Discontent among employees in architecture firms is at an all-time high, demonstrated in the push for architectural unionization in the US in response to the lack of overall well-being in the profession. This discontent can be largely attributed to the inherently exploitative nature of the regular top-down architectural firm structures, fostering a disconnect between the direction firms take and the people working to make it possible. In these, leadership often takes on projects beyond the firm's financial capacity, with the expectation of underpaid staff taking on the brunt of the work through unpaid overtime. In these structures, employees are not to be a voice guiding the firm but to be profited off of. So, what are ways to address this disconnect? Is it time to restructure firms to give architects more agency? What are ways to create non-hierarchical firm structures?
Major Architectural firms like Zaha Hadid Architects have been making headlines, claiming to switch to an "Employee Ownership" model known as an Employee Stock Option Plan or ESOP. The ESOP model (or EBT in the UK), gaining popularity in the architecture and engineering professions, involves employees owning company shares through an ownership trust. These are often used as a viable way to transition firms with retiring leadership for owners who want to give the firm ownership back to itself and its employees.
While ESOPs represent a good step toward employee ownership, they fall short in giving employees more authority in the firm's management. ESOPs work similarly to a retirement plan. While the employee might have ownership over a share, the firm's partners or board of trustees make the decisions leading the firm. This limitation was evident in the unionization efforts at SHoP Architects, where employees faced challenges despite being under an ESOP structure during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Some firms have addressed this lack of authority in the inherent nature of ESOP through additional layers of employee participation. In the UK, firms like Hawkins/Brown, ACME, and Studio Egret West have adopted EOT (Employee Ownership Trust) systems that give representation to employees by having employee trustee directors. On top of that, Hawkins/Brown gave employees a voice within the firm's authority through an employee council, electing a dozen people to represent employees through various hierarchies and roles. Studio Egret West also established employee support of the trust through an "Employee Forum" and a "Studio Charter" that captures the guiding principles of their practice.
A business model that gives workers both ownership and a say is the worker cooperative. In these, worker members actively participate in the enterprise's profits, oversight, and management using democratic practices. Members elect a board of directors to represent them, adhering to the principle of one person, one vote. This member-elected board then makes decisions regarding spending, wages, hiring, and profit sharing. Worker COOPs are much less common in the US, with only over 900 operating cooperatives, but they have been gaining traction in the past few years.
Firms like LACOL in Spain have shown that architectural cooperatives can be successful. Composed of thirteen partners, LACOL was established in 2008. Their practice draws heavily on the tradition of working-class collectives in Barcelona, Spain. It focuses on designing cooperatively owned and operated buildings and helping local groups develop their housing, workplaces, and cultural spaces.
For Architecture Lobby, a grassroots organization representing architectural workers, COOP support networks become crucial. These networks would provide access to resources larger firms enjoy, enabling small businesses to compete effectively. A 2020 AIA survey revealed that although the US architecture profession is comprised primarily of small firms, those with 50+ employees generate half the revenue. Through COOP networks, small businesses could be more competitive with larger enterprises, undertake more substantial projects, and negotiate higher fees by sharing expertise, software labor, and operational efforts within collaborative networks.
The imperative for change in the architectural profession extends beyond meeting the bare minimum for workers. It involves establishing democratic business enterprises where employees have the agency to contribute to meaningful architecture. Restructuring architectural practices then becomes essential for the thriving of good design, as individuals must have a voice to shape the future of the profession.
