Zaha Hadid on page 3

A week of unexpected news (who could have predicted that we would be discussing the damage caused by meteorites, the resignation of the pope and the death of Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend?) ended with an architecture story in a hugely prominent position in the Observer.
Zaha Hadid was talking about misogyny in the profession, following up on the disappointing but unsurprising results of the AJ's Women in Architecture survey. Hadid told the newspaper, 'I have noticed it is easier for me in European countries than it is here. There is a different dynamic. In the UK it is more difficult. They are very conservative. There is a scepticism and more misogynist behaviour here. Although, while there were people against me, there were also people living here who were incredibly supportive.'
The irony is that, if Hadid had not become so successful and high-profile, there would not have been a poster-woman for the paper to interview, and so there would not have been a story - or at least not such a prominent one. But the statistics are sobering, particular in terms of bullying and pay discrepancies, and it is great that Hadid was willing to give this interview. She after all has forged a pretty successful career, despite all the difficulties. It is cheering that she is not pulling up the ladder behind her.

What is a reasonable way to work?

There is a discussion on the AJ's LinkedIn page about methods of working that can reduce the long hours culture. It was kicked off by the decision of architect Baumann Lyons to start working 38 hours in a four-day week, and shut the office on a Friday.
The thinking, presumably, is that most people will feel after they have done a solid 9.5 hours that they cannot give any more and will simply go home - that the extended day will not be able to stretch any further and so overwork will vanish - and presumably will any presenteeism which leads people to hang around doing not very much, or extending their work over a longer period just so that they look better.
The intention  is certainly admirable. But can it work in practice? There are several things against it. First, as commenters on the thread have pointed out, is the fact that clients are unlikely to be happy that the office is not manned on a Friday. Will project architects be picking up so many calls on their iphones that they would prefer to have gone in?
Secondly, my point above about 9.5 hours being 'enough' is probably not true for architects. Having come through an education system that encourages the 'all nighter', it is a habit that many are likely to fall back into, particularly when entering competitions.
The other problem is with flexibility. This week's AJ is a special women's issue, showcasing the shortlisted practices for its second Women in Architecture awards and also providing the results of a survey. It is no surprise, unfortunately, that many women are still overlooked and underpaid, nor that the biggest impediment to the success of women comes from the difficulties of marrying work and childcare. And of course this should not be a women-only issue. The best employers, such as Walters and Cohen, acknowledge that parents of both sexes benefit from flexibility.
I am sure that Baumann Lyons has thought about this and has an answer, but on the face of it working four long days looks extremely inflexible. This inflexibility of course is necessary if people are to be 'prevented' from overworking. For everybody - not just architects - work and leisure are creeping into each other's spaces. The real challenge is to offer flexibility yet still prevent overwork.