but then they(employer, not foes)'d hate me, and they'd tell people about it, and I wouldn't be able to find any work around here in the future if I needed to. Design community here is ABSURDLY small.
hey r, that's not including you, right? how many in your office again?
it's funny, when i read all these high turnover stats, it makes me wonder why I worry so much and feel so bad when i quit a job...it's obviously common practice.
Well, the thing that seems a-typical is the fact that so many have gone without being replaced. Maybe some of them quitting came at a convenient time and they would've had to lay off otherwise? It seems wierd, and they definitely have to replace at least one by/before I leave.
Steven -- I think the normal convention is to determine the average staffing level over a period of time (in your firm's case, [8+12]/2=10) and then divide the number of replacements by that number ... so, if I understand your situation, your turnover rate over the last 1-1/2 years has been about 10%.
I seem to recall that the Architects Handbook of Professional Practice addresses this calculation in one of its articles - but, I'm writing this from home and don't have a copy here to check.
well, some people who left have been replaced. Actually, one was replaced, and then her replacement was fired... and I guess in part it's a projected turnover rate, since it includes me and I'm not quite gone yet.
we turn over one a year which may not seem bad but its an office of less than 20. Whilst its always good to get new energy they also take a while to aclimatise and seem to want to want to "fix" whatever they perceive as the lack of success in the office (whether there is or isn't)
I think its interesting that no one on this thread has commented on the fact that it was the management that makes people leave. I commonly find that architects are not good managers.
"management ... makes people leave. I commonly find that architects are not good managers."
The old Pogo cartoon strip always talked about "We have met the enemy... and he is us!"
This is so true in our profession. Young, inexperienced architects always complain about inept management, without having a clue about how difficult it is to "manage" a group of independent, free-spirited, free thinking design professionals.
When you complain about your firm's management, I hope you can remember that you're looking at your own future. Someday, if you're halfway successful as an architect, you'll be in charge of a team, a studio, or a firm. I can't wait to see how well you do in that role.
although we have an ad on the aia website, most of us on the architecture team don't feel the need to hire anyone as all of the things we are doing are in sd and dd phases with developers who always seem to do things in fits and starts.
Architectural firms offer extremely unstable employment because they staff up and staff down for large projects and lack small to medium size commissions to fill in the gap. Average employment in an architectural firms is -one to two years. It is rare to go five years. Owners are often narcissists with no interest in employees. One firm I worked for was a 20 man company that went thru 100 employees in 5 years! Another intermediate size firm had 40 employees and went thru 30 in 6 months! Both were award winners and respected companies. In engineering turn over is very low. It is not uncommon for engineers to work 10 to 20 years for a company because the firms are well managed, employees are treated well. and there is room for career growth. Architecture is a sick industry. It must be fundamentally reinvented to fit market needs.
You are correct that the revenue and profit margins of many USA architecture firms make it impossible to provide long term employment and career growth to more than a small percentage of employees.
Sep 1, 23 9:57 am ·
·
monosierra
A firm that relies on prestige commissions as its bread and butter is doomed to that kind of economics. However, they are in turn subsidized by the passion of prospective employees who beat a line - often from around the world - for a coveted seat in the office.
Some offices make it a point to avoid commercial work in order to maintain its aura, trading (more) reliable cashflow for cheap graduates from prestigious schools the principals teach in. That is not to say commercial work is a guaranteed improvement financially - relatively inexperienced artist-architects can and do get short-changed by wily developers.
BIG has managed to enjoy the best of both worlds. They are as commercial as SOM but somehow retained the brand cache of an Euro-acronym, thereby allowing it to hire fresh blood on the cheap while doing the same commercial work as its blue-chip competition.
OMA NY has been following its footsteps, trying to balance commercial work that pays the bills and cultural work that attracts students.
Neri Oxman, while not a practicing architect, has one of the best financial arrangements in the business: her billionaire husband pays the bills and she is free to explore as she pleases.
Even in commercial offices I usually encountered an "up or out" dynamic where people who get passed over for promotions have to leave in order to find salary and responsibilities appropriate to their increasing experience level. The number of upper echelon positions outnumbered the people qualified to fill them. If you didn't get invited up, you had to go out.
I agree with most of this, except maybe the part where engineering offers more opportunities for growth. I've only worked with one engineering firm, and some construction companies, but the last engineering firm I worked with was about a 12 man company that had big clients such as PBK or SGH, and I don't think I was going to grow in that environment. When I came there I was a junior, but I was rarely ever given a proper mentorship opportunity or decent enough training. Our principal engineer was always under the gun and typically everyone in the office is too stressed out or busy to even organize or share work. Yes, many people were there 5, 10, one even 20 years, but we also had people with the company for only 2 years, and alternating employees every couple of years seemed to be common there. I was eventually laid off because the projects were becoming too complex, and they were absolutely unwilling to train me any further, written in paper. I worked for them for almost 4 years with a degree in architecture. Another person with the same background as me was gone in 8 months.
Wow resurrecting a 16-year-old thread. Judging by my linked in people are either hopping every 1-2 years at design type offices/small firms or are firmly 5, 10+ years and counting at large EA firms.
Some jobs are just too dysfunctional or 0 growth that you got to leave. Definitely hard to plan a life on uncertainty.
Turnover at your office?
mmmmmmmmmm, turnovers!
boo for turnover. My friend's last day was today.
Now they want ME to help them find new people!! They want me to get my friends to work here! I wouldn't have any friends LEFT if I got them jobs here!
but then they(employer, not foes)'d hate me, and they'd tell people about it, and I wouldn't be able to find any work around here in the future if I needed to. Design community here is ABSURDLY small.
yeah, I'm trying not to burn the bridge, though it's pretty hard not to tell them why they can't keep young people at the firm.
There is a lot of churn in the DC architecutral market right now. I wonder if perhaps in 10 years, we will refer to the phenomenon that was 2007.
turnover has now reached 46.67%, and we've still got a good bit of the year left...
hey r, that's not including you, right? how many in your office again?
it's funny, when i read all these high turnover stats, it makes me wonder why I worry so much and feel so bad when i quit a job...it's obviously common practice.
that is including me. At the beginning of the year we had 15... now we're down to 11.
ouch...that's crazy isn't it. (though it does seem typical)
Well, the thing that seems a-typical is the fact that so many have gone without being replaced. Maybe some of them quitting came at a convenient time and they would've had to lay off otherwise? It seems wierd, and they definitely have to replace at least one by/before I leave.
in the last 1 1/2 yrs our office of (now) 12 has gained 4 and lost 1. how do you calculate turnover - just by the leavers?
Steven -- I think the normal convention is to determine the average staffing level over a period of time (in your firm's case, [8+12]/2=10) and then divide the number of replacements by that number ... so, if I understand your situation, your turnover rate over the last 1-1/2 years has been about 10%.
I seem to recall that the Architects Handbook of Professional Practice addresses this calculation in one of its articles - but, I'm writing this from home and don't have a copy here to check.
i think 11 from 15 is more like 26.7 percent.
If my lady leaves me...I could have a major factor in percentages....but she isn't planning on a departure.
vado ... are you calculating "growth rate" or "turnover" ?
well, some people who left have been replaced. Actually, one was replaced, and then her replacement was fired... and I guess in part it's a projected turnover rate, since it includes me and I'm not quite gone yet.
we turn over one a year which may not seem bad but its an office of less than 20. Whilst its always good to get new energy they also take a while to aclimatise and seem to want to want to "fix" whatever they perceive as the lack of success in the office (whether there is or isn't)
I think its interesting that no one on this thread has commented on the fact that it was the management that makes people leave. I commonly find that architects are not good managers.
wow.
worked for a guy that went through 8 people in 2 years... including the principal there were 9 people there during this period.
The old Pogo cartoon strip always talked about "We have met the enemy... and he is us!"
This is so true in our profession. Young, inexperienced architects always complain about inept management, without having a clue about how difficult it is to "manage" a group of independent, free-spirited, free thinking design professionals.
When you complain about your firm's management, I hope you can remember that you're looking at your own future. Someday, if you're halfway successful as an architect, you'll be in charge of a team, a studio, or a firm. I can't wait to see how well you do in that role.
although we have an ad on the aia website, most of us on the architecture team don't feel the need to hire anyone as all of the things we are doing are in sd and dd phases with developers who always seem to do things in fits and starts.
Architectural firms offer extremely unstable employment because they staff up and staff down for large projects and lack small to medium size commissions to fill in the gap. Average employment in an architectural firms is -one to two years. It is rare to go five years. Owners are often narcissists with no interest in employees. One firm I worked for was a 20 man company that went thru 100 employees in 5 years! Another intermediate size firm had 40 employees and went thru 30 in 6 months! Both were award winners and respected companies. In engineering turn over is very low. It is not uncommon for engineers to work 10 to 20 years for a company because the firms are well managed, employees are treated well. and there is room for career growth. Architecture is a sick industry. It must be fundamentally reinvented to fit market needs.
You are correct that the revenue and profit margins of many USA architecture firms make it impossible to provide long term employment and career growth to more than a small percentage of employees.
A firm that relies on prestige commissions as its bread and butter is doomed to that kind of economics. However, they are in turn subsidized by the passion of prospective employees who beat a line - often from around the world - for a coveted seat in the office.
Some offices make it a point to avoid commercial work in order to maintain its aura, trading (more) reliable cashflow for cheap graduates from prestigious schools the principals teach in. That is not to say commercial work is a guaranteed improvement financially - relatively inexperienced artist-architects can and do get short-changed by wily developers.
BIG has managed to enjoy the best of both worlds. They are as commercial as SOM but somehow retained the brand cache of an Euro-acronym, thereby allowing it to hire fresh blood on the cheap while doing the same commercial work as its blue-chip competition.
OMA NY has been following its footsteps, trying to balance commercial work that pays the bills and cultural work that attracts students.
Neri Oxman, while not a practicing architect, has one of the best financial arrangements in the business: her billionaire husband pays the bills and she is free to explore as she pleases.
Even in commercial offices I usually encountered an "up or out" dynamic where people who get passed over for promotions have to leave in order to find salary and responsibilities appropriate to their increasing experience level. The number of upper echelon positions outnumbered the people qualified to fill them. If you didn't get invited up, you had to go out.
I agree with most of this, except maybe the part where engineering offers more opportunities for growth. I've only worked with one engineering firm, and some construction companies, but the last engineering firm I worked with was about a 12 man company that had big clients such as PBK or SGH, and I don't think I was going to grow in that environment. When I came there I was a junior, but I was rarely ever given a proper mentorship opportunity or decent enough training. Our principal engineer was always under the gun and typically everyone in the office is too stressed out or busy to even organize or share work. Yes, many people were there 5, 10, one even 20 years, but we also had people with the company for only 2 years, and alternating employees every couple of years seemed to be common there. I was eventually laid off because the projects were becoming too complex, and they were absolutely unwilling to train me any further, written in paper. I worked for them for almost 4 years with a degree in architecture. Another person with the same background as me was gone in 8 months.
Wow resurrecting a 16-year-old thread. Judging by my linked in people are either hopping every 1-2 years at design type offices/small firms or are firmly 5, 10+ years and counting at large EA firms.
Some jobs are just too dysfunctional or 0 growth that you got to leave. Definitely hard to plan a life on uncertainty.
the last post was july of 2007. they had no idea what was about to happen.
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.