if you have more influence in your position at firm A, you can guide them in the direction you want, as opposed to being led in firm B.

I am surprised you still feel you need to learn how to design esp, considering you are already at a high level.

I would go with where i felt most comfortable to contribute design wise, or which ever way you would feel you could contribute.

Take the second position, especially if you're viewing this as a long-term move. You'll be happier in the long run, and advancement will take care of itself.

I agree with pvbeeber. Recently it's occurred to me that the higher one gets in the food chain, the farther he/she gets away from doing actual architecture and design. Thus, it seems like the second position will allow you to do more of what you love - design. (Unless you really really really want to be a project manager, but I don't get that sense.)

It sounds like the second position could be less stressful, too, while still paying a comparable salary to the more stressful job.

Good luck, and please let us know how it turns out for you.

Unless you're an equity partner, titles are of little relevance. Look at studio atmosphere/working conditions, salary and benefits, workload expectations (talk to people who actually work at this firm that aren't part of interview team), and compatibility of design to your particular interests. Before you move to another firm, it makes sense to check whether people actually like working there.

Thanks. That's certainly an interesting perspective and not one that is without merit, I think. At the first position, they've told me that it's up to me to shape my role.. how much design and how much PMing, how much helping clients strategize/marketing. I'm tryin' to figure out exactly what that means...

I'm not too sure about the stress part :P The second firm has a reputation for being a stressful place to work. But the design focus is very appealing.

What are you going on for your assessment of the design quality /style/whatever of the two firms?

Having been in a similar position before, I can tell you that what you see on the website/in portfolio books is not necessarily reflective of the current design work the firm is doing, nor even necessarily designs done with current staff or anything. If you are going by the actual projects you actually saw on people's desks while touring, then I would go with the second one, because you will learn more / advance more if you are in a place where you believe in the design.

If you are going by rep / website / previous work, I would choose the first position, because you will have more of an opportunity to actually impact their work yourself, and it sounds like they are more prepared to integrate you into their process (and perhaps more keen to have you, which definitely will have impact down the road).

Just a warning re: perception of type of design work.

what is a designer exactly. are you the guy that draws something and then gives it to someone else to actually design the design?

thanks Myriam. That's interesting.. In the case of Firm B, I'm going mainly off past projects the particular group has done, as evidenced by posters and models that they have around the office.. some of which are quite recent. Their current work (on people's desks) seemed to follow that pattern but I can't be sure. In any case, the design values were extremely and universally high.. and also consistently evidenced a very good integration of green design principles into projects. In any case, the people on the team are really nice, and really sharp, and I'll have excellent deisgn mentorship but the firm itself has a reputation for, well, unmitigated nastiness. I have a feeling that the hours are pretty heavy, despite what the principal says. Promotion opportunities aren't clear, since there are two other people already there at the level I would be coming up in at, who presumably would be up for associate before I am.... and I don't see why that studio needs more than a couple associates. I thought I was being clever by calling up a couple of former employees I knew.. friends of friends, to get the 'inside scoop', but from what they told me ('oh yeah, so and so principal said you would be calling...') it was pretty clear that the principal or the associate had reached all of them, and basically had them all singing off the party line for me by the time I met up with them. That's the type of firm. Lock step discipline.. the design-work shows that kind of precision and thoughtfulness too :P

At Firm A, I have a feeling things in the studio (which is much larger, although Firm B is larger, just a smaller studio) are somewhat more fluid and less disciplined, with work more reflective of where people came from. The paricular studio expanded heavily by acquiring smaller design teams from other firms and the quality of the work reflects that difference, at least to my eye... strong green design values is the common branding for all their work but the actual design outcomes range from trite blooby and trite boxy to inspired blooby and inspired boxy. OK.. I'm kidding, but you get the idea. The team is very competent and perhaps a little more entrepreneurial, and they're also very nice and the principals are highly accessible. There are also better promotion opportunities at firm A and I would much more in control of my own work/decisions, but also less design mentorship (I would expected to mentor as opposed to be mentored, I think). They're presently trying to develop the design branding, and enforce consistency, and one of my jobs will be to help shape the direction of that strategy, in conjunction with the principals and sr associates (or so they say). Their former employees also say consistenty nice things about the firm, but I kind of suspect that this is in part because they were in some measure allowed to do what they wanted to do... at least they hadn't been 'gotten to', as was the case with Firm B. Overally, it's a more relaxed place, and, for better or worse, that shows up in their design work as well.

oh.. and here's the scariest part. In both cases, everybody except me went to GSD.. oh, I'm sorry, 'the GSD' as I was repeatedly corrected.

Firm B sounds TERRIBLE.

I would go with Firm A, it sounds much much better from the description you just gave. Ugh. I would stay the hell away from Firm B personally.

The opportunities and attitudes at Firm A sound great, and I wouldn't rate your perception of their design that highly since it sounds like they are trying to change it themselves anwyay, and you never know what kinds of clients/projects a firm will get. If you have more impact then you yourself can design what you like, as long as the environment is conducive to that--and it sounds that way in Firm A but NOT in Firm B. It sounds like you will be the miserable bloke at the bottom in Firm B. UGH!

As for mentorship, you should probably look for that outside your firm, I think. It is hard to be brutally honest and unbiased in the way you need to be in a mentorship position with someone who is your coworker. Just a thought.

I'd also be weary of Firm B - that whole issue of the principles talking to your inside scoops doesn't sit right with me. What are they trying to hide? Crazy question but do you know what the turn-over rate is for both these firms? For me, lots of turnover in short periods of time always sounds the alarms.

do you have to tuck your shirt in? shave? polish shoes or even wear shoes? these are important factors to consider.

Wow - this is a good topic for debate, as we seem to be divided about which firm is a better choice. Firm B still doesn't sound terrible to me.

For Firm A, you say, That position is being offered because I have some related expertise that they feel they need in-house. If you don't mind sharing, what is that related expertise? That screams pigeon-hole to me. If you fail to accomplish that specific task, are they going to send you packing?

Firm A also sounds a bit unsettled: The paricular studio expanded heavily by acquiring smaller design teams from other firms . Is everyone running in different directions? How much design consistency is there? Could one easily say, "Oh, that's a Firm A project."?

I don't take exception to the Firm B people who said 'oh yeah, so and so principal said you would be calling...'. Perhaps the principal just really wants you to work there and wants the staff to put its best foot forward.

I agree with tunamelt - the turnover rate is a key indicator. Did Firm A recently hire a bunch of people because many others recently left? However, also keep in mind that there is a lot of churn in the market in many regions because the architectural economy is reasonably good.

DCA, its pretty much what I said... As some of you may have gathered I qent back to school to develop my design capacity but have a lot of prior PM and planning experience. Firm A wants to leverage that old experience in a new setting for me in order to help upgrade the design capabilities of the studio. They may feel that the studio needs hands-on project-level mgmt to let their expensive and newly hired and currently divergent corral of designers, which is where I come in. At least that's what I would do if I were them.. And I told the as much, which is quite possbly why they hired me in the first place. Firm B just needs a designer with a deep planning background and with a lot of funky design production/rendering skills that can translate that background into formal solutions. Neither situation is ideal, but those are my options.... And what situation ever is? :) turnover has historically been higher at firm B. Firm A's gaggle of newly hired designers is due to genuine expansion of one particular office of an established nationwide/global firm

Thanks for the discussion. This is actually pretty interesting.

That bit about everyone being from "the GSD" leads to another consideration. Check how grads from your school are historically viewed by firms. Large firms may try to peg people by their schools, with some schools' grads tracked as "technical coordinators" and others as "designers" but limited to showy/trendy design studies and model-making. Certainly case at SOM. Either group are likely to be limited in their "well-rounded architect" career-development within a very large firm. Large firms can target specific Ivy-grads for partnership-track grooming, as future design partner material, while state school grads will languish in the studio system without hope of equal attention.

Secondly, interviewer will depict firm as a wonderful place filled with happy people doing exciting projects. Interview description and your reality can be dramatically different. In a senior position, you may be responsible for least desirable project, chronically and/or inappropriately staffed, competing w/"associates" who may be keen to see you stumble or not be as collegial as you'd hope. It can get ugly (or at least lonely) if it's a hypercompetitive or disorganized firm. Work environment really determines you're ultimate job satisfaction.

Are firms outside of New York?

Firm A is on NY but headquartered elsewhere. Firm B..... Hehe

Personally, I'd rather be a designer than merely associated with them.
But then, that's what got me into this mess and away from profitable developing.