using the wrong terminology to begin with.

Yup!

Excellent answer. I'm about 8 years in to my real career and have most of the benefits you describe. When I hear about the working conditions of many of my friends, I remember how fortunate I am. On the other hand, at any given time I'm managing $50M+ in construction alongside personnel management within the office. This is a busy period for most architects.

Agreed. A arch firm I rent to does a great job at attracting. 2 days a week you can telework... not VPN, but through cloud based solutions. Additionally, hours are set by school hours for the times you need to be in the office and you can set however the f'k you want to hit the the expected 40-50 hours. That's attractive to starting families trying to avoid daycare costs. Starting 3wk vacation. They don't pay as much, but once you figure out how much daycare is you get to keep more of your money than otherwise, skip a long commute and rush hour, and work in the evenings... it's a good alternative.

Yep, at that point in my career, I was very frustrated at being pigeonholed. Sadly, the firm I moved to pulled a bait & switch - they said all the right things in the interview, then when I'd been there 6 months they shoved me right back in the same pigeonhole.

I'll also add that the comments about supporting, mentoring, and allowing more freedom to these employees is crucial as well. But those things should be standard employment practices as they will benefit the firm overall. But what doesn't benefit the firm is providing those things and not compensating employees properly. Nothing worse than investing in the growth of your employees only to have them go somewhere else for more money.

I had about the same experience getting into the profession just after the early 90s recession. My problem was that I _wanted_ to fill those intermediate roles before moving higher, but management was always pushing me either to take on PM duties, or to pigeonhole me doing only one thing I was good at.

Spit-take was because I think "mid-level" does not equal "mid-career." One speaks to responsibility levels, the other speaks to timeline from career beginning (graduation/first job) to retirement.

P.s. I wrote about how entry-level didn't seem to mean entry-level a number of years ago. Has this changed?

Coming back to add that "level" in terms of entry-, mid-, etc. is not just about responsibility, but also skill, expertise, knowledge, etc. Generally, I would agree that 4-8 years might be getting into the start of mid-level for dedicated, driven people. Still a lot to learn, but have come a long way from entry-level status. They are probably still early-career though. Mid-career might start in another 4-8 years ... or more.

I’ve seen this happen first hand as well. In that case I think the issue stemmed from the firm mantra that everyone was a designer. It’s a nice thought and attempts to communicate that the firm wants design input at all stages from everyone involved in the project, but it gets confusing in situations like the one you describe above.

To add to the confusion, the title Designer is often used to indicate someone who is not yet licensed regardless of their level. This is probably why they assumed you were going to be producing; it's often nothing to do with the actual Designing of anything.

In general, the job titles people use are supremely confusing.  At my office, a PA develops an entire set of documents, oversees staff (kind of like a job captain), details out work for younger staff, does product research, etc., all under the review of a PM; they both work together to perform CA.  In other firms we sometimes consult for, the PA is basically the equivalent of our PM.  

in both my previous and current firm the titles are only descriptions of tiers in the hierarchy, and give no indication at all of the work role. so designer

... designer below associate below principal below VP. principals have no executive authority, just a compensation scheme more closely based on project performance. i get the sense big firms prefer to keep roles flexible in order to adjust to work needs. when people have a specific title they tend to fit themselves to that role.

Our insurer recommends "Designer" as the one and only title for all unlicensed staff, regardless of duties. They don't want us to use anything that could imply supervisory capacity or unsupervised decision making by anyone unlicensed (such as any titles with the words "captain" or "manager" in them), or anything that will run up against any state's statutes (so anything with "professional" in it is out, as is anything with words starting with "archi"), or anything that could be construed as indicating seniority or ownership (anything with "associate" is out.) Basically if you're not a licensed architect, and you work in an architecture firm, and you're not some sort of clearly non-design/production administrative support role like receptionist, bookkeeper, or IT technician, then you're a Designer.

I should also include: what is the level of idealism at the firm? I got into architecture because of the potential for positive social impact, not just because of "design"