Considering the Wellbeing of Those Designing the Built Environment: Attrition Factors Impacting the Career Longevity of Architecture Graduates

Abstract

Attrition intentions continue to impact workers within the architectural profession, despite a significant dedication of time and effort towards higher education, skill development and professional licensure. Moreover, it is a significant disruptor to sustainable business planning. This paper investigates factors impacting career wellbeing and longevity, registration status and attrition intentions across a group of architecture graduates to provide preliminary findings into the exit destinations of those having left or intending to leave the profession. Using a conceptual framework established through the literature, qualitative and quantitative data were collected through an investigative online survey across 32 architects and architecture graduates from [Name withheld] University’s architecture program in Australia. Results reaffirm that no singular factor is responsible for attrition, although several themes are specific to architecture, as follows: salary versus expected hours worked, architectural registration difficulties and a discontent or lack of wellbeing within the role or work environment. The data suggest that common exit destinations for architecture graduates include roles similarly aligned within the built environment, such as landscape architecture, construction, real estate and urban planning. This paper contributes to a gap in understanding where exactly architecture graduates and professionals go when they leave and the motivating or demotivating factors that drive such alternative pursuits. It underscores the importance and value of addressing the wellbeing and career longevity of a skilled and valuable workforce in order to address and combat high attrition.

1. Introduction

In a social climate that places increasing value on human resources to support successful business, a sustainable, efficient and profitable workforce relies on appropriate business management to combat organisational issues [1,2]. Employee retention and attrition is one such issue that has commanded investigation across numerous industries, including health, education, construction and engineering [3,4,5,6,7]. While degrees of attrition are an inevitable occurrence [8], failure to retain or attract talented and skilled workers has far-reaching repercussions for both business and society [9]. Within society, generally, productive workers and workforces drive economic growth and innovation [10]. Within business, attrition threatens the quality and diversity of the talent pool [6,11], hinders financial profitability [1,12] and disrupts business continuity [10]. Within the built environment, specifically, attrition can negatively impact organisational effectiveness by disrupting project workflows [13].

It is understandable that research across male-dominated professions such as architecture has often adopted gendered perspectives [14,15,16] or feminist theory [17]. The low participation rates of women, for example, in both Australia (31% of registered practitioners in 2016) and the United States (37% in 2020), indicate that gender identity is certainly a substantial career influence [16,18]. Scholarship has identified that practitioners, particularly women, prematurely leave architecture [15,16]. Thus, men have been of little focus in the literature. However, a 2007 study by The Royal Australian Institute of Architects [19], now AIA, describes strong parallels between the career goals of both men and women. This indicates that many aspects of professional practice can be interpreted objectively rather than comparatively. Yet, the current literature lacks discourse from a neutral and analytical standpoint investigating additional nuances leading to an early exit. There is limited continuity in exploring subsequent career paths, the relationships between industries attracting a percentage of the architectural workforce, or relevance to the architectural role and skill set. Certainly, it is known that a proportion of these workers do not leave the workforce entirely but rather pursue alternative avenues or disciplines [8], referred to in the literature as ‘exit destinations’ [11]. Given this context, this research aims to fill a gap in knowledge by investigating factors and motivations driving career transitions and associations with employee wellbeing. The research aims to contribute to the literature through three main objectives, as follows:

• To investigate relationships between career longevity, registration status and attrition intentions across a group of architecture graduates;
• To produce preliminary findings into the exit destinations of those having left or intending to leave the profession; and
• To test, validate and interrogate the methodology and data analysis of a small-scale study that will determine the feasibility, scope and modifications to a larger project.

By addressing these objectives, this research seeks to inform policy and practice aimed at fostering a sustainable, fulfilled workforce within architecture and related disciplines. This research focuses on the essential distinction between ‘attrition’ and similar terms that describe a more general loss of employees, such as workplace reduction or turnover. ‘Attrition’ is defined as ‘the decrease in the number of students or employees caused by people leaving and not being replaced’ [20]. It includes participants who choose to separate from a workforce voluntarily, rather than through other means such as termination or retirement. This research focuses specifically on attrition and responds to a knowledge gap on the similarly aligned positions and alternate industries of practitioners having exited or intending to exit architecture. Through these objectives, this research contributes novel insights into the professional transitions of architecture graduates, informing career decisions and the broader implications for the profession. This study aims to inform strategies for enhancing workforce sustainability, professional satisfaction and employee wellbeing, while contributing to broader discussions on effective talent management.

2. Literature Review

In this research, the investigation focused on workforce attrition, exit destinations and specificities relating to worker wellbeing and satisfaction. The following section provides a contextual background on workplace attrition. In focusing specifically on architecture, this section defines proper nomenclature, discusses the role of the architect and summarises the general state of knowledge on the professional practice literature.

Regarding attrition in the broader workforce, scholarship has investigated exit motivations through such theories as an employee’s ‘propensity to withhold effort’ [21], employee disengagement [22], organisational commitment [23], or job satisfaction [24]. Through this body of work, it is largely understood that complex personal and professional factors underpin an employee’s motive for voluntarily choosing to leave a workforce [21,25]. For example, there exists a higher correlation between employee satisfaction and productivity within careers in which the role and scope are clearly defined [26]. Contrastingly, career plateau is known to have a detrimental impact on career commitment, which heavily influences an employee’s proclivity to remain in a role long-term [22,27]. Hom et al. [11] first proposed that attrition can be more comprehensively understood with an expanded criterion. This criterion assigns proximal withdrawal states to job leavers, with the objective that attrition can be better understood if the mindset of the employee is categorisable. Fundamentally, this framework describes ‘intention’ as one of the most targeted and valuable indicators for employee exits [23,28]. In turn, intention then forms a key investigative component of this study.

The attrition literature is extensive across some industries [4,28], for example, in the health and education sectors in which high attrition of teachers and nurses is observed within the first three to ten years [29,30]. In nursing, high physical demands, combined with long work hours, result in turnover rates of up to 40% [31], although many nurses return to the industry. In teaching, major stress factors include a lack of peer support [29], and difficulties with student behaviour [6]. Across industries, reasons for attrition may often be job-specific and differ according to role requirements or skillsets [30].

Insights into why and when people pursue alternate professions have informed continuity planning for both communities and industries [4,6,23,29]. Further, the identification of exit destinations enhances understanding of the factors motivating attrition [11,23]. However, architect exit intentions and destinations, either anticipated or materialised, have received little formal investigation to date. In fact, recent interrogation of the Australian census to provide some insight to this topic has proven unable ‘to determine how many leave architecture outright and how many shift into discipline-aligned positions’ [16] (p. 177). Current knowledge is anecdotal at best; thus, this profession continues to experience the same shortcomings in understanding, scope and dimension, as identified by Hom et al. [11].

2.1. Definitions in Architecture

It must be noted that across most countries, there exists a framework governing the use of the protected title ‘architect’ [32]. Within Australia for example, each state and territory implements an Architects Act and Architects Regulations detailing the specificities of use [33]. Within this industry framework, an architect is clearly defined as ‘an employee registered as an architect under any Australian legislation’ [34]. The registration process involves fulfilment of three stages of competencies. Traditionally, this includes (1) conferral of approved tertiary qualifications, (2) minimum practical experience under supervision of a registered architect and (3) passing the architectural practice examinations (APE). This registration process and subsequent regulation aims to distinguish this title from other roles within the profession or across other industries.

Although the distinction between an architect and other unregistered ‘participant’ is often ambiguous in the existing literature [35], it is statistically significant as the latter are not formally recognised or tracked by industry data. This leaves a majority of the workforce officially unaccounted for. Considering this factor and the significant level of study and time investment to qualify for architectural registration [36], the title of architect is an important distinction. As this research involves both self-identified architects and other unregistered individuals across the greater profession, including ‘graduate(s) of architecture’ and ‘student(s) of architecture’, such distinctions influence the research structure. When applicable, data relating to the study population are defined as such for clarity and acknowledgment of profile bias.

Within this context, the role of the architect within both the workplace and industry is multifaceted and continues to evolve [32]. Architects increasingly rely on strong and successful collaboration between numerous other industry-aligned professions and specialists in order to see built environment projects realised [37]. While this cross-collaboration exposes architecture employees to a multitude of specialisations and consultants, it may also result in a ‘confusion of definitions and conflicts of roles’ [32] (p. 123). Scholarship indicates that the ‘break-off’ and specialisation of various aspects of the profession contributes to a loss of professional and personal value [38]. In turn, this can significantly impact wellbeing [39].

2.2. Context of Architecture Professional Practice Studies

Workers in the construction industry deal with long working hours [36,40], high-stress environments [41], and increased professional conflict [42,43]. As a specialised profession within this greater industry, architecture is particularly vulnerable in some aspects that have been referred to as ‘demotivating factors’ [44]. Regarding attrition, there exists a longstanding issue with practitioners choosing to leave the workforce early in the career pipeline, with the most significant exits occurring shortly after entering professional practice [45,46]. In architecture, this attrition disproportionately affects the equitable career progression of men and women. While high attrition rates within the first 5 years of career commencement are also evident in other professions such as teaching [13], this attrition tilts rates of equal participation between men and women as their career in architecture progresses. Several studies have explored additional aspects of professional practice, including job satisfaction [36], gendered experiences [17,47,48], intrinsic rewards [45] and employee wellbeing [39,49]. In the recent literature, employee wellbeing, specifically, has attracted the attention of scholars and stakeholders within the Australian context [33]. Preliminary findings indicate that architecture has the highest rate of remuneration dissatisfaction (at 44%) compared with other relevant disciplines [49]. These include construction, heritage and conservation, interiors, landscape architecture, planning, project management and urban design, in which dissatisfaction ranged between 14 and 38% [49]. Although preliminary in nature, these findings echo concerns across the last two decades indicating that the financial discontents plaguing architects endure [44,50,51]. Historically, themes of low pay are exacerbated by an imbalance between “long hours and unpaid overtime [which] have become an accepted part” of the nature of design practice [52] (p. 458). From what is known, specific factors such as this “long hours culture” do not discriminate by gender [44] (p. 344) and are not exclusive to the workplace [14,53]. While negative relationships with excessive hours sacrificed to design may be fostered in architecture school, there is evidence that such behaviours transfer to accepting overtime work once graduates enter the profession [35].

3. Methodology

The Human Research Ethics Committee of [Name withheld] University validated and approved the study protocol in June 2021. This section describes main approaches to the research objectives using a conceptual framework and mixed methods.

3.1. Conceptual Framework

Kahn [54] theorised that personal engagement and disengagement from the workplace is influential on both an employee’s work output and their desire to either include or exclude themselves from specific workplace tasks and behaviours. This provides a foundational rationale for distinguishing between participants’ desire to engage or exit from certain tasks and behaviours, or the organisation itself.

Hom et al.’s [11] expanded criterion is a foundational influence in understanding exit destinations. Critically, the notable addition of ‘involuntary quits’ to include employees terminated under certain conditions directly conflicts with accepted definitions differentiating ‘attrition’ from ‘turnover’. Further, we combine this theory with additional direct commentary which reaffirms the importance of post-exit destination investigation, though cautioning the aforementioned categorisation of employees into subtypes based on psychological mindset [28].

Caven and Diop [45] identify personal satisfactions and intrinsic rewards, including creative autonomy and professional status recognition. These concepts inform a small section of the survey which is a predetermined ranking scale of 10 common motivating factors, which are company loyalty, creative outlet, employee benefits, job security and stability, professional recognition and awards, public image, salary, work autonomy, work/life balance or other. While this research focuses on attrition, these career motivations provide context for data interpretation. Conversely, Oyedele [44] developed 43 initial demotivating criteria across architects in design firms, delineating three broad categories relating directly to practice being (1) project-related criteria, (2) design team/co-worker-related criteria and (3) organisational-related criteria. These categorisations assist in data analysis, in which survey questions are open-ended to encourage participant interpretation and individual experiences of demotivation.

3.2. Participants and Procedure

The survey was developed targeting alumni having graduated from the [Name withheld] University architecture program since 2014, the inaugural year of the program. Some past techniques of selecting research participants within Australia have been based on ‘official’ architectural registration directories, which are known to overlook a high percentage of the contributing workforce [48,55]. As such, this survey did not focus exclusively on alumni who have registered as architects, but rather alumni having graduated from [Name withheld] University with the relevant qualifications of either Bachelor of Architecture or Master of Architecture. These qualifications provide a structure for active participation in the industry within specific roles defined by stakeholders [34].

The target population was identified from previous graduate registers and targeted for participation using the public domain (Figure 1). Survey distribution composed three main methods, including (1) email distribution to alumni from [Name withheld] University’s inaugural architecture program, (2) the use of social media (Facebook) to advertise on an alumni forum, and (3) the use of social media (LinkedIn) to contact users self-identifying as having graduated from the [Name withheld] architecture program since 2014.

Social media distribution is as a method increasing in validity and rigour [56,57,58,59], allowing for remote participation. To increase participation, recruitment ensured anonymity and confidentiality [60], and the survey remained accessible over a 4-week period. From a frame population of 134 participants directly contacted or reached through these distribution methods, the sample population summarised 32 complete responses (22% return rate) and an additional 14 incomplete or partial responses (46 total at a 32% return rate). Due to technical limitations of the online survey host, which did not retain incomplete data, these 14 partial responses could not be retrieved for analysis. The remaining frame population returned no response. The sample population resulted in 24 women and 8 men, with an average age demographic between 25 and 34 years.

Structurally, the survey employed ‘skip sequencing’ to minimise completion time and early drop-off [61]. Dependent on skip sequencing algorithms, the survey totalled up to 30 mixed multiple choice and open-ended questions (see Appendix A), divided into 4 main categories, as follows:

• Sociodemographic data identifying age, location, dependents and education;
• Professional data charting employment status, current industries and job titles;
• Career motivating/demotivating factors; and
• Career longevity perceptions, intentions to leave the profession and potential exit destinations.

Concluding these categories, participants could elect to contribute to an additional confidential follow-up interview on an opt-in basis, providing a subject pool for a larger research project. Although interviews typically provide a richer data source, this online questionnaire is better suited to the research objective of validating, amending and expanding the research method for future distribution [62,63].

3.3. Data Analysis

The conceptual framework guided data analysis to categorise and interpret participant responses [64]. First, the data were deidentified to protect the anonymity of participants. For multiple-choice questions analysed on a quantitative scale, data were manually categorised by three researchers and assigned percentage values using Microsoft Excel 2021 [65]. This developed the mean demographic statistics. For open-ended text responses analysed on a qualitative scale, NVivo R1 was used as a robust, structured and proven data theorising method [66]. This software utilises text blocks to identify concepts and themes based on co-occurrences in qualitative data. Through this method, word frequency queries identified early emerging themes and concepts [57]. For example, the most common word frequencies across demotivating factors were ‘stress’ and ‘low salary’ (Figure 2).

Due to the open-ended nature of select questions, participants could use varying language to describe similar outcomes. For example, ‘low salary’ and ‘low pay’ were used alternately to convey discontent with remuneration, while ‘minimum wage’ was more descriptive. Although some responses varied in specificity, such terms and synonyms could be generally categorised as relating to financial discontent. To ensure the validity and credibility of the proposed model, NVivo assisted in the visual grouping of language, while a panel of experts manually validated the data by patterns of relevance [57].

4. Results

A total of 32 participants completed the survey, while an additional 14 participants (46 total) provided incomplete and therefore inaccessible data. Results are organised into relevant categories (1–4) as described in the methodology and statistically described throughout this section.

Most participants were female (75%), living in Queensland and 35 years old or younger (81%), indicating a distribution of professionals relatively early in the career pipeline. Less than a quarter of women had dependents (12%), compared to a smaller percentage of men (9%) (Figure 3).

Considering the target population of architecture alumni, all participants (100%) had conferred a bachelor’s degree, while most (75%) continued architectural education to the master’s level (Figure 4). A single participant (3%) had achieved additional qualifications in construction. As explained in the literature review, certain levels of tertiary education directly correlate with official job titles and can be considered indicative of partial registration eligibility.

Table 1. Answers to questions 7–16 on employment, registration status and intentions of participants (women shown in red text, men in black text).

Category 2: Professional Data	Q7–Q8	Employment Status
		Full-time		20	62.5%
		Part-time		4	12.5%
		Self-employed		5	15.6%
		Contractor		2	6.3%
		Unemployed		1	3.1%
	Q9	Current Industry
		Architecture		22	71%
		Other		9	29%
	Q10	Current Job Title or Role
		Director		2	6.4%
		Architect		4	12.9%
		Graduate of Architecture		10	32.3%
		Student of Architecture		1	3.3%
		Technician		2	6.4%
		Other		12	38.7%
	Q12–Q13	Architectural Registration Status
		Domestic		6	17.7%
		International		2	5.9%
		*Not registered		26	76.4%
	Q15	*Intentions to Obtain Registration in Future
		Yes		14	43.8%
		*No		6	18.8%
		*Undecided		5	15.6%
		Not applicable (Registered)		7	21.8%
	Q16	*Of Answers ‘No’ and ‘Undecided’—Why not?
		R1	‘Not aiming to be an Architect’.
		R4	‘Don’t want to be an “architect”, don’t feel it is necessary’.
		R7	‘Current registration standards are too difficult to obtain your license. This is heavily dependent on the firm you work for. If the firm you work for can’t move you between the registration categories then it takes longer than the projected 1 ½–2 year registration period after graduating’.
		R13	‘Won’t change how I work in my current position’.
		R17	‘It isn’t representative of contemporary architectural practice. Also intend to leave the profession’.
		R19	‘Cost and time’.
		R21	‘Unsure if I want to compete and participate in the industry’.
		R24	‘After graduating Bachelor of Architecture, I have worked for over 2 years in a high end architecture firm focusing on high end projects. I chose to have a quality of life and I can’t achieve it if I continue in my current field as it involves stress, having deadlines each night. The amount of work and stress related don’t match with the pay’.
		R26	‘Want to gain insight into the construction industry from Project Management side prior to pursuing further study (Masters) and registration’.
		R27	‘Salary, working conditions, stress, overworked—underpaid etc. etc.’
		R30	‘Not enough passion for Architecture to study for years and be met with a highly competitive job market’.

identifies the current employment status, job title within the industry and current registration status or intention for architectural registration. ‘R’ refers to singular respondents, in which women are shown in red text and men are shown in black text.

Nearly all participants (97%) were employed. Of those employed, most were working directly in architecture (72%), with others distributed across roles in transportation and project management (10%), as well as landscape architecture (3%), urban design (3%), hospitality (6%), jewellery design (3%) and health (3%). It is of note that most of these positions are aligned within the built environment.

Regarding registration status, less than a quarter were registered architects (22%), while a single participant was dually registered both within Australia and internationally (3%). Unregistered participants were employed under such formally recognised titles as ‘Graduate of Architecture’ (31%), ‘Student of Architecture’ (3%) and ‘Architectural Technician’ (3%), while the remaining participants were not actively engaged in the profession.

It is important to note the significant gender disparity between women (25%) and men (9%) who did not intend to seek registration, which aligns generally with the literature. Of those who additionally answered ‘undecided’, nearly a quarter (22%) had not obtained a Master of Architecture qualification. This could indicate that participants are in the process of study or that students are choosing or considering not to follow through with the standardised structure of tertiary education to become an architect.

4.1. Motivating and Demotivating Factors

Participants were asked to rank the factors that most motivate their career in architecture (Figure 5) using a predetermined list of 10 common workplace motivators specific to architecture, as described in the conceptual framework.

Of the ten motivating factors, only four were ranked first (of highest importance) among all participants. These factors were work/life balance (53%), work autonomy (6%), creative outlet (25%) and salary (16%).

Concerning demotivating factors, participants were asked to identify the influences that most demotivate their careers as an open-ended question (

Table 2. Answers to question 19 on main factors demotivating individuals’ careers in architecture (women shown in red text, men in black text, participants who indicated ‘no’ or ‘undecided’ to pursue registration in blue text).

Category 3: Motivating and Demotivating Factors	Q19	Factors Demotivating Your Career in Architecture
		R1	‘Team dynamic and work environment’.
		R2	‘Pressure’.
		R3	‘Boredom, poor communication, lack of growth and lack of a future vision, unpleasant co-workers, low salary’.
		R4	-
		R5	‘Desk job’.
		R6	‘Despite 5+ years of education, as a graduate, the majority of work and pay is still essentially at the level of a draftsperson’.
		R7	‘Work stress, work pressure to pump out jobs for minimum wage. You basically need to be a director or associate director to be on a “decent” salary’.
		R8	‘A lot of work and responsibility for not always proper value recognition. Short deadlines’.
		R9	‘BOAQ Registration process’.
		R10	‘Work life balance. Difficulty getting registered. Working overtime to meet deadlines. Too much screen time at work. Not being valued properly for our work’.
		R11	‘The lack of understanding about the services architects provide and how we differ from building designers etc. The lack of understanding around the value we offer’.
		R12	‘Salary’.
		R13	‘Industry move towards architect engagement through builder rather than traditional architect client relationship’.
		R14	‘Liability restrictions, burning out, repetitiveness, greed, confrontation, project issues outside of my control or expertise, some clients’.
		R15	‘Long hours and low pay for 5 years of stressful study’.
		R16	‘Unhealthy work environments, unsupportive work environment’.
		R17	‘Client base is typically difficult. There is an enormous gap between the expected hours worked, stress and dedication to the profession to pay. “Master and slave” attitude of architecture is absurd’.
		R18	‘Difficult clients’.
		R19	‘Practicality of architectural design with a lack of construction knowledge’.
		R20	‘Not being appreciated for the efforts to push projects over the line (lots of unpaid overtime) and being consistently overloaded with more and more work (never ending overtime cycle)’.
		R21	‘Sexism’.
		R22	‘The stress and expectations’.
		R23	‘Low creative outlets for long durations’.
		R24	‘Deadlines and stress. Having to drive an hour to work and yet your handwork wasn’t accountable unless you are the architect!’
		R25	‘Not being able to choose where to work as not enough available jobs related to architecture’.
		R26	‘Expected long hours consistently, due to impacts on personal life etc. Employers that are not understanding/appreciative of setting boundaries around work (contactable hours, level of responsibility without notice etc.)’
		R27	‘Micro-management, low salary, patriarchy’.
		R28	‘Pay—Expected to work overtime and not get paid for it’.
		R29	‘Unimaginative architecture, unrealistic deadlines, low salary’.
		R30	‘Excessive overtime’.
		R31	‘Toxic and masculine company culture’.
		R32	‘Finishing uni for qualifications when I believe it’s useless and didn’t help me in the workforce at all’.

).

Three main commonalities emerge from participants’ demotivating experiences, which indicate that architecture graduates continue to struggle with imbalances in contact hours and remuneration. These include deadlines (13%), low pay and salary (28%), stress (16%) and overtime (19%), which was further indicated to be either ‘expected’ (9%) or ‘unpaid’ (6%).

4.2. Industry Intentions and Perceptions

On the topic of intention and perception, participants were asked if they consider architecture to have high rates of attrition, if they consider architecture a ‘viable’ long-term career and if they are seriously considering leaving the profession (

Table 3. Answers to questions 17 and 20–26 on industry intentions and perceptions.

Category 4: Perceptions, Intentions and Exit Destinations	Q17	Perception of Architecture as a Profession with High Rates of Attrition
		Yes		13	40.6%
		No		8	25%
		Undecided		7	21.9%
		Indifferent, same as other professions		4	12.5%
	Q20	Perception of Architecture as a Viable Long-term Career
		Yes		18	56.2%
		*No		6	18.8%
		*Unsure		8	25%
	Q21	*Of answers ‘No’ or ‘Unsure’—Why not?
		R7	‘Architecture is more than just building design. Architects I believe won’t ever be replaced but perhaps will become less and less in the future as property developers seem to win contracts over architects due to cheaper costs’.
		R17	‘Over time the board has surrendered many facets of architecture (project management for instance) and subsequently the associated fee base. It is now becoming more and more an artistic based craft. This coupled with hyper competitive competing firms has driven architectural fee backwards further and further with higher amounts of unpaid work expected by clients’.
		R24	‘Many people nowadays seek a building designer who is wanting to build residential who can produce the same outcome but a lot cheaper’.
		R27	‘Especially after the last two years, Architecture needs to evolve as other industries are also experiencing, people don’t want to work the same way they always have (9-5 pm, 5–6 days a week in a structured environment). Real work-life balance and a salary that covers more than just the basics of living’.
		R28	‘Not if you want to start a family—Due to long hours and not aligned with pay’.
		R31	‘Architecture and property industry depends too much on external forces’.
	Q24	Intention to Take a Break or Hiatus from Architecture
		*Yes		25	78.1%
		No		7	21.9%
	Q26	Seriously Considering an Alternative Career or Industry
		*Yes		17	53.1%
		No		15	46.9%

).

Findings show that the large majority of those intending to leave or take a hiatus from architecture are women (40%), as opposed to men (19%). This leads to differences in answers that are categorised as either personal (relating to travel, personal projects or parental leave) or professional (work/life balance, seeking better salary/alternative careers, workplace stress or pressure). Regarding personal and professional drivers, a quarter of women intended to take a career break for parenthood and travelling (25%), as opposed to men (6%) (Figure 6).

Of those having answered yes to a career break or serious consideration of another industry, participants were asked which career or industry they would pursue.

Results generally aligned with the alternative careers of those having already left architecture (see Table 1), including construction (16%), project management (6%), landscape architecture (6%) and health (3%). Of note, some of these professions including development (9%), graphic design (3%), interior design (3%), local government (3%), photography (3%), real estate (3%) and town council (3%) may be considered allied or complementary disciplines within the construction or creative industries, intersecting with some aspects of the architect’s role or skillset.

5. Discussion

Following thematic analysis, three major themes were identified as follows: the work environment, the role of the architect and intentions and exits.

5.1. The Work Environment: Salary and Overtime

Perhaps unsurprisingly and in direct reflection of the literature [35,51], findings indicate that issues of low salary and overtime continue to dominate career demotivation within the practice and are a significant attrition factor. While levels of financial discontent are also common in other professions [4], architecture is associated with poor financial rewards both in Australia and internationally [44,45]. Echoing broader trends, this aligns with the findings of this study that indicate over a quarter of participants are significantly demotivated by low salary (28%), with a further 9% specifically intending to leave for this reason specifically. This underscores the broader implications of economic wellbeing and work imbalance on attrition within the literature.

In the Australian context, construction industry ‘professionals’ (such as engineers and surveyors) earn a median salary in excess of AUD 83,000 per year [67]. In architecture, new graduates of architecture can expect to earn a minimum of AUD 54,808 following 5 years of tertiary education, while newly registered architects earn an average of under AUD 75,000 per year [34]. However, when considering the later salary with statistics that reveal the average registration timeline to be closer to 5 years post-graduation, the average time investment of study and work experience sufficient to achieve this AUD 75,000 average may be closer to 10 years [33]. In addition to these stressors, 21% of participants indicated that overtime hours endure in the work environment. More concerningly, participants describe that this overtime is ‘expected’ and often ‘unpaid’, suggesting that issues of poor remuneration are further depleted by experiences of unpaid labour.

While stakeholders have attempted to address these issues with best practice guidelines and encouragement of salary transparency [34], it is also known that some practices ignore such proposals [33,68]. Given that overtime presents as a trending theme among this population of practitioners early in the career pipeline, two main issues remain uncontrolled. Firstly, businesses continue to operate outside of current legislation in regard to employee entitlements. Secondly, the issue of overtime that is either expected or unpaid is having detrimental impacts on employee attrition intentions. Given that legislation prohibiting unpaid overtime is longstanding [34], this would suggest that although a legal framework governs the issue, it is not being actively regulated or controlled with sufficient effect. Although overtime is not a workplace factor unique to the profession [5], questions remain on why governing bodies are not regulating or protecting workers’ rights to the point at which such recurrent themes cease to present. Internationally, it has been theorised that specific workplace legislation suffers from a lack of enforcement [47], thus exempting smaller and less visible firms from compliance. If this is the case, the situation is increasingly problematic due to the self-regulating and self-reporting nature of a profession that does not formally document the larger workforce who work outside of the title ‘architect’. Hence, there is a significant need for not only the real enforcement of established legislation but also for new policies that would protect the rights of these allied workers who compose the majority of the workforce.

While registration is a career driver for some employees, despite the significant 7- to 10-year time commitment to work and study [52], these findings indicate that registration continues to be a point of stagnation for others, as 13% of participants identified the registration process as a major demotivator. With the understanding that workers advance in experience, skill and specialisation with time despite difficulties achieving registration, stakeholders have attempted to outline employers’ obligations to support and encourage career advancement [33]. Although this sample population should not be considered representative of the greater industry, these findings suggest that once more, these recommendations are not influencing the experiences of some graduates in tangible ways. Rather, the structure for career progression is ambiguous [51]. It then becomes the employee’s obligation to instigate and maintain a speed of advancement, resulting in seemingly unsupervised business practices in which opportunities such as registration are “heavily dependent on the firm you work for” [P7]. Given vague statistics to indicate the distribution of potential architects navigating the registration pipeline [16], it is perhaps no surprise that registration presents as a major demotivator for those left ‘in between’. What remains of concern is that no system exists to conclusively understand and, in turn, address the issue of demystifying graduate career development. In Australia, structures exist within other professions such as psychology in which new ‘provisional psychologists’, having gained the appropriate credentials, are plainly able to ‘opt-in’ to be counted. They are then added to a national registration and accreditation system based on education, professional experience and competencies [34]. This is despite not being formally registered, being unable to practice independently and requiring the supervision of a registered psychologist, similar to how technicians, students and graduates of architecture are required to work under the supervision of a registered architect [33]. With the development and implementation of this singular national registrar, governing bodies, excluding architecture, have recognised the effectiveness and importance of such databases.

5.2. The Role of the Architect

The second emerging theme from the literature is how the architect’s changing role contributes to factors such as stress, pressure and risk, negatively affecting employee wellbeing. Within the role of the architect, certain elements, such as creative license in the project process, are unique and often highly valued by the employee [69]. However, these elements also lead to higher levels of project-induced stress [44], contributing to 12% of participants indicating intentions to exit architecture for this reason.

While a majority of participants are motivated by such aspects as creative license within the role, practitioners who achieve higher levels of seniority become responsible for potential conflicts between management, design and business [69]. In terms of stress that can be related to risk, the changing roles and responsibilities of architects have been impacted by escalations in legal liability and lawsuits [32], in which the registered architect holds a standard of culpability. Such cautionary indications are represented in the results. While more senior participants in managerial or director positions placed a higher value on work autonomy (3%), other demotivating factors, such as “liability restrictions” [R14], indicate that demotivation in the workplace is in fact influenced by risk. More importantly, this risk may correlate with job title and circumstance. Although it could be expected that more senior practitioners with a financial interest in a firm may hold different aspects higher in personal value, those ranking ‘company loyalty’ within their top three motivating factors were distributed across three distinct levels of seniority (student, graduate and director). It is important to reaffirm that the sample size of senior practitioners within this study is limited, thereby cautioning against generalisation. However, the initial findings align with the recent literature highlighting the varied liabilities of more senior staff [68], and the specific impact on wellbeing. Therefore, further research is necessary to explore correlations between individual value and attrition factors across a broader range of seniority levels and a larger-scale population.

5.3. Intentions and Exits

The last major theme to result from this data is exit intentions that also correlate with age, gender and dependents. Caven and Diop [45] have demonstrated that age has a bearing on career longevity in architecture, in which initial drop-off rates occur soon after entering the workforce. While it is not the intention of this research to investigate a gendered perspective, the results are disproportionate by gender. In contextualising the 2011 Australian census data by age group, Matthewson [70] finds that the participation of women first peaks and then ‘drops off’ considerably after the age of 25–29, whereas men peak between ages 35 and 39. Still, this is followed by a similar downward trajectory. Considering that the age distribution of most participants is under 35 (81%), it is then of additional concern that more than half of participants (53%) indicated to be ‘seriously considering an alternative career or industry’. Although it is important to understand that intentions do not always result in action, this intention provides the strongest predictor for workforce attrition [11,30]. These intentions and perceptions are often informed and connected by an employee’s own experience [42] and thus warrant investigation in further research with regard to the theory of professional identity.

While it is the intention of this research to use gender as an analytical tool, gendered perspectives continue to weigh on attrition factors for female architecture graduates, echoing the literature which defines architecture as a masculine profession [71,72]. Caven [52] put forth the view that ‘false consciousness’ within research leads to assumptions of ‘gender or patriarchal systems instead of making a mindful decision founded on choice’ [52] (p. 420). It is then curious that such discriminatory social attitudes are present within the data, in which 9% of participants describe experiences of a ‘toxic and masculine’ [R31], ‘patriarchal’ and ‘sexist’ [R27] culture as attrition factors influencing a decision to leave the industry. Indeed, these participants (9%) had already pursued alternate careers in hospitality, product design and urban design; however, it was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the social attitudes of such industries and how they directly compare with architecture. Additionally, considering the allied potential of these disciplines, these findings suggest a valuable avenue for future research to understand how the physical architectural skillset aligns with certain exit destinations, seemingly complimentary or not.

Although multiple studies report difficulties for professionals within construction and architecture to successfully balance sustainable work/family relationships [42], none of the participants indicated parenthood or family stressors as a specific demotivating career factor. This conflicts with the existing literature, which identifies work/family balance as a critical stressor, particularly for women [18]. However, on the intention of leave or hiatus, a quarter of participants indicated to be taking leave from architecture for parenthood specifically. Given this discrepancy, the cautionary simplification that issues of work/life balance do not impact career demotivators in the reviewed population speaks rather to the nature of survey design and scope. Open-ended questions without more specific prompts can result in broad data. Through this study and within hiatus investigations specifically, amendments to this methodology must provide more specific prompts to increase the specificity of participant answers.

6. Conclusions

This research has identified attrition factors impacting the career longevity of architecture workers and resulting in either intended or actualised exits from the profession. Conclusively, it suggests that investigating specificities of exit destinations would provide a richer understanding of practitioners’ motivations to undertake new roles and map commonalities between them. While this research finds that the work environment is impacted by recurrent deadlines, stress and “underpaid and overworked” experiences, given the small sample size of this study, it is essential to specify that generalisations cannot be applied as representative of the larger profession. However, the fact that trends of unpaid overtime and low remuneration have emerged in the literature, both within this study and throughout the last two decades, would suggest these recurrent and longstanding discontents remain unresolved. Therefore, these findings call for real enforcement of the current legislative frameworks which continue to overlook and enable such experiences. Additionally, multiple secondary themes have emerged from the data that are beyond the direct scope of this attrition study, although they warrant further investigation in providing valuable insight into professional practice discourse. These are experiences of devaluation within the workplace, a lack of public understanding of the architect’s value, and the effects of surrendered aspects of the architect’s role on practitioners, in particular.

This survey further serves to test the methodology and experienced some limitations relating to the distribution method. Within the online survey host, as incomplete data were not retained as a matter of host website policy, 14 partial responses could not be retrieved for analysis. Additionally, technical complications resulted in the survey closing for a short time after receiving 20 responses. However, this glitch was promptly rectified as the authors received immediate notification and as such was not expected to have influenced data collection. Conclusively, while it is understood that capturing a larger population bolsters the validity of survey data, the target population is considered suitable for the research objectives and does not validate the results less. Given the satisfactory response rate of this survey and the validating distribution of exit intentions and multiple alternative disciplines, it is reasonable to conclude the feasibility of such investigations. Although the small distribution of this study cannot facilitate greater examination, the identified subthemes certainly intersect with the existing literature and provide valuable insight into the impacts of value and perception in the profession. Further, future large-scale refinement of this survey or studies of this type should implement several recommendations and refinements to the research methodology and structure, specifically, expanding criteria to include additional divisions between attrition or hiatus intentions, including a potential to return to the industry and investigating alternative applications of the architectural skillset to any success.