When expectations align with reality, both recruitment and retention become substantially easier.
Architecture and engineering firms spend significant time discussing culture during recruitment. Candidates hear phrases like "collaborative environment," "entrepreneurial spirit," "people-first culture," and "opportunities for growth." While well intentioned, these descriptions often leave candidates with only a vague understanding of what daily life inside the firm truly looks like.
The result is predictable. New hires arrive excited about the opportunity only to discover that the firm's operating reality differs from what they imagined. Sometimes the firm is more hierarchical than expected. Sometimes decision-making is less structured. Sometimes advancement depends more on relationships, specialization, or project performance than a candidate anticipates.
In many cases, recruitment challenges are not talent problems. They are expectation misalignments.
During my master's research on relationships between organizational structure and culture in architecture and engineering firms, I found that organizational structure profoundly influences employee experience. Culture and structure are not separate concepts. Structure institutionalizes culture, while culture legitimizes structure. Employees experience culture through the way authority is distributed, decisions are made, work is assigned, and relationships are formed.
For recruitment and retention, this creates an opportunity. Rather than speaking broadly about culture, firms can help candidates understand how the organization actually functions.
One useful framework comes from organizational theorist Fons Trompenaars, who identified four common organizational archetypes: Family, Eiffel Tower, Guided Missile, and Incubator. While no architecture firm fits perfectly into a single category, these models provide a language for discussing what candidates can expect from the employee experience.
If you're a Family culture, say so
In a Family culture, relationships matter. Influence often flows through trust, mentorship, and close connections with leaders. Authority remains hierarchical, but leaders tend to function more like mentors than administrators. Employees often value the sense of belonging and personal investment these firms provide. Yet many firms fail to explain what this means in practice.
Instead of saying, "We're a close-knit team," consider saying: "Our firm operates through relationships. You'll have direct access to senior leaders, and mentoring happens naturally through frequent interaction. Decisions move quickly because many of them are made by a small leadership group."
That description tells candidates far more about their future experience.
Some professionals thrive in this environment. Others prefer greater autonomy or more formal career pathways. Neither preference is wrong. The key is helping candidates determine fit before accepting the position.
If you're an Eiffel Tower, be honest about it
Eiffel Tower organizations emphasize hierarchy, clearly defined roles, and formal advancement pathways. Authority comes from position, responsibilities are well established, and employees generally know who makes decisions and how those decisions are made.
Many firms worry that describing hierarchy will discourage candidates. In reality, many professionals actively seek it.
Young professionals often want clarity regarding promotion requirements. Mid-career professionals may appreciate knowing exactly what responsibilities accompany advancement. Employees who value predictability frequently thrive in these environments. The mistake is pretending the structure does not exist.
Rather than describing the culture as "collaborative," firms might explain: "We have clearly defined career levels, formal review processes, and specific expectations associated with each role. Advancement occurs through demonstrated mastery of responsibilities and increasing leadership capacity."
For the right candidate, that clarity is a recruiting advantage.
If you're a Guided Missile, talk about projects
Of the four archetypes, Guided Missile may feel most familiar to architecture and engineering firms. Guided Missile organizations organize around projects, expertise, and shared objectives. Teams form around problems to solve rather than rigid departmental boundaries. Success comes through collaboration among specialists.
Many firms already operate this way but fail to explain the implications.
Candidates should understand questions such as:
- How are project teams assembled?
- How frequently do teams change?
- How much autonomy do project teams have?
- How are stretch assignments distributed?
- Who evaluates performance?
The answers matter because employees who enjoy variety, collaboration, and project-based problem-solving often flourish in Guided Missile environments. Others may find the constant change exhausting.
A candidate who understands this dynamic before joining is far more likely to remain engaged.
If you're an Incubator, explain the freedom
Incubator cultures, most often seen in start-up environments, prioritize creativity, experimentation, and personal growth. The organization exists largely to help talented individuals develop their ideas and capabilities. Hierarchy is minimal, innovation is encouraged, and individuals often enjoy significant autonomy.
These environments can be incredibly attractive, particularly to entrepreneurial professionals. However, they can also create an ambiguity that some could find dizzying.
Candidates should understand that freedom often comes with responsibility. Less hierarchy may mean fewer predefined career paths. Greater autonomy may require stronger self-direction. Consensus-driven decision making may take longer than top-down leadership.
Instead of simply advertising innovation, firms should explain how innovation happens. What authority do employees have to influence decisions? How are new ideas evaluated? How much experimentation is encouraged?
The more specific the explanation, the more likely candidates are to self-select appropriately.
Recruitment is really about alignment
One of the conclusions from my research was that individuals tend to be attracted to organizational structures that align with their own motivations, preferred ways of working, and definitions of success. Some professionals are motivated by authority and responsibility. Others by collaboration and problem solving. Others by creativity and independence.
Too often, firms focus on whether a candidate can do the work. They spend less time determining whether the candidate will enjoy how the work gets done. The same principle applies in reverse. Candidates should be evaluating the organization as carefully as the organization evaluates them.
Recruitment conversations should move beyond project lists and benefits packages. Candidates should leave interviews understanding how decisions are made, how mentoring occurs, how advancement happens, how success is measured, and what behaviors are rewarded.
Those are the realities that shape daily experience.
The crux: A firm has to know these things about themselves before being able to clearly communicate it with job candidates.
Retention begins before day one
Retention is often discussed as an engagement challenge. In reality, it frequently begins as a recruitment challenge.
When firms accurately describe their structure and culture, candidates can make informed decisions about fit. Expectations become clearer. Surprises become fewer. Alignment becomes stronger.
The goal is not to create an organization that appeals to everyone. The goal is to attract people who will thrive in the organization you actually have.
The firms that do this well stop selling culture as a slogan and start explaining culture as an experience. And when expectations align with reality, both recruitment and retention become substantially easier.
 |
Rachel Gresham, AIA, MBA, WELL AP, CDT is senior director of Professional Practice Programs at The American Institute of Architects. Connect with her on LinkedIn. |
