by Michael Tardif, Assoc. AIA
Contributing Editor

Summary: The entire building industry is abuzz with prospects for change. Architects, engineers, contractors, building owners, and government officials are mutually engaged—to an unprecedented degree—in broad initiatives aimed at improving the quality and reducing the cost of designing, building, and operating buildings throughout their useful lives. Initially championed by different stakeholders for different reasons, these initiatives are increasingly converging. Whether the conversation is about improving service delivery, replacing an adversarial and litigious business culture with one of cooperation and collaboration, designing sustainable buildings, implementing building information modeling, eliminating inefficiencies and redundancies in workflow, streamlining regulatory approval processes, exploring design-to-fabrication technology, doing business in a global economy, or preparing students for building industry careers in the 21st century, it is becoming more and more difficult to talk about one without considering all of the others.

For the vast majority of players in the building industry, the vision of the future remains exactly that. But an increasing number of players across the industry are finding ways to implement changes in their business processes and business relationships to realize the benefits of new technologies and the newly emerging business culture. Many industry organizations, including the AIA, are doing the painstaking work of clearing away the technical or regulatory obstacles to industry reform on many fronts, and the fruits of these labors are beginning to manifest themselves in the marketplace. As a result, the conversation is increasingly shifting from what we should do, to how and when we should do it.

The conversation is increasingly shifting from what we should do, to how and when we should do it

For architects, the future is brighter than it has been at any time in the past 30 years, a period during which many architects complained of a real or perceived decline in their leadership role. And yet, the bright prospects for the future of the architecture profession are clouded by a persistent belief among some architects that technology and the new business culture represent an opportunity “to restore architects to their rightful place as master builders.”

The sooner the phrase “master builder” is expunged from the vocabulary of the architecture profession, the better

Whenever architects use this phrase, they send a message to everyone else in the industry that they regard them as subservient—whether they intend to or not. The sooner the phrase “master builder” is expunged from the vocabulary of the architecture profession, the better. It is entirely antithetical to a business culture of collaboration and cooperation, and undermines any claim that architects might have to true leadership.

It’s a myth
The notion of the architect as a master builder is a myth. It has never existed. Anyone who disagrees need only read Ross King’s Brunelleschi's Dome. While the book is a wonderful chronicle of passionate commitment—bordering on martyrdom—to one’s design principles, it is not a portrait of a respected professional leader of the building design and construction process, fully in control of the resources at his or her disposal.

Brunelleschi constantly struggled to persuade his client of the merits of his design and to compel workers to build the dome in conformance with his design intent. The project teetered on the brink of disaster many times. He had a tempestuous relationship with his client and was relieved of his responsibilities on more than one occasion. Although his skills as both an architect and an engineer were formidable, these—and the project itself—were nearly undermined by his ego and abrasive personality.

Architects need to find more appropriate models for leadership in a collaborative environment

Architectural history is full of stories of talented, solitary visionaries with massive egos accomplishing great things. Untold are the stories of countless thousands of talented, solitary visionaries with massive egos who accomplished less than they otherwise might have had they only managed to keep their egos in check.

Architects need to find more appropriate models for leadership in a collaborative environment. The captain of a sports team is a particularly good one. The success of a team depends on specialized skills, coordinated team effort, and good leadership—not unlike the business culture to which the building industry now aspires. A team captain is first among equals, in many cases elected by his or her peers or appointed by a coach for demonstrated qualities of leadership—and humility.

A quarterback might be the “brains” of a football team, calling and executing plays, but he can accomplish nothing without his offensive linemen and receivers. A team captain is respected, trusted, and followed because team members have confidence in the captain to lead them successfully toward their goal. If architects aspired to a model of leadership as a team captain—a position that is not a birthright but continuously must be earned—the relationship between architects and their colleagues throughout the building industry would fundamentally change for the better, and architects would assure themselves of a true leadership position in the newly emerging business culture.

Copyright 2007 © Michael Tardif.