Principal versus associate

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 07:11 am:    Would anyone be willing to share their company’s definition and/or responsibilities of a "principal" and the definition/responsibilities of an "associate"? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 778 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 08:40 am:    Associates here do not have any particular responsibilities that come with the title. As one advances to Associate, Senior Associate and finally Principal one is expected to take more responsibilities within projects and the firm generally. However, Associates do not have any authority in specific areas outside of their regular duties, nor do they meet as a group. In other words, it's primarily an honorific. In the seven firms I've worked for in my career, only one gave associates particular duties, responsibility and authority. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 680 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 09:08 am:    The word and implication of Associate has changed in recent years. In our firm all staffers are called Associates, even those in clerical and administrative positions. This is true, too in other venues like even WalMart, where the word employee or staffer seem to have fallen out of favor. Previously, as John alluded to, Associate was a "promotion" device, when one served enough time and had performed as Project Architect or Job Captain. It was with a basic intention of giving added status, perhaps some responsibility and leading one to becoming a member of the firm [first in Junior status and then later a full-fledged member] Principal for the most part has always meant one who had a financial interest in the firm; used when firm was not a partnership of a fixed number of partners-- although they really were Principals too. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 72 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 09:16 am:    In the professional world, associate is normally a half-way house to partnership or ownership of some kind. It signifies that a person represents the firm's ideals and helps further its goals. This firm has only conferred the title of associate once in 55 years. It was to assure one architect that she would eventually be elevated to principal. She was prepared to quit after years of being overlooked, and this was used as a preventive measure. She was the first woman to be made a principal here, and it was a good decision. A principal or partner has a definite financial interest in the firm and is actively engaged in business development. He or she has "arrived." They take greater risk (sometimes they don't get paid), but when business is good they deservedly receive the highest rewards - recognition and compensation. In the rest of the world, the term associate is dubious. The term has been diluted in the marketplace, especially at the entry level. It is common for fast food workers, gas station attendants, stockroom workers, and people who make deliveries to refer to themselves as sales associates. It is used by companies to confer a benefit that doesn't cost them a dime. It is also a gender-less word, so you don't need awkward expressions like "salesperson." I once worked with a salesman who was given a choice between a $5000 bonus and the title of sales associate. He opted for the title... until his wife discovered it and threatened him with divorce. But, I digress.... Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 624 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 12:43 pm:    what I've seen typically is that someone at "principal" level has responsibilities that are firm-wide (and this holds true even more so for multi-office firms). they may have marketing or client development responsibilities; often are "in charge" of something like quality control or production control or staffing, over and above their project responsibilities. "Associate" or "Senior Associate" generally conote degrees of "we want to keep you with us" in the firm. Often, in a firm with an increasing title structure, the titles connote the size of a project that the person can commit the firm to legally and financially; the titles indicate to some degree the amount of trust the firm places in that staff person's judgement. I've heard the distinction made between "office-centric" and "Project centric" people. Some folks stay focused only on their projects; some folks look at overall office operations. In most firms I've worked with that are larger than 100 staff members, there are generally two staff levels below partner: "associate" and "senior associate". once the firm gets to 400 or so staff members, the level of "principal" is typically added, with the principal level being that group that would make up some of the eventual new partners. In some firms, the amount of bonus paid is connected to the staff level. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 146 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 09:07 am:    Our company does not use either of those designations. Having tens of thousands of employees in hundreds of different disciplines, we assign classifications that closely resemble the federal GS grades. The title "VP" is given in recognition of achievement for senior staff. Job titles are functional, such as project architect or engineer, project manager, department manager, office manager, regional manager, etc. We believe that recognition of individual contributions should be an ongoing process and that the best way to attract and keep people is to offer generous salaries and benefits and provide a stimulating work environment with diverse and challenging projects. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 09:47 am:    Sorry, Richard, but that last statements sound like corporate hogwash. So let me get this straight, a newly-hired person with a 5- or 6-year college degree, 20 to 30 years of experience, a professional license, and well-respected in the community and industry will have the same recognition that the part-time intern who delivers mail and runs errands? What has happened to respect and recognition of knowledge? A title may not mean much in an office anymore, but it still indicates a level of authority and is respected in the public realm. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 276 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 06:43 pm:    Maybe I'm crazy, Anon, but I'd rather have the "generous salaries and benefits and...stimulating work environment" than a title. Especially when the titles, as demonstrated by the above comments, pretty much don't mean anything. The policy Richard states sounds a lot less like hogwash than seeing "Vice President" or "Associate" on the business card of every person in a firm. Locally, all architects at some firms are associates, while others require varying degrees of contribution before one can become an associate. Even with principals, not all are created equal; some are responsible for projects, while others are made principals to recognize their peculiar value to the firm. I think you missed Richard's point regarding use of titles based on function, which are not uncommon in the public sector or in large corporations, e.g., Architect I, Architect II, Senior Architect, etc., and I don't see how you came to the conclusion that a new person with experience would have the same title as the mail carrier. Function-based titles further muddy the waters as there is no way to know how an Architect II compares to an associate, and of course there are no principles in government agencies (Ah say, son, that's a joke). Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 212 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:47 am:    I'd be surprised if any firm used the term "Principal" without some degree of ownership. "Principal" (in business, not schools) connotes ownership. In proposals to sole proprietorships, I would use the title "Principal" instead of "Owner" (or "Proprietor"). I might even use it to partnerships, LLPs, PCs etc., especially if didn't know what title that particular person actually held (Partner, Officer, Director, etc.)--and sometimes even if I did. As Ralph mentioned above, the term "Associate" has been diluted by WalMart and other companies that use it as a synonym for "employee". But in reality, this is just a return to its basic meaning, of "someone associated with [company name]". IMNSHO, its use in professional firms has often been as a nice-sounding but relatively meaningless title bestowed in lieu of ownership (or even a raise, as pointed out above), as a way of getting employees to feel more responsible or loyal. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 149 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:01 pm:    NCARB uses "principal" to mean individuals reponsible for managing the practice, without regard to ownership. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 637 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:40 pm:    the past office(s) I worked in had no connection between "principal" and "ownership" of the firm. As Richard says above, typically principals would oversee a practice area or specialize in the management of very large owners and/or practice areas. I typically see that level of management added in as a firm grows to a certain size. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:14 pm:    Ahhh. That explains why many firms have added an additional heirarchical layer to the pyramid structure: "Associate Principal." William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 670 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 03:14 pm:    It depends on size and the type of business structure. We are a partnership, not a corporation, about 140 people in Washington, DC, about 40 in Dallas, TX. That can make a big difference on what you call someone. We have very specific titles and responsibilities once we get above staff level. From bottom up these are... Associate: The first level to receive a position 'title'/designation. Associates have management responsibilities as well as they are all Project Managers. There are some, but very few, project managers that are not associates. Project manager (and Project Architect) is a job description, not a title/designation. In addition to a few other benefits, Associates receive quarterly bonuses (based on recommendation of management, not on % of profit), though they are salaried. Senior Associates: Recognition to those Associates that have provided superior performance. You do not have to become a senior associate to advance past this level. Similar and better benefits as Associate. Directors: This is a specialized designation. It is not a diretor of a group of people, but director of a particular part of the practice or market sector. Similar and better benefits as Associate. Most never hold the designation of Director - it is very specialized. Associate Principal: Considerable management responsibilities. Still a slaraied position. Duties include being much higher level of project manager as well as taking on or being assigned additional higher level management tasks and responsibilities. Highest salaried position, quarterly bonuses based on specific percentage of profit. Partner: The first non-salaried position. Draws rather than bonuses. Typically managing a specific market sector or very specific responsibility in the office. Managing Partner: The highest level, non-salaried, a Draw, not a bonus. The only body that has a true vote on how things are done and who does them. The managing partners divide their duties. I am an Associate Principal. I head Research and Specifications, but I have consideralbe other non-related management responsibilities. For one, as an example of something totally unrelated, I created and oversee our 'New Emplohee Liaison' program for greeting and introducing new employees. William Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 135 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 03:30 pm:    Out of curiousty William, why is the firm not incorporated???? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 638 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 05:01 pm:    in some states, it is not advantageous to be incorporated or some types of professional organizations cannot be incorporated. the firm I used to work for -- ZGF -- was incorporated only recently (after many many years as a partnership) and it was partially due to liability issues over a particular market sector. Most firms I know of that are incorporated are limited liability corporations or professional liability corporations, and the regulations for those vary from state to state. as for William's staffing list -- that seems like a very cumbersome number of titles for a firm of less than 200 people. What I've typically seen is two layers of management (Associate, Senior associate or the like) up until about the 400 person mark. My former firm allocated bonus percentages by staff level -- starting out at 9% for all professional staff and increasing to about 35% for principals. (and who knows what the partners were getting). in that way, the staff level was a considerable part of your compensation package. My current firm has the two levels as above, and then partner. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 671 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 09:06 pm:    Robin, Well, the Dallas office when it was set up was incorporated. The DC office when it would be beneficial for a conversion personally, it would turned out not to be so beneficial economically....and vv. So, it just never happened. Anne, Just because the titles are there does not mean that they are all held. Currently, there is only 1 director and no senior associates. There are 5 Associate Principals, 3 Partners and 6 Managing Partners. If that seems weighted high, and it likely is, more than half of thsoe made thier positions only this past year. And of the whole body, probably about 1/2 are within 10 years of retirement. That later point says a lot about what is going on. We don't want to see the top end disappearing and having some with very little senior experience trying to fill the position. We have been around since the mid 1930's as an architectural firm. We plan to continue that grooming our leadership, not doing a 'sink or swim' scenario -grin! William