Performance problems in AEC firms are rarely effort issues; they’re organizational design failures leaders must own and intentionally fix.
A few months ago, I worked with an AEC firm that wasn’t performing the way its leaders expected. Revenue was soft in a few sectors, frustration was high, and the leadership team couldn’t seem to have productive conversations about what was actually wrong. They asked me to look at their organizational structure and governance – decision-making, partner compensation, leadership roles – and what I found wasn’t unusual, but it was messy.
The firm didn’t have a clear way to talk about performance because the organization itself wasn’t designed to support those conversations. Incentives conflicted with collaboration. Roles overlapped in some places and were completely absent in others. Decisions lingered because no one was quite sure who owned them. Everyone was working hard, but not necessarily together.
That experience reinforced something I see over and over again in AEC firms: performance problems are often design problems. And design, whether leaders realize it or not, is their responsibility.
Too often, when firms struggle, leaders jump straight to tactics. They talk about improving communication, tightening budgets, or holding people more accountable. Those things matter, but they miss the bigger issue. Before you can lead change or improve execution, you have to design an organization where good performance is even possible.
I spend a lot of time thinking about this through what I call the three Cs of team performance: clarity, chemistry, and control. When these three things are present, performance has a chance to emerge. When they’re missing, even great people struggle.
-
Clarity. In many firms, there are plenty of collections of people – committees, leadership teams, standing calls – that aren’t really teams at all. They meet regularly, but no one can clearly articulate what they’re supposed to accomplish, how success is measured, or what decisions they actually own. I’ve sat in weekly calls with strong attendance where, if you asked participants what the purpose of the group was, you’d get wildly different answers. That’s not a people problem; it’s a design problem.
Clarity means the team is well-defined. People understand why the team exists, what it’s responsible for, and the boundaries within which it operates. It also means roles are assigned. Who drives decisions forward? Who needs to be consulted? Who is simply informed? When those answers aren’t clear, friction fills the gap. - Chemistry. This isn’t about everyone liking each other or avoiding conflict. It’s about whether people can work together productively. Are there incentive structures that quietly pit leaders against one another? Are there historical tensions that make honest discussion difficult? Are people able to raise concerns without worrying about political fallout? If the chemistry is off, even a well-defined structure won’t function the way it’s intended.
- Control. This is the one firms often shy away from. Control doesn’t mean micromanagement. It means having the right level of oversight, data, and feedback loops so teams can monitor performance and adjust. Is there a regular rhythm of review? Are expectations tied to measurable outcomes? Do teams have the authority to act on what they learn? Without control, clarity and chemistry don’t translate into results.
When I talk with CEOs, my role is to identify what’s not working and help design corrective action. That often starts at the top. If the leadership team isn’t aligned, if decision rights are muddy, or if the finance function isn’t fully integrated into strategic conversations, those issues cascade through the organization. Organizational gravity is real. Dysfunction at the top rolls downhill.
One practical exercise I often recommend is deceptively simple: map all the teams in your firm. Not just formal ones like the executive committee or board, but departments, market teams, standing calls, and recurring working groups. Then ask a few hard questions of each one. How well is this team defined? How well is it aligned around a shared goal? How well is it assigned in terms of roles and decision-making? Most firms quickly discover that several of their “teams” fail at least one of those tests.
This isn’t a magic solution. It’s the AEC business equivalent of “eat less and exercise more.” It sounds obvious, but it works – if you’re willing to be honest about what you see. As firms look ahead to the next year or two, especially in an environment where margins are tight and uncertainty is high, being intentional about organizational design is one of the most powerful levers leaders have.
Designing an organization that works doesn’t mean you’ll never have problems. It means you’ll have a structure that allows you to surface them, talk about them, and address them productively. That’s where performance comes from.
And if all of this feels overwhelming, you don’t have to do it alone.
Zweig Group’s Performance consulting practice helps AEC firm leaders evaluate and redesign their organizations to support clarity, alignment, and results. If you’re questioning whether your leadership structure, decision-making processes, or team dynamics are setting your firm up for success, we can help diagnose the issues and guide corrective action. Reach out to learn how we help firms design organizations where performance can actually happen.
 |
Tom Godin is senior director of Performance consulting at Zweig Group. Contact him at tgodin@zweiggroup.com. |
