Design Associate Needed

[Richard_Mandell]

Anyone mind if I chime in here while you guys argue?  I don't want to get in the way here.  I will say that my mission is being accomplished as I have received 3 submissions for my position through this thread, so thank you.  Before we go any further, please don't ask me about the candidates as I don't intend for my job search to be a public diuscussion.  My intention in advertising my position here is that many of you know people or may be candidates yourselves.  It is simple as that. By the way, the nitpicking is exactly what keeps me away from GCA more than not.  That and the inabiliy to find time crafting a well thought-out response.


Jeff Brauer and Mike Young,


It took me a while to get into the ASGCA and in the first 20 years or so I was in the business (and not in the ASGCA), I only recall 2 municipal RFPs/RFQs requiring ASGCA membership.  Whether it went unsaid many other times, I don't know.  Because it went unsaid.


I will say that I have recently not gotten very far with a few very high profile renovations because I did not have the list of pedigreed projects that others had.  Some of those guys weren't ASGCA members and worked for builders yet were able to list pretty impressive projects that they probably had little to do with other than a few greens or a bunker renovation, solely as an employee of a contractor.


Jeff is absolutely right when he says that people who get the jobs are those that work hard from start to finish in applying for those jobs.  In other words, the RFP is responded to correctly and accurately, the presentation is well thought-out and concise, and the candidate can back up his/her intentions with past successes.  For me, it has gotten easier over the years based on that very experience. I pride myself on making sure everything is detailed and accurate, from the RFP response to the presentation to the CDs and specs to my site visit reports.  For example, I bet few people on this website and in my field probably work as hard as I to eliminate orphans and widows in all my written products (a lone word at the end of a paragraph or a lone sentence at the top of a page, etc.).  By the way, does anal-retentive have a hyphen? I like to be accurate.


Jeff Stein and Mike Nuzzo,


After reviewing these past few days' action on this thread I will be glad to answer Mike's questions:


First of all, we don't use Rhino and the position does not mention that as a requirement.  But if someone was hired that was familiar with that particular software, we would certainly utilize it. 


I have had five full-time associates over the years and every single one of them left Pinehurst because of a wife, fiance, or girlfriend.  They all performed well for me and we still communicate to this day.  My current right-hand man, Philip Picerno, happens to be a Moore County native (as is his wife) who planned to move back before his position even came open.  In fact, they had already started on a new house.  So odds are, he won't be leaving town anytime soon, which I am very thankful for.


The skills that are most important for me that all of my candidates were expert in are CAD drafting and other graphic skills as well as being able to grade, perform cut and fill calculations, and preparing a good set of construction drawings.  Modus operandi for this office is to produce detailed drawings in an effort to control costs and then be a constant presence on site.  I spend at least one day a week on site when I can get there by car and am on site for a few days every other week if by traveling by plane. 


I am of the opionion that an architect's constant presence on site on a daily basis is not necessary to create a superior product and to ensure that the detials are there.  If things are well thought-out in advance, you can spend less time on site figuring out what to do and more time refining the details.  That said, I intend to spend full weeks multiple times this summer on my new course in Minnesota at key points in the process where I can have maximum productivity with my shaper, Marc Burger.


Over the years, I have had about five or six interns and they too needed to show considerable skill in CAD.  They also got complete exposure to an operation from top to bottom throughout their summers, as do all of my guys on a regular basis.  I would say that interns working for me get a more well-rounded experience in and out of the office than most that just spend time in the field.


Bottom line is those who did not go to college with the intention of being in this field are forced to go different routes like working for builders on site or go back to school to obtain the skills that most golf architects, engineers, building architects, landscape architects, etc. expect.  Professionals shouldn't get knocked for having the foresight to go to school for something they want to do.  Nor should those who discovered what they wanted to do later feel alienated because they did go a different route.  Those same people certainly shouldn't hold grudges against those who did go to school and get skill-specific credentials.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Excellent post Richard...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,


Sorry to have derailed your thread with my off hand joke......your office sounds a lot like mine.  And, I am certainly aware that you have gotten a few jobs in MN by giving detailed and passionate presentations that have connected with those in charge of at least two municipalities. I actually had you in mind when I wrote that paragraph.


After considering last night's post, I have a shorter answer for MY - It is what it is. Now, I know "tradition" "status quo" or "custom" has been used to justify racism, and many other nasty things, but I simply can't view ASGCA and anything they do on par with some of the bigger issues that face our country and world........and as such, think Mike, despite being a friend, is a bit over the top on his perceived issues with the organization.  I respect his right to continue banging the drum even as I disagree.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Rich, I look forward to seeing what you did at Asheville. I think you did a great job at Raleigh. Are you McConnell's go to guy for Ross courses?

[Richard_Mandell]

Tommy, I don't think Mr. McConnell nor I would say that.  I just take it one project at a time.  If he wants to hire me for the next one, I'm game. Asheville is the third course I've worked with him on (The Reserve at Pawleys Island being the third) and I know he has worked with others as well. He certainly knows what he will get from me at this point.

[V_Halyard]

Richard,
Although I am not an architect, I think your post was outstanding simply that it allowed me to forward an opportunity with a known architect located in an area synonymous with golf architecture to a soon to graduate undergrad studying and interested in this very field.
The due diligence would be up to the candidate who should be mature and motivated enough to get digging.


If Tom D, Ron P or Jeff  etc posted, I would most likely do the same! 


Thanks Rich!

[Mike_Young]

Rich,


Sorry to have derailed your thread with my off hand joke......your office sounds a lot like mine.  And, I am certainly aware that you have gotten a few jobs in MN by giving detailed and passionate presentations that have connected with those in charge of at least two municipalities. I actually had you in mind when I wrote that paragraph.


After considering last night's post, I have a shorter answer for MY - It is what it is. Now, I know "tradition" "status quo" or "custom" has been used to justify racism, and many other nasty things, but I simply can't view ASGCA and anything they do on par with some of the bigger issues that face our country and world........and as such, think Mike, despite being a friend, is a bit over the top on his perceived issues with the organization.  I respect his right to continue banging the drum even as I disagree.

Rich,
I also did not mean to disrpt your thread.  glad you got some candidates.

Jeff,
I'll start with smiley faces as you ended    and I'm not angry with you or any particular member of ASGCA and I don't think any municipality or any other client owes me a thing.  BUT I'm continue to be amazed that we see my issue here so differently. 
The various things you say ASGCA provides are fine by me.  It's what they convey and the closed shop that makes no sense to me.
Let me ask you these questions as it pertains to a city bid and hopefully you would get my point.

If three architects had equal qualifications and and one was black and the city said it did not accept proposals from black architects would you think that was fair?
If three architects had equal qualifications and one was not a member of ASGCA and the city said it did not accept nonmember proposals would you think that was fair?

I'm not saying your ASGCA contract recommendations are bad.  My entire hangup is that ASGCA cannot have credibility if there are qualified members who cannot be members because the board will not vote them in.  So the reality is that becoming a member is not qualifications at all.  One just needs 9 votes of the board of directors.  In theory that means you can keep competition out and thereby eliminate it from ASGCA only bids.  Until that changes ASGCA is a farce.  If it ever does change and all qualified can be a member then it's a different ballgame and you can choose if you wish to be a member or not...can you not see that?

Smile face

[Jeff_Brauer]

 


Mike,


I guess next you are forming an interest group to make golf itself fair?  Maybe life itself?


While I understand why you feel that way, we have gone to great pains to make the process as fair as possible.  Those board members can vote against a membership recommendation to allow a member in, but it is both a big responsibility to do so and very, very rare.  Every applicant goes through the same process.


Are the standards high?  Yes, in that we presume an applicant will put his/her best foot forward, and can bring four excellent course reviews by current members and five excellent references from clients.  I have never seen an applicant who brings that level of testimonials not accepted by the board.


To answer your questions:


If three architects had equal qualifications and and one was black and the city said it did not accept proposals from black architects would you think that was fair?


Well, of course not.


If three architects had equal qualifications and one was not a member of ASGCA and the city said it did not accept nonmember proposals would you think that was fair?

The two are nowhere near comparable.  And, as described in my long winded post above, quite possibly.  I believe many professional RFP in all fields sometimes require (or at least strongly prefer) those who are members of their respective professional societies.


I understand your contention that many of these allow automatic inclusion if the applicant has a degree or licensing in the field (at least according to you)  GCA is so small those things don't apply, and we rely on our own system of vetting, by necessity.


And, we don't think more licensing or govt vetting is proper for gca.  We fight hard to allow architects to not be licensed, have strict education requirements, etc.  We believe that anyone with talent for the field should be allowed to try, even if their background was insurance salesman, or even Toro salesman.


Again, that is one of the stances we take as an organization that benefits the entire profession (member or not) and the entire world of golf to a lesser degree.  To constantly complain about a professional society that does what professional societies are meant to do, and which has benefitted you to some degree as a non member is a bit disingenuous.


If a few times a decade (using Rich Mandell's estimate) being and ASGCA member has an advantage, it just happens, too infrequently to change the entire system to your liking.


How about this, I'll give up any advantage ASGCA grants me if you give up your advantage as a smooth, drawl talking southerner when it helps you make the client feel more comfortable toward you than me in my damn, smart ass Yankee voice? (I was actually called that once......that I know of!)


Later edit:


I guess what gets my dander up a bit on this is that I don't want anyone to be able to imply that it is an unreasonable system (because for the most part, I drafted it.....) or administered by unreasonable people. I know from experience that it isn't.  While I don't always agree with their votes and actions (they have denied two people I sponsored membership) I do accept them as being reasonably considered.


I do agree with Mike's statement "....In theory that means you can keep competition out....."  Legend has it RTJ kept Wilson out, etc, which is why the system has evolved to be more widespread review.  It was possible that one member could blackball applicants in the old days, but it would take collusion of 9 board members to do it now, and that is very unlikely.  And, BTW, it never seemed to hurt Dick Wilson!


And, think about his contention that some ASGCA associates get in by using five courses of their employers (like I did). Some members agree, BTW.  However, if ASGCA members were really intent on limiting completion via membership to maintain their competitive position, they would have written the rules that your five courses had to come AFTER you left the firm, and started your own.  But generally (there are exceptions) they are more than willing to have the next generation come up through the ranks. 
And, many members did attain their five minimum courses (and meet other criteria, such as getting good owners reviews) without (obviously) being in ASGCA.


And while I haven't checked on it, it seems reasonable that every other professional society probably has a method to limit membership based on various "non professional" behavior, typically ethics, derogatory statements about the profession (and in the old days) too low a fee, etc.

So, I agree with Mike in theory, sort of, but in the end, people, relationships and human nature are always a factor in these kind of things. You can nit pick on the system all you want, but in the end, it is what it is.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy, I don't think Mr. McConnell nor I would say that.  I just take it one project at a time.  If he wants to hire me for the next one, I'm game. Asheville is the third course I've worked with him on (The Reserve at Pawleys Island being the third) and I know he has worked with others as well. He certainly knows what he will get from me at this point.

I didn't realize you had worked at the Reserve. The greens are wonderful. It isn't a great course but it sure is fun and for the area relatively free of houses encroaching.

[Jeffrey Stein]

Richard,


Your views on plan preparation and site time are absolutely consistent with our conversation at your office almost 4 years ago!  This is obviously a credit to your success and the value which you have provided to your clients over the years.


Thanks for your detailed reply and and inside look into your design practice. 

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

Where do I complain about being fair in any of this?  I can fight for myself and despise a victim mentality.  Your comments above keep mentioning how they help the entire profession if they have talent etc.  No one has asked them for help.  At one time I felt it was needed but then realized differently. 

I'm going to leave it with this.  My gripe is not what ASGCA does or how they choose to screen applicants or anything else they wish to do.  And I do know a couple of guys who had five excellent client references and reviews by members.  But it is a fact they are not an association for golf architecture.  There is not one.  They are a club with subjective membership.  Nothing more than that and I support their rights to do as they please as a private member only club.  Zero problems with me.  They can even suggest to municipalities and other government agencies that they use their forms for bidding or RFPs.  OK....they can do it all they wish.  However, a government agency who takes federal money can not use such a club as a qualifier on an RFP.  I'm well past playing the ASGCA game....my gripe will be with any government agency that tries to use such.  If a private developer wishes to do so, no problem from me.

I'll end with a smiley face

Is AB coming to Masters next week....tell him to let me know if in Athens...

[John Kavanaugh]

Why is the GCSAA buying ads on TV during professional golf tournaments. Just adding more costs to the game for what reason?

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


Near as I can tell its for general recognition, to beat out the remaining Carl Spackler images golfers may have.  But, I wonder the same thing about why railroads advertise on general TV as opposed to trade journals where specific customers might be. Get rid of the "only hear about railroads when there is a derailment or toxic chem spill, etc."


Mike,


Sure, we can leave it here.  Nothing solved, of course. Not sure of your Federal money contention, but it sounds right.  As I said in my longest response, cities are all over the board.  My guess is there is probably a federal law as you say, but that there are so many, nearly anyone trying to follow them probably forgets or doesn't meet half the requirements.  LOL


My responses go back to the Clinton era when he was having Bimbo Eruptions and there was a lot of discussion whether it was better to follow tradition and ignore mostly unwarranted attacks, or set up the war room and reply in the same news cycle.  Obviously, I have chosen the latter......


And, I am off early tomorrow, to make one of those muni presentations, where there are six finalists (not sure of exact competition but some are ASGCA and some are not)  Gotta stop posting and go the Rich Mandell route of preparing more diligently......


I have Thursday tickets, but Andrew didn't win the lottery this year, and won't pay scalpers. The Ryder Cup last fall will have to do it for him.....I know he has enjoyed your hospitality in the past and told me to say hello if I saw you.


Cheers.

[Richard_Mandell]

Tommy,

We completely re-designed the bunkers at the Reserve, trying to create some consistency with the design style as well as eliminating many that were simply penalty.  Many of the waste bunkers seemd to be cut directly into mounds instead of around mounds.  They also had very little relationship to the fairways so the re-design involved some light shaping to create topographichal features to work around and relate to.  As extra funds became available, we added grass hollows where we could. 

The bunkers either had native sand or a bright white sand but the decision as to which bunker had which sand and why was pretty random.  So we decided that only greenside bunkers would have the white sand and all others native.  The challnege with that was that some waste bunkers started in the fairway and ended up at the greens.  In those cases, we just made all the bunkers on that hole native.  My primary goal with that challenge was to eliminate the appearance of a greens complex from the fairway with two different sands.

Other than that bunker work and the driving range re-design, we had nothing to do with the ret of the course.

Jeff,

Nothing changes when you have a basic over-arching philosophy to your design approach.  Details may change and you may realize what works and what doesn't work, but if you feel strongly in your approach and you are progressing in the process, it won't change.  Good to hear from you and I hope things are going well.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'm really happy that Richard got his applications, so I hope he won't mind if I get a monkey off my back and rant a bit. It's all meant in a constructive way, we can all get better at the stuff we do. So here:

Many employers aren't aware that their job posting constitutes an application by THEM also. For any given job offering there exists a bell curve of potential applicants: a few really bad ones, many somewhere in the middle, and a very few extremely talented guys that can really bring your operation forward.

With a job posting a la "here's what we are looking for, if you're interested, just apply", you're going to get the really bad ones (they apply everywhere) and a couple from the middle tier. But the few really good candidates are going for job postings that sound enticing - and I do not mean salary and benefits. Compensation is more or less what it is, but the really good people are looking for a fascinating job first, one where they can learn and have fun doing so.

Seriously, "fast-paced environment and CAD skills" sounds like a monkey job. I'm sure it is not in this case, but that is what it sounds like. There is absolutely no effort discernible to make the job sound attractive or like a springboard for bigger and better things. Is it fun to work there? How is my work going to get appreciated? How does my work make a difference? Can I engage with clients or is it all day locked up in a dark basement? What exactly do I get to do on the golf course? Are there any career options, if I do well?

I believe (as a small business) hiring someone has a very big impact. Thus, the job posting must reflect that the business put a lot of time and effort into it, otherwise the candidate, who is willing to do the same, will not apply. Why should he, if there are other opportunities out there, where his skills and work ethic will be appreciated a lot more?

Well, maybe there aren't any such opportunities in golf design, so Richard is safe

Ulrich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ulrich,


Your post could probably start another thread, deservedly so.


Here's the hard part - Most design businesses have a passionate, committed Owner who really loves to design golf courses.  Yes, when it gets busy, the associates get the crumbs.  Of course, they wouldn't hire you if they weren't getting busy, so there is always a chance!  Sometimes, over time, the boss becomes the salesman, and more and more design work is handled by competent staff who have proven themselves. 


But, overall, it is hard to remain an associate long term in many small offices.  There is a point where what you are doing is what you are going to do.  And, they can't keep giving raises based on longevity alone, because drafting is a commodity, more so than ever.  I think we all feel the tug of letting associates design something on a periodic basis, because its why they got into the biz, too. 


And, another thing that happens is no matter what a principal designs, each draftsman puts his own little touches on it.  All they have to say is our rough sketch just didn't work the way we drew it......and HAD TO be changed.  LOL> but knowing we have the chance to change it back (or to something else) in the field means it usually doesn't get redrawn, but may get some red marks in the field.


Many years ago, I recall my staff wondering why ACAD could connect to the internet.  "oh, I replied, that's so I can outsource to India."  That shook them up.  Of course, you can also access many online resources.


I recall my first design office job, as an intern for Brickman Co. one of the country's biggest landscape firms (merged now).  The design director was pretty candid, saying, "Let's face it, you are going to do the grunt work the senior guys don't want to do!" I spent the summer running prints, surveying sites, etc.  I may have got to help on one design.


I also recall why I left Killian and Nugent - I tried to do some grass bunkers and chocolate drop mounds, after reading HWH article on Donald Ross. They said it wasn't part of their style and removed them from my design. (Back then, I was the one changing their concept sketches, always for the better, of course!)  Not long after, I opened my own biz.  To do chocolate drop mounds......think that one over.  Probably the cheesiest business opening reason ever.


And lastly, one of the things they tell you in design school is that the only way to get rich at design is to head your own firm, and if you want real wealth, go towards design build because the construction money is always 10-15X the typical design fee, meaning that profit is more than your design fee in total!


As always, just my 0.02, but being a design associate in a small firm is always pretty hard, and yet, hard to give up.

[Richard_Mandell]

Ulrich,
 
Your last line pretty much sums up the position I am in.  I could most likely say "Entry level job in golf course architecture firm - get it while you can" and wait for the applications.  Any qualified applicant with a slight inkling would respond and many have. I happen to know my market and don't think a long drawn-out listing is necessary.
 
I will say that any job advertisement is simply a matter of supply and demand.  The one with the supply doesn't have to stretch an initial advertisement too far if he knows there are many people clamoring for the job.  I don't mind working through and eliminating the unqualified. If I was seeking the perfect person in a tough market, you would be right in the fact that my advertisement may be a little different. Odds are I wouldn't even advertise and just work my contacts and get creative in other ways.  When I did identify someone who may meet my specs, so to speak, I would certainly start selling them on the job opportunity. 
 
For me, all of the questions Ulrich poses come in the initial phone conversation I have with the potential candidate.  I am in no way required to answer all of those questions in an initial advertisement.  Maybe it would be different if the supply-demand equation was different.  But it is not and I don't believe it ever has been.
 
That said, those who expect those questions answered in the initial advertisement are similar to people I have encountered who think they are entitled to know all the answers from an employer before it is even decided if they  may be a serious possibility.  I have listened to job candidates over the years start out a phone interview asking me, in essence, what is in it for them and, frankly, that really isn't the way it works.  I spend more time telling those people about the job before I even know where their hometown is. 
 
None of those people got a second interview and they are probably still floating around wondering who will give them their break. Let me clarify that I have no problem answering all questions and I promise that everyone I ever spoke to about a job knew exactly what they would get out of it. 
 
Regarding the bell-curve thought, it is my job to vet all my resumes and it is very easy to eliminate the poor ones and mediocre ones before moving on.  Luckily, in my position, I do get highly-qualified candidates.  I doubt very much there is any good candidate out there who wouldn't at least make an initial inquiry for a fast-paced environment, monkeys and all.  I would continue but I have to go down to the basement and see if the workers have enough air and met last night's t-shirt quota.  If not, heads will roll.

[Mike_Young]

Ulrich,

Rich was pretty polite in how he would have handled such. 

IMHO , I think you would find most small business owners would have hung on you once you started that line of questions.  Fortunately how we decide to hire is up to us and in most states so is firing.

Cheers,

[Bob Montle]

[/quote]
I get that we all have to pick our day to day battles, and golf is just a fun outlet for most of us here. I have been wrong before, but I genuinely believe that Mike Young cares about golf more than his place in it.
[/quote]

+1

[Ulrich Mayring]

That said, those who expect those questions answered in the initial advertisement are similar to people I have encountered [...]

Richard, may I respectfully voice a different opinion here? Perhaps you have not encountered those people, as they simply have never applied. Those you quoted, who argued from an imaginary position of entitlement, are those at the bottom of the bell curve, who have to apply everywhere, because no one wants to hire them.

IMHO , I think you would find most small business owners would have hung on you once you started that line of questions.

Mike, the same argument here: those people don't call you in the first place. At least not on the basis of a generic job posting.

Again: don't take this personally guys, I am speaking in a very general way. It may well be that the job market in golf design is so tight that everyone knows Richard Mandell and Mike Young and you wouldn't hire someone who doesn't.

But just as a general thought for employers: those at the top of the bell curve are rarely desperate. More often than not they already have a good job and would only leave that for a better one. If your job posting doesn't sound like yours is a better job, they don't even bother to apply. Especially since an application always entails a small risk of causing damage (current employer finds out and is furious etc.).

And here's an interesting question to ask yourself when drafting a job posting: for that job, would you rather hire two people for (say) $40K each or one guy for $80K? Let's assume costs are fairly equal here, but you're either getting two so-so guys or one high performer. I would bet a lot of money that the job posting reflects the answer to that question.

I'm not sure about golf design and I suppose it depends on the exact position to be filled, but I do know that there are jobs out there, where you will always be better off to hire fewer, but more expensive people (assuming they are expensive for the right reasons). There are scientific studies that for certain jobs productivity is ten-fold for the best vs. the worst, but the best aren't getting close to ten times the money. Even for the "merely" good vs. the average the productivity is three-fold. I have seen a few of those "unicorns" in my time and would kill to hire them - it's just sound economics.

Ulrich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Another thing most don't consider here (my guess) is that even in a small office of 3-6 (which most gca firms are) there is a need for different personality/skill types.  You can't have all hot shot creative designer types and work well together.  You need a construction oriented person, a detail thinker (most designers are "big picture" thinkers, a plan production person, etc.


So, Richard may have had a certain type in mind to fill a role. And, he has to realize all our own tendencies to hire people like us, which can lead to the problem of all the same type people, some of which may need to be weeded out and replaced periodically as they prove they don't fit.  A small office needs chemistry and "fitting in" might be a criteria, conscious or not.


Back in the hey day,  I tended to hire guys I knew would go out on their own one day.  (and 3 did, 2 successfully.....2 others went on to work for bigger name architects)  But, when work slowed down, and I had to lay off , I tended to keep the high plan production types, knowing I would take over most of the design if I could handle it time wise.   


Look back over the years, and a few good architects have had long time associates, like RTJ (Roger Rulewhich) or RTJII (Bruce Charlton) who are both happy and productive.  Larry Packard had a guy named Al Podaroka (sp?) for most of his career.  I am sure there are others, but for most design associates, its sort of 6-7 years and then move on to their own firm, a bigger architect, or completely different profession.


Short version, any gca hiring might be at a different time/place/need at different times, so its hard for an outsider to easily assess what goes on in the hiring process.

[Mike_Young]

Look back over the years, and a few good architects have had long time associates, like RTJ (Roger Rulewhich) or RTJII (Bruce Charlton) who are both happy and productive.  Larry Packard had a guy named Al Podaroka (sp?) for most of his career.  I am sure there are others, but for most design associates, its sort of 6-7 years and then move on to their own firm, a bigger architect, or completely different profession.

Jeff,
It's usually the " Hollywood" types that have long time associates like you mention above and both that you mention fit the bill. If the truth be known those associates know more about what is going on than the name.   One reason I try to just hire out what I need is that I feel bad bringing someone when I know I can not look them in the eye and say the business will still be here for them.  This rework market is going to run short soon and if there is no new work then hmmmmmm....

[Garland Bayley]

I don't know how things are in Germany, but my experience would say that my experience contradicts what Ulrich says.

The so called high value people that are in demand, and needn't apply to the run-of-the-mill job offering are primarily good at running off at the mouth, and not particularly any more talented at the job than many of their counterparts that will apply to the run-of-the-mill job offering.

As Stephen Covey points out, since the advent of mass video media, leaders have been chosen based on personality, but not necessarily on talent.

Perhaps that explains a bit of the pickle we are in these days here.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I agree its mostly big names, but I did have an associate last about 20 years in my firm.  He was creative in the beginning, and very productive over time.  We started fraying when he expressed frustration at my attempts to be creative with the "That's they way we've always done it" attitude.


My belief is the last thing you want to do in design is do what you have always done.  Yet, part of productivity is the assembly line process.  There is always that kind of creative tension in most offices, at least I assume.  And, shaking things up is one reason principal's let newbs and other associates design things sometimes (also to keep them fresh and interested)  You never know where a good idea may come from, but it won't come from anyone who has been encouraged to keep their mouth shut......


On the other hand, even when I had an office full of reasonably experienced staff, I was amazed at the number of times I did a spot check and found they had missed something pretty obvious (like backing water on to adjacent property, not leaving adequate room for ancillary facilities, etc. etc. etc.)  As such, I am not totally sure your contention that they know more than the principal is accurate, but the further the main guy gets from design into marketing, the more that assumption may be true.


And, ask any shaper or contractor....the worst situation is to hand off a project to a competent associate designer, and then return near the end to put your stamp on a project with tweaks and changes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't know how things are in Germany, but my experience would say that my experience contradicts what Ulrich says.

The so called high value people that are in demand, and needn't apply to the run-of-the-mill job offering are primarily good at running off at the mouth, and not particularly any more talented at the job than many of their counterparts that will apply to the run-of-the-mill job offering.

As Stephen Covey points out, since the advent of mass video media, leaders have been chosen based on personality, but not necessarily on talent.

Perhaps that explains a bit of the pickle we are in these days here.

Garland,


It may have always been that way, no?  I recall getting a summer intern at the Brickman Co.  After hiring, the boss said I wore brighter colors and had the more engaging personality than other applicants.  His thought - bright colors = bright individual.  Go figure.  But, in general, gregarious applicants probably do better.  Again, small offices can't hire out a battery of tests to truly determine the best applicants.  Even this firm, which did, ended up with human picks over what the personality tests said.  (Although I do remember him saying my personality test revealed I would open my own office someday)


And, as mentioned, people tend to hire people like themselves.


Lastly, in an office of 3-6, the personality types tend to sort themselves out to work on things they like or are strong at.  You need all types, and it just happens.  Just as there isn't one perfect golf design solution for any site, there really isn't a perfect hire for the office.  In both cases, you pick the one you think fits the most needs.