Pros
The coffee machine was awesome!
Cons
I worked at the Gensler Chicago office for several years and was laid off shortly after a major and expensive office renovation. That experience raised serious questions for me about the firm’s financial judgment and its commitment to employee retention. To put it plainly, Gensler was the most toxic workplace I have experienced in my career. In my view, advancement within the firm was driven less by architectural ability, integrity, or technical competence than by political conformity and alignment with upper management. The higher the position, the more important it became to protect the system rather than challenge it. The firm’s co-CEO structure exemplifies this culture. It creates layers of upper management with diffuse responsibility and limited accountability. If multi-billion-dollar technology companies can function with a single CEO, it is difficult to see why an architecture firm requires such an elaborate executive structure. The extent to which this leadership model is promoted by the firm’s PR apparatus only reinforces the sense that image management is prioritized over substance. The practical effect is that accountability tends to flow downward. When problems arise, blame is often pushed onto lower-level staff rather than owned by leadership. Gensler’s slogan, “changing the world through the power of design,” would be admirable if it reflected the reality of practice within the firm. Instead, there is a rigid separation between “design” staff and “technical” staff, as though architecture were not fundamentally the integration of both disciplines. The result is a hierarchy in which conceptual design is elevated while technical expertise is marginalized, despite the fact that successful architecture depends on both. In practice, this structure often shields high-level designers from responsibility for the practical execution of their ideas while placing the burden of resolving conflicts and constructability issues on technical staff. The firm’s approach to diversity struck me similarly: highly performative and heavily oriented toward branding. Public messaging around inclusion appeared to carry more weight than meaningful cultural change or equitable professional development. As a Black person, I often felt there was an unspoken expectation that participation in diversity initiatives was part of one’s professional identity within the firm. At the same time, I experienced moments that revealed how superficial some of this commitment could be. During one conversation with a senior White designer, for example, I was told that I was “articulate,” a comment that carried obvious undertones given my background and credentials. Ultimately, my experience at Gensler was that success depended largely on navigating internal politics, projecting the right image, and reinforcing the firm’s preferred narratives. Those who excelled at that often advanced. Those more interested in thoughtful architecture, technical rigor, or honest critique were far less valued despite the firm’s rhetoric about design excellence and innovation.
