In a recent master’s thesis, architect Kaisla Soljanto examines what growth means for architectural firms – and what kind of leadership it requires.
Traditionally, architectural firms have had few middle managers. Architects have worked as specialists, which partly explains why their median salary is lower than that of graduate engineers. The situation is changing. In growing firms, middle management roles and professional specialisation are becoming more common.
Architectural education focuses on design, not management or business, areas which many architects consider to be their weak points. Managing a team or a project also takes time away from design, which is seen as the core of architecture.
Growth brings many positives, such as more professional human resources management, more systematic induction and project management. A larger firm is also more likely to weather changing economic conditions, as the business has multiple sources of income. A large architectural firm often has an edge over smaller ones in public tenders, as these frequently require extensive and recent references.
The architects interviewed described the growing pains of firms. The ideal of a straightforward firm with a family-business feel is difficult to achieve in a large company. The staff of merged firms do not necessarily form one big happy family. The flip side of order and clarity was also perceived as formality and rigidity.
According to Soljanto, successful growth requires a clear strategy, open discussion about the operating culture and proper induction of staff. When processes are clear yet flexible and management is people-oriented, the office can grow without creativity suffering.