So they are hated on for being the big fish? How about the type / quality of their work?

Whoooooosh.

That's not what I said. I said that they allegedly use predatory pricing to harm their competition. That is not "being the big fish," it's being a bully.

Can you elaborate further on the predatory pricing thing?

So essentially they offer lower fees to undercut the competition. That's typical in business and it is usually the privilege of large companies. That's what the 'big fish' comment relates to. I would be more interested in knowing more about their company culture, in terms of employee treatment, overtime etc.

tyth - bigger firms can (and often do) undercut the competition by "buying work." That is, they bid on projects knowing that they don't have to actually make any money, because their other workload covers the cost. In this way, they look good (to the client) but use their resources to screw everyone else over with their lower fees (you see, in order to continue getting work, now everybody has to lower their fees to be competitive, in a drive to the bottom). Yes, competition is healthy, but this isn't really competition and it devalues our work.

"the privilege of large companies"

Just like stealing lunch money is the "privilege of bullies"

If you don't think the culture of the c suite has an effect on the way the company treats its labor force than you probably should start.

One of my family members had a competent, qualified, and successful small arch firm. They did work for churches and other small businesses at a rate that made them enough to survive yet the client could afford. A regional firm consistently bid against them, undercutting their prices. They did this knowing fully that they would not be able to provide the same level of service as my family member's firm due to the way their firm was structured, yet they did it anyway, just to make sure my family member's firm didn't get the job.

Just because they could does not mean that it's acceptable, ethical, moral, or that folks like you should shrug and say that you'd rather hear about the firm's culture.

Because that IS the firm's culture.

Allegedly.

There's a line between competitive behavior and monopolistic behavior.

Adding to this, sometimes people forget that the firm "bought the project" and is expecting to take a loss or maybe break even. This can result in leaders/managers coming down on teams for not being profitable. This can create pressure on teams to not report hours accurately, meet unrealistic deadlines, produce inferior products (design, documentation, etc.) in order to save time or cut corners, or all of the above. This then continues the downward spiral as other teams are now expected to do similarly even if they weren't expected to take a loss on a project ("Project X only needed Y hours to complete CDs, yet you're estimating your project will need more than Y hours...").

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is the case at Gensler. I have no direct knowledge of how their firm manages this stuff. But I have seen this happen at firms I've worked at in the past.

Bowling_ball, I can see the point in regards to overall drop in fee level. That leads to devaluation of professional standards. On the other hand any company that would compete for work with Gensler, would do have the same advantage against other smaller firms, no?

EA, that's exactly what my point was. If they can buy projects without overworking their employees, then that's not as contemptible in my opinion.

Show me an architectural office with enough profit built into their projects to 1) not only cover the workload on those projects, but 2) also cover the workload of the unprofitable ones so none of their employees are overworked, while 3) maintaining a decent product, and I'll send you my resume.

OK, in that case I would expect to hear horrible overtime exploitation stories about Gebsler

If this is true, then why everyone wants to work there?

I know zero people who want to work there, which undercuts your suggestion of "everyone" quite a bit.

When I applied for work there, the shortlist was 200 people

Cool. That proves something, but probably not what you think it does.

200 candidates / position indicates rather strong interest.

Plenty of people want to work for McDonald's, too. Also Amazon, Uber, Jamba Juice, etc. I fail to see the direct line from desire to work somewhere to that proving something about the company.

You suggested undercutting, which then EA linked to overpressure /overtime etc. That signifies an unpleasant work environment. On the other hand, 200 candidates / position indicates that there must be sizable benefits.

No one else has mentioned the fact that they have offices around the world. As a result, they're going to have staff available that operate on a smaller salary (and effective billing rate) than any firm based solely in the USA. Buying work for Gensler (or any multi-national design firm) does not necessarily mean losing money.

"I would expect to hear horrible overtime exploitation" Have you looked at the reviews on Glassdoor? I just did...

More and more this thread is sounding like the OP just wants to work at Gensler and is trying to convince us that they'd be great to work for.

OP, if you want to work there, work there. We're not stopping you.

Like all large companies they probably have optimised work/business strategies that allow them to profit more due to their scale. So making more profit to allow for project buying it can't be entirely dodgy business.

EA, why are you are making this personal? But FYI, it's pure curiosity.

I'm not making it personal. I'm just saying it seems like you're taking any criticism of the big G personally. You asked for opinions. When one does that, they also don't usually try to find faults in those opinions and convince others to change them unless they have already formed their own opinion and it is different than what they are getting from others.

That's called having a conversation with arguments and counter arguments. This is what forums are for, no?

Sure, usually, but you came here asking for people's opinions ... that usually indicates a willingness to take in those opinions without trying to challenge or counter them. You framed this as a discussion or conversation about why people look down on Gensler, not a debate or an argument about why those opinions aren't valid. I don't really care that you challenge them. I'm just pointing out that it seems like you've made up your mind about Gensler. That's fine. Just don't be surprised if people don't share with you many more opinions because of the way you've reacted to the ones that have been shared so far.

Anecdotally, there is a firm in town I really wanted to work for when I graduated. I like a lot of their projects and think they do good work. However, not finding a job there and taking one elsewhere, I met a lot of people who used to work there, as well as people that do currently work there. After hearing their opinions of this firm, both good and bad, I'm convinced that I would not like working there. That's not even saying anything bad about the firm, just that it wouldn't be a good fit for me. I only came to this conclusion because I listened to people's opinions with an open mind, not because I presented them with counter arguments to devalue their opinions.

I think you are making the wrong assumptions. It seems in this case that you are the one who has made up their mind. My interview at G was over 2 years ago and I am not planning on working there in the future. I actually have a generally negative perception of them but not because of the reasons you and Sneaky Pete mentioned. Also, I reacted more to your and SP's posts because you were the first ones to comment, so the conversation has to start from somewhere. Why do you feel uncomfortable with people questioning your sayings? Are you an expert?

Am I an expert on Gensler? No. I offered my statement based on what I've seen at other firms ... not Gensler. As I stated earlier, I have no direct knowledge of how Gensler works. If you're questioning what I'm saying based on what you already know about Gensler ... great! That doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. It doesn't change what I said or that it applies in the context I offered it. 

My statement that you wanted to convince us that Gensler is a good firm to work for seems to have made you uncomfortable though.

If you already have formed a perception of Gensler for reasons that aren't being mentioned, perhaps you should enlighten the rest of us as to why you view them negatively.

I think we have derailed from the purpose of the thread. For some reason you are very keen to make this personal, I don't understand why.

EA took the words right out of my mouth. You might not realize you're acting this way, but maybe take heed that this is how it's being perceived.

Right, let’s get back to the purpose of the thread. Please, everyone share opinions of why you look down on Gensler so the OP can tell you why you are wrong because your reasoning doesn’t align with the OP’s.

I think you just want to fight and not discuss, I don't understand why you want to waste your time in that. In any case, I will move on and discuss with the rest of the contributors.

The problem with undercutting practices is the firm only needs to undercut to get the job and then make up the differences in "additional services" and what not later down in the project where they already got the contract. These practices are illegal but it's pointless because the laws it violates are not laws at all because if they aren't enforced, they are not laws. To be a law, it must be enforced and laws not enforced are not laws at all but just political b.s. This undercutting practices are not unique to architecture and such 'privileges' should not be permitted and the courts should prosecute every single case with steep penalties that includes jail time and mandatory dissolution of such businesses if they engage in such practices and all financial assets be seized and distributed to a government fund to promote ethical business practices and all other assets be seized and sold off/auctioned off to become financial assets also to fund and promote ethical business practices and establishing a fair market that allows large, medium, and small businesses to compete. In short, it should be the penalty for businesses that don't follow fair practices. Of course, similar penalties also for other similar and related practices. The reason for such extreme measures is because of the result of extreme measures and lengths people go to to screw everyone else over with unethical and even unlawful business practices. This isn't just the price charged to clients but also the pay that employees are paid (often a result of the above mentioned practices).... underpaid employees.

I agree that their work is not as exciting as other high profile firms, but I still think there are quite good standards of quality on their projects and their approach can be research driven, which may not be the case with other large firms.

There are some serious advantages to large firms. I have had a lot of conversations with other Architects about this sort of stuff. The reality is that a lot of people compare corporate firms to high design firms, and those working in really rich or design oriented parts of the country. Personally, I come from a small town in a economically deprived state, where most of my friends back home have never worked on a single project as interesting as my worst project at (a different) large corporate firm. 

Context is everything. 

Are you suggesting that because Gensler are large they inevitably get compared with firms like Fosters or SOM, so eventually the comparison is unjust? That makes sense actually, because I have seen comments on here describing Gensler's work as the 'McDonald's of architecture'.

Sort of. I'm really saying they are unjustly compared to other firms that have more design oriented reputations. Boutique firms, starchitects. And yes they are compared to the other corporate giants as well, though I don't think SOM or Foster are as far beyond them as some would like to project. They are better at curating their work...and cultivating an image.

The McDonalds of architecture is actually an interesting thought... the irony here, is that with my second point about how many firms are beneath them in design... there are actually companies out there designing McDonald. Back when I first got into architecture I applied to a place that did chain restaurants, because it was what was available. I'd take big G over that every day of the week.  People who would make that criticism are really blind to the reality of the profession if you ask me. 

Gensler is capable of good design. They also are responsible for terrible buildings. When your firm is that large it become increasingly difficult to enforce quality controls across the board.

The amount of terrible stuff seems to be increasing these days. Gensler's interpretation of current design trends is not very good.

'recycled corporate p3n1s3s and 4ssh0l3s. They also teach their values and practices for new generations of RCP&A.

Perhaps you were not expected to survive the trip. Maybe you just got really lucky and avoided all the traps.

It was actually a super fun trip. I don't think the thin-skinned Gensler representative was involved in the retreat.

Politics I guess ... its all cyclical at these places. Some other big shots were also ejected after serving more than 20-25 years at the firm a few years ago

The design principal that interviewed me went on his own recently too. I know one more who did the same.
I assume that it's a personal decision, a change of phase in one's career.

I am also curious as to what is really the next step for someone who has reached the top at a firm like this as you said. Perhaps these people are progressively more ambitious, so even being in such positions is not satisfactory to them.

Could you elaborate more on the good and bad things you mentioned?

No, because they've all been covered elsewhere in this thread.

Do you think that the main offices such firms are the best ones to work at?

If you are not in a main office, senior management won't notice any good work you do and your chances for advancement will be greatly reduced. Aside from that, a "good" or "bad" work experience is going to be determined largely by the people you are assigned to work for and with and less about the office location.

What I have heard of is that satellite offices of large firms like that are used as production arms for the lead offices

But I think that your point about proximity to senior management is spot on.

Do you think that the machine like approach is used on all projects? Or only on particular typologies which are standard and they have done for years? A large practice I used to work for had a lot of standardisation in bread and butter projects, but very different approach to other more unique projects.

This approach would only work on their high volume market sectors. But this is where they truly dominate in volume of work. #2 and 3 and 4 combined do less work than then. For what its worth, all of the former Gensler people I worked with were highly capable professionals.

Thanks for your reply and again, I didn't start this thread because I want to work there. Do you believe that in such firms the large studios are in general better offices to be at in comparison to the regional studios? The reason I am asking is because from what I have seen, the regional studios are often used as production arms for the lead office or are specialisised in particular project types and do nothing different.

tldr: they play this game like a business, not an art nor a societal mission. lots of architects resent that this approach works so well for G.

How dare they treat their business like a business! (Is something you wouldn't hear about any other profession)

The values G represents? Like paying for every hour worked, employee ownership, work-life balance, and the elevation of young people, women and minorities to leadership? I'm quite fond of G's values.

Lol. One of the most senior members of their LA office just quietly left due to his participation in a Federal bribery scandal that took down two City Council members. If you want to know about Gensler values you can start there.

^ Got any news articles on that story? Sounds juicy...

Is it related to this at all? https://archinect.com/news/article/150206491/la-to-rescind-approvals-for-downtown-project-linked-to-federal-investigation

I guess you are so gung-ho on your employment that you forgot to read posts up here where many (yours truly included) that it all depends on which studio you get lumped in. My advise, though, in case you were wondering is to be cautiously optimistic in large firms. People with 20 years of experience can be canned overnight.

A little late on the reply, but this deserves an honorable mention. Had it been reply #2 or #3 in the thread, probably could have won the internet for the day.

Tardy internet posts are the price I pay for my day job fighting crime.   ("Come on, lady, grab my hand so I can save you already. There's a juicy meme just waiting to get dropped into a dumpster fire!")