I have seen several posts on here which suggest that Gensler is not a good place to work or people mentioning they wouldn't want to be employed there.
Why is this in your opinion?
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 5:26 pm
My colleagues who dislike Gensler frequently cite their alleged tendency to undercut projects to steal them from other firms.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 5:29 pm
So they are hated on for being the big fish? How about the type / quality of their work?
Non Sequitur
Mar 24, 21 5:30 pm
Whoooooosh.
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 5:32 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 5:36 pm
Can you elaborate further on the predatory pricing thing?
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:04 pm
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.
bowling_ball
Mar 24, 21 6:06 pm
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.
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 6:08 pm
"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.
tduds
Mar 24, 21 6:11 pm
There's a line between competitive behavior and monopolistic behavior.
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 6:17 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:19 pm
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?
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:25 pm
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.
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 6:38 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:50 pm
OK, in that case I would expect to hear horrible overtime exploitation stories about Gebsler
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:51 pm
If this is true, then why everyone wants to work there?
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 6:53 pm
I know zero people who want to work there, which undercuts your suggestion of "everyone" quite a bit.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:55 pm
When I applied for work there, the shortlist was 200 people
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 6:56 pm
Cool. That proves something, but probably not what you think it does.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 6:56 pm
200 candidates / position indicates rather strong interest.
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 6:58 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:20 pm
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.
SlammingMiruvor
Mar 24, 21 7:20 pm
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.
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 7:24 pm
"I would expect to hear horrible overtime exploitation" Have you looked at the reviews on Glassdoor? I just did...
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 7:27 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:30 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:31 pm
EA, why are you are making this personal? But FYI, it's pure curiosity.
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 7:34 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:36 pm
That's called having a conversation with arguments and counter arguments. This is what forums are for, no?
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 8:19 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 8:35 pm
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?
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 8:50 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 9:28 pm
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.
tduds
Mar 24, 21 9:40 pm
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.
Everyday Architect
Mar 24, 21 10:19 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 25, 21 5:09 am
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.
rcz1001
Apr 1, 21 2:15 am
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.
natematt
Mar 24, 21 5:29 pm
Honestly, I think they are just easy to pick on because they are the biggest firm, and there is a lot that comes with that. Their work isn’t as consistent and exceptional as some of the more high design firms, and I don’t think they benefit from some of the PR developed by other larger firms, because they are so generalized.
Realistically, they are a much better firm than many out there, and I know a lot of people who like working there.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 5:33 pm
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.
natematt
Mar 24, 21 5:49 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 5:56 pm
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'.
natematt
Mar 24, 21 6:11 pm
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.
SneakyPete
Mar 24, 21 6:14 pm
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.
thisisnotmyname
Mar 25, 21 9:49 am
The amount of terrible stuff seems to be increasing these days. Gensler's interpretation of current design trends is not very good.
rcz1001
Apr 1, 21 2:25 am
'recycled corporate p3n1s3s and 4ssh0l3s. They also teach their values and practices for new generations of RCP&A.
Paul Petrunia
Mar 24, 21 5:46 pm
A funny thing about Gensler... we've reported on them a lot in the last couple of decades on Archinect. We published a story by a freelancer a few years ago that was critical of Gensler. Friends of mine at the LA Gensler office later told me that because they didn't like the coverage they immediately instructed Archinect to be removed from all press releases, for a complete media blackout. Even funnier, I learned about it while on a Gensler ski retreat that I was invited to attend.
Non Sequitur
Mar 24, 21 5:49 pm
Perhaps you were not expected to survive the trip. Maybe you just got really lucky and avoided all the traps.
Paul Petrunia
Mar 24, 21 5:52 pm
It was actually a super fun trip. I don't think the thin-skinned Gensler representative was involved in the retreat.
torr
Mar 24, 21 6:58 pm
You also have to ask why they've had important leadership leave like Rob Jernigan, David Glover, and Barbara Bouza. They made it to the top, but all of a sudden they're out. Anyone know what happened? All three ran the LA Gensler office.
sameolddoctor
Mar 24, 21 7:26 pm
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
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:39 pm
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 9:30 pm
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.
Josh Mings
Mar 24, 21 7:25 pm
Same with the Chicago office, but the caveat there is a lot of higher up people left when Lamar Johnson went out on his own and went with him. I've had several friends work there, some good things, some bad things. Gensler strikes me as a good place to work (I even applied once but had signed an offer elsewhere before they got back to me). Chicago office does some good design work.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:56 pm
Could you elaborate more on the good and bad things you mentioned?
Josh Mings
Mar 25, 21 1:29 pm
No, because they've all been covered elsewhere in this thread.
sameolddoctor
Mar 24, 21 7:25 pm
Like most big offices, Gensler is one where your life depends on what studio you get stuck in. The unfortunate part of being so large is that not a lot of projects get the TLC they deserve. There are many ex-gensler clients that come to us cuz the big G was well, too big for their medium-scale project.
That said, they do produce some cool stuff once in a while...like sausage factories sometimes put of "artisan" versions...
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 7:51 pm
Do you think that the main offices such firms are the best ones to work at?
thisisnotmyname
Mar 25, 21 9:57 am
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.
Kinsbergen
Mar 25, 21 2:29 pm
What I have heard of is that satellite offices of large firms like that are used as production arms for the lead offices
Kinsbergen
Mar 25, 21 2:30 pm
But I think that your point about proximity to senior management is spot on.
Rusty!
Mar 24, 21 8:30 pm
Gensler operates at a scale where they can start to kinda sorta automate certain workflows that smaller operations are just not capable of doing. When it comes to technical documentation, they have a machine like approach that introduces all kinds of efficiencies, yet leaves you feeling like you are just a limited purpose connecting rod inside of an engine piston. Anyone who has ever tried to standardize details knows that it's a double edged sword. You sacrifice innovation for purpose of utility. And that is a common impression from former Gensler staff. Great place to learn, but not necessarily innovative. Any innovation has to be "approved" and introduced into the machine.
If you asked "what is the complete opposite of a tiny architectural practice?" then "Gensler" would be a good answer because this is closest architectural practice has gotten to being the Walmart, or Apple, or Halliburton, or MagicWand of its respective industry.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 8:55 pm
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.
Rusty!
Mar 24, 21 9:01 pm
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.
Jay1122
Mar 24, 21 8:40 pm
Dude, if you want to work there just work there. As far as your 200 candidate for the job thing. That has nothing to do with big G being good. Architecture is just that competitive in general. That is why those firms can afford to be abusive and exploit employees with unpaid overtime. Not to mention big G is located in major city, which attracts talents from all over the country and world. You don't need validation from people. This is big G, the largest firm in US. Trust me, a firm that size. Which regional office, which studio sector, Which manager, which team you end up will have big differences. One may experience great colleagues and relaxing hours. Another may experience bully boss and overwork without pay and recognition. Just try it, and jump if it is a toxic environment not to your liking.
Does anyone know how big G projects are run. Do people get pigeonholed in specific roles? I am more interested in that.
Kinsbergen
Mar 24, 21 8:59 pm
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.
midlander
Mar 25, 21 1:07 am
i haven't worked there though once interviewed as sort of an informational interview at a time they had no positions for my experience. they were friendly and professional, with a sleek workspace environment - well targeted towards their market of big corporate work.
my impression is that they got big by taking advantage of the market for upper-mid tier retail and office interiors that other big firms simply viewed as bread and butter work. whereas G saw it as their core and worked hard to know the market and impress the clients with professional competence.
while they have grown in scale and ambitions, this culture of design as a branding feature is evident in most of the work and means they aren't attractive to architects who view the work as a passion. otoh the compensation is linked to project performance and generous when things go well, which motivates the mid level staff who really get everything important done in any office. this also means jr staff and even management are treated somewhat as a replaceable input in the system - it's butts in seats that generate billable work. in short - they run the office like a professional services firm (law, consulting...) more than a workshop or atelier - which again makes good sense to the clients.
i've had plenty friends work there and a few who still do. the ones who left were always because they felt somewhat stuck in middle management and needed a place where their role could grow bigger, or wanted to work just as hard in a more edgy design oriented firm.
so ppl denigrate G for being big, smooth-talking, and no more than fashionably edgy. it represents big corporate values, despite being more of a family controlled partnership in structure. much of the criticism is more generally directed at the values G represents than the firm itself .
midlander
Mar 25, 21 1:13 am
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.
bowling_ball
Mar 25, 21 9:20 am
How dare they treat their business like a business! (Is something you wouldn't hear about any other profession)
archanonymous
Mar 25, 21 10:38 am
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.
Janosh
Mar 25, 21 11:33 am
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.
Bench
Mar 25, 21 11:59 am
^ Got any news articles on that story? Sounds juicy...
I didn’t work for G but I worked for a G-like company with coworkers going there back and forth. Personally it was my best workplace in the field. I even said at the interview that I am not open to work overtime and they hired me and respected it. However in this kind of companies everything(!) depends on the team. If you are on a good team you will enjoy your work. Otherwise it could be a horrible experience.
sameolddoctor
Mar 25, 21 2:20 pm
I interviewed there once. Got to my THIRD round of interviews (which was ridiculous in itself - it seems people are very careful vouching for others in that office).
About 10 minutes into my interview, the Principal says "thanks a lot" and walks out like an absolute jerk. Said Principal look a "leave of absence" (he was actually evicted) in about 6 months after the interview. Good riddance, and thankful I never got in.
ivorykeyboard
Mar 31, 21 11:53 pm
this is TMI for this website but I’ve worked at gensler for almost 8 years and I love it. Why?
- great design opportunities so far
- 8-12% profit sharing (401k) every year
- bonuses that are 25% of your base pay
- paid overtime AT ALL LEVELS
- I’m at six figures with 8 years experience (counting bonus)
honestly I haven’t had the massive amount of overtime some ppl claim, and it really seems like most of the comments here are heresay second hand info from bitter ex employees. Just my 2 cents. I’ll be back in 2 years for another post
ivorykeyboard
Mar 31, 21 11:55 pm
Also 90% of the responses here have no idea what Gensler’s workflow, culture, etc is. It varies per office, this is all your typical archinect hot air. anonymous opinions on an Internet forum are not a great barometer for... anything
sameolddoctor
Apr 1, 21 1:18 am
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.
citizen
Apr 7, 21 7:29 pm
.
Everyday Architect
Apr 7, 21 8:01 pm
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.
citizen
Apr 7, 21 8:13 pm
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!")
I have seen several posts on here which suggest that Gensler is not a good place to work or people mentioning they wouldn't want to be employed there.
Why is this in your opinion?
My colleagues who dislike Gensler frequently cite their alleged tendency to undercut projects to steal them from other firms.
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.
Honestly, I think they are just easy to pick on because they are the biggest firm, and there is a lot that comes with that. Their work isn’t as consistent and exceptional as some of the more high design firms, and I don’t think they benefit from some of the PR developed by other larger firms, because they are so generalized.
Realistically, they are a much better firm than many out there, and I know a lot of people who like working there.
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.
A funny thing about Gensler... we've reported on them a lot in the last couple of decades on Archinect. We published a story by a freelancer a few years ago that was critical of Gensler. Friends of mine at the LA Gensler office later told me that because they didn't like the coverage they immediately instructed Archinect to be removed from all press releases, for a complete media blackout. Even funnier, I learned about it while on a Gensler ski retreat that I was invited to attend.
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.
You also have to ask why they've had important leadership leave like Rob Jernigan, David Glover, and Barbara Bouza. They made it to the top, but all of a sudden they're out. Anyone know what happened? All three ran the LA Gensler office.
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.
Same with the Chicago office, but the caveat there is a lot of higher up people left when Lamar Johnson went out on his own and went with him. I've had several friends work there, some good things, some bad things. Gensler strikes me as a good place to work (I even applied once but had signed an offer elsewhere before they got back to me). Chicago office does some good design work.
Could you elaborate more on the good and bad things you mentioned?
No, because they've all been covered elsewhere in this thread.
Like most big offices, Gensler is one where your life depends on what studio you get stuck in. The unfortunate part of being so large is that not a lot of projects get the TLC they deserve. There are many ex-gensler clients that come to us cuz the big G was well, too big for their medium-scale project.
That said, they do produce some cool stuff once in a while...like sausage factories sometimes put of "artisan" versions...
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.
Gensler operates at a scale where they can start to kinda sorta automate certain workflows that smaller operations are just not capable of doing. When it comes to technical documentation, they have a machine like approach that introduces all kinds of efficiencies, yet leaves you feeling like you are just a limited purpose connecting rod inside of an engine piston. Anyone who has ever tried to standardize details knows that it's a double edged sword. You sacrifice innovation for purpose of utility. And that is a common impression from former Gensler staff. Great place to learn, but not necessarily innovative. Any innovation has to be "approved" and introduced into the machine.
If you asked "what is the complete opposite of a tiny architectural practice?" then "Gensler" would be a good answer because this is closest architectural practice has gotten to being the Walmart, or Apple, or Halliburton, or MagicWand of its respective industry.
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.
Dude, if you want to work there just work there. As far as your 200 candidate for the job thing. That has nothing to do with big G being good. Architecture is just that competitive in general. That is why those firms can afford to be abusive and exploit employees with unpaid overtime. Not to mention big G is located in major city, which attracts talents from all over the country and world. You don't need validation from people. This is big G, the largest firm in US. Trust me, a firm that size. Which regional office, which studio sector, Which manager, which team you end up will have big differences. One may experience great colleagues and relaxing hours. Another may experience bully boss and overwork without pay and recognition. Just try it, and jump if it is a toxic environment not to your liking.
Does anyone know how big G projects are run. Do people get pigeonholed in specific roles? I am more interested in that.
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.
i haven't worked there though once interviewed as sort of an informational interview at a time they had no positions for my experience. they were friendly and professional, with a sleek workspace environment - well targeted towards their market of big corporate work.
my impression is that they got big by taking advantage of the market for upper-mid tier retail and office interiors that other big firms simply viewed as bread and butter work. whereas G saw it as their core and worked hard to know the market and impress the clients with professional competence.
while they have grown in scale and ambitions, this culture of design as a branding feature is evident in most of the work and means they aren't attractive to architects who view the work as a passion. otoh the compensation is linked to project performance and generous when things go well, which motivates the mid level staff who really get everything important done in any office. this also means jr staff and even management are treated somewhat as a replaceable input in the system - it's butts in seats that generate billable work. in short - they run the office like a professional services firm (law, consulting...) more than a workshop or atelier - which again makes good sense to the clients.
i've had plenty friends work there and a few who still do. the ones who left were always because they felt somewhat stuck in middle management and needed a place where their role could grow bigger, or wanted to work just as hard in a more edgy design oriented firm.
so ppl denigrate G for being big, smooth-talking, and no more than fashionably edgy. it represents big corporate values, despite being more of a family controlled partnership in structure. much of the criticism is more generally directed at the values G represents than the firm itself .
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 didn’t work for G but I worked for a G-like company with coworkers going there back and forth. Personally it was my best workplace in the field. I even said at the interview that I am not open to work overtime and they hired me and respected it. However in this kind of companies everything(!) depends on the team. If you are on a good team you will enjoy your work. Otherwise it could be a horrible experience.
I interviewed there once. Got to my THIRD round of interviews (which was ridiculous in itself - it seems people are very careful vouching for others in that office).
About 10 minutes into my interview, the Principal says "thanks a lot" and walks out like an absolute jerk. Said Principal look a "leave of absence" (he was actually evicted) in about 6 months after the interview. Good riddance, and thankful I never got in.
this is TMI for this website but I’ve worked at gensler for almost 8 years and I love it. Why?
- great design opportunities so far
- 8-12% profit sharing (401k) every year
- bonuses that are 25% of your base pay
- paid overtime AT ALL LEVELS
- I’m at six figures with 8 years experience (counting bonus)
honestly I haven’t had the massive amount of overtime some ppl claim, and it really seems like most of the comments here are heresay second hand info from bitter ex employees. Just my 2 cents. I’ll be back in 2 years for another post
Also 90% of the responses here have no idea what Gensler’s workflow, culture, etc is. It varies per office, this is all your typical archinect hot air. anonymous opinions on an Internet forum are not a great barometer for... anything
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!")