As part of a large, three-year Australian Research Council-funded project about the wellbeing of practitioners and students in architecture, our team recently conducted a major, nation-wide survey of people who work in architecture (we have a counterpart survey of students open now – and encourage everyone studying architecture at a tertiary level to get involved).
We were delighted to have more than 2,300 respondents to the practitioner survey, with a good spread of geographic location, level of seniority, gender, and representation from different types of practice. We are very grateful to everyone who took the time to complete the survey, and even as we are only in the early stages of analysis, the findings are already revealing, and important.
The survey was designed to collect data relating to work-related wellbeing (social, physical and emotional); professional identity; perceptions of support; and the impact of work cultures, norms and practices on individual wellbeing. It also collected some demographic data. While many of the questions were quantitative (which we are still in the intensive process of analyzing) we also included several qualitative, open-ended questions.
Here participants were invited to reflect on questions such as what measures they take to support their own wellbeing, what connections they see between wellbeing issues in educational and practice contexts in architecture, whether there are other factors outside the workplace which have affected their wellbeing at work, and two key open questions: ‘What do you think are the greatest challenges for the wellbeing of people in the architectural profession today?’ and ‘If you could do one thing to improve work-related wellbeing in architecture, what would it be?’
Of the respondents to the whole survey, we had 1483 individuals respond to at least one of the open-ended questions. Many of these responses were long and detailed, insightful and incisive. Analyzing these responses requires a different process to the more statistical approach in the rest of the survey, and therefore we have been manually coding each question according to theme. In this article, we explore some preliminary ideas emerging from the question ‘If you could do one thing to improve work-related wellbeing in architecture, what would it be?’
A first and major observation from all the responses to the question is that many, if not most respondents appear to be framing issues of wellbeing in architecture in systemic rather than individualistic terms - that is, not in relation to the unique responses of individuals, but more in relation to working conditions and cultures in the profession as a whole, including conditions imposed from outside.
Given this, it’s fair to say that some of the findings that are emerging are not all that surprising. It is clear that the link between how architecture is valued and how it is funded, between resourcing and work pressure – essentially between time, money, and working conditions, with each affect the wellbeing of the architectural workforce. But it is powerful to see these beliefs laid out so emphatically in the responses, and also to see what participants felt could or should be done to change working conditions for the better.
A wide range of themes emerged from even this single question – of the one thing participants would change to improve wellbeing. Curiously in the pandemic context, few respondents identified a lack of job security or career advancement as key issues affecting wellbeing. Alarmingly though, a number of respondents noted the continuing prevalence of inequity, including overt discrimination and harassment (including some very disturbing allegations).
Other issues have been frequently raised before: the importance of an ability to work flexibly, and/or work fewer hours, including increased opportunity for periods of leave; the value of career mentors and sponsors, and the need for opportunities to upskill and complete additional training or education. Participants argued for the absolute necessity of maintaining boundaries around work time and tasks. But overall a surprisingly small number of participants identified actual workload as a problem, with far more identifying how and when the work must be completed as problematic.
Beyond this kaleidoscope of issues, a distinct set of themes emerged as clearly the main issues, identified by large numbers of respondents as being one thing they would change to improve wellbeing in architecture. They fall into four interrelated categories each broadly concerned with the value of architecture – the valuing and recognition of the service that the profession provides, financial management (fees and pay); time management (timelines, deadlines, and overtime); and the need for collective or structural action to address the current situation.
Many participants stated that they felt the architecture profession, and more particularly the design services it provides, are undervalued by allied professions in the built environment, and by the community more generally. It was suggested that this includes a misunderstanding of the role of the architect, and an underappreciation of the value of design per se. As one participant phrased it, the one thing they would do to improve work-related wellbeing would be to:
Educate clients to understand and value the complexity of design and the value of time spent in the research, conceptual and design development stages of a project […] Education about design ideally starts in kindergarten, if the whole community values the built environment and our contribution in shaping it we can thrive.
This focus on the need to demonstrate and evidence the value and importance of design and architectural services, and the conditions required to produce good design, was echoed by other respondents:
[Create] greater education within and in parallel industries to really highlight how long good quality work takes. Constant unreasonable expectations and deadlines and the push to work towards that […] are breaking a lot of my colleagues (and myself) down.
In the responses there was a strong correlation between what is perceived to be the societal under-valuing of architectural design, and corresponding financial investment, particularly in the fees that architects charge, and the fees that others are willing to pay. Accordingly, one participant argued that the single thing they would do to improve wellbeing would be to:
Increase the value placed on architectural work. So many issues stem from low fees and an expectation that complex and time-consuming work can be completed more quickly than it reasonably can. Higher fees would greatly alleviate many of the issues the industry faces.
This was one of the most overwhelming themes, in response to the question of the one thing people would change to improve work-related wellbeing in architecture. Participants argued that they would adequately resource projects, so that they can be completed to an appropriate standard, in a way that did not lead to work practices with negative wellbeing effects.
Participants linked the charging of low fees (including the effects of fee undercutting, deregulation, and a perceived ‘race to the bottom’ in minimum fees) with architectural workers’ long hours, unrealistic deadlines, and overtime (including unpaid overtime), and also with low pay. The connection between time, money, and working conditions – or workflow, fees, and wellbeing – was strongly indicated in the responses, for example as follows:
Increase fees – time pressure would be taken off staff, business financial pressures would reduce, better work can be done as there is more time to do it, fewer mistakes as projects are not as rushed, fewer mistakes means fewer client complaints or risk of being sued, students and graduates can be trained properly, employees can have a better work/life balance as they are not always in the office, you get paid for the work that you do and not keep doing work for free. Architects would be more valued and not seen as the draftie.
Other participants noted that these conditions are ultimately self-defeating and highly detrimental to the profession, given that people faced with relentless work pressure are apt to depart altogether:
Increase fees to reduce deadlines. I’ve had a number of friends leave the profession or have break downs due to the relentless nature of deadline after deadline.
The final meta-theme clearly identified the need for collective action, by the profession as a whole, in order to increase accountability at every level (both within, and importantly also outside the profession) and change the current situation. Respondents were divided on exactly what form this should take. Some suggesting greater top-down regulation (including legislation), improved HR policies and processes within practices, or more powerful representation and advocacy from institutional bodies. Others suggested a more actively unionized workforce, a bolder and more activist stance from employees and employers alike, or other forms of collective action. But among many respondents, there was a clear sense that things need to change in order for architecture as a practice and a profession to be properly valued – in both the affective and financial senses of that word – and lead to better conditions and wellbeing outcomes.
As researchers also engaged with advocacy, we found this an enormously encouraging and inspiring finding – there is a will for change, there are good ideas for change, and there are rich and diverse pathways available towards systematic action – which the profession sees as both timely and necessary.
