Blog %

There has been much discussion raised about "Why are women leaving Architecture? and more broadly, Why is the profession losing key talent?" Both women and men practitioners are disillusioned by the myth of work/life balance: Women are grappling with "have it all" expectations of juggling family time with the demands of full-time work. Men are struggling to support their families solely on an architect's salary and fall back on asking spouses to maintain their jobs. The lack of affordable childcare and high cost of living only magnifies the challenges. How did we end up in this modern family dilemma? What can we do to improve the situation?

EQxD Metrics: Finding the Right Fit

December 7, 2017

By Annelise Pitts, AIA, Equity by Design Research Chair

What is "job-person fit," and why is it so important to career success? Clinical psychologists Michael Leiter and Christina Maslach argue that job-person fit is assessed using a web of interrelated career perceptions that have been shown to predict whether a respondent will become burned out or engaged in the future, and even whether they will ultimately leave their jobs. Anecdotally, those who work in jobs that they love, and in workplace cultures where they feel included and valued have found a good fit.

Within architecture, fit can be elusive, with professionals from underrepresented groups and more junior employees facing particular challenges in finding the right fit. Within these groups, career perceptions tended to be less positive than they were for white men and more established professionals, and turnover rates tended to be higher. Even though underrepresented groups tended to face greater challenges relative to fit, the survey highlighted key factors that motivated or predicted "fit" regardless of personal identity. Firms that understand and respond to these factors may be able to boost career satisfaction and retention for all employees.

Overall, we found that decisions to join and to stay at firms tended to be guided by respondents’ sense of alignment with a firm’s work, values, and culture. Those who were able to report that their work was meaningful and rewarding and relevant to long-term goals, and those who built strong relationships with peers and mentors at work through friendships, training, and shared decision-making were most likely to report that they were satisfied with their work culture, and were planning to stay in their current positions. Please use the arrows in the upper right-hand corner of slideshows below to learn more.

Joining a Firm

Infographic Slides 2017

We found that the top three reasons that respondents accepted jobs were “quality of projects”, “learning opportunities”, and “firm reputation.”

Respondents tended to cite similar reasons for taking jobs, although women were slightly more likely to prioritize work-life flexibility, while men, and especially men of color, were slightly more likely to prioritize advancement opportunities. Respondents of color were more likely than white respondents to cite salary offered as a primary motivator in choosing their job.

White male respondents were the least likely of any group to report taking a position based on “learning opportunities.” This difference, however, is largely explained by the difference in median experience level between white male and other respondents, as those starting their careers were more likely to report taking their jobs to capitalize on learning opportunities.

Respondents reported working in firms ranging in size from sole proprietorships to large firms with over 1000 employees. The plurality of respondents worked in firms with fewer than 20 employees. Female respondents were more likely to report working in firms with fewer than 20 employees, while male respondents were more likely to report working in the largest firms.

Respondents’ firm size was strongly correlated with their top reasons for taking their current jobs, with those in the smallest firms most likely to say that they had taken their jobs because they afforded work-life flexibility and because they shared values with their firms. Those working in the largest firms, meanwhile, were significantly more likely than those working in small firms to report that they had taken their position because of their firm’s reputation, project quality, salary offered, and advancement opportunities. These patterns are mirrored in the lived experiences of employees, with those working in the smallest firms reporting the highest average satisfaction with their work-life flexibility. Meanwhile, average salaries were largest within the largest firms and those working in the largest firms tended to have the most positive impressions of their firms’ promotion processes.

There were also significant differences in firm size on the basis of race, with white, latinx, and multi-racial respondents most likely to work in firms with fewer than 20 employees. African American or Black respondents were slightly more likely to work in small and medium-sized firms, but had a similar overall distribution of firm sizes. Asian respondents, meanwhile, were most likely to work in medium firms, with 50-249 employees, and were also more likely than others to work in large and extra-large firms.

Career Perceptions

Infographic Slides 2017

Metrics of Success

On average, male respondents’ career perceptions were more positive than those of their female counterparts. When asked about the relative positivity or negativity of their career perceptions across 14 categories from “work –life flexibility” to “promotion process ”to their likelihood of staying at their job for the next year,” male respondents’ average perceptions were more positive than female respondents’ in every category. The largest gender gaps indicated significant differences between men’s and women’s likelihood of feeling energized by their work (male respondents 7% more likely), likelihood of “having a seat at the table”, or being included in one’s firm’s decision-making process (male respondents 6% more likely), and likelihood of planning to stay in one’s current job for the next year (male respondents 6% more likely).

There were also areas of work-life that tended to be viewed more positively or negatively by all respondents: average perceptions of autonomy, satisfaction, and confidence tended to be most positive for respondents, while respondents’ average perceptions of their firms’ promotion processes, their work-life flexibility, and their workloads were least positive, on average. Male respondents perceptions were more positive, on average, than female respondents’ perceptions in each of these categories. We did not observe significant differences in career perceptions on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Workplace Culture and Shared Values

Infographic Slides 2017

There were also significant differences in career perceptions in several areas on the basis of race as well as gender. White men were most likely to agree with the statement “I am satisfied with my workplace culture,” with men of color, white women, and women of color each successively less likely to agree with this statement.

While workplace culture was viewed more negatively on average, by female respondents and by respondents of color, neither gender nor race were top predictors of whether a respondent had a positive assessment of their culture. Instead, the beliefs that a respondent shared values with their employer, that they were engaged in the decision-making process, and that they found their work meaningful and rewarding were associated with positive assessments of firm culture. Female and non-white respondents were less likely than white male respondents to agree with each of these statements. This suggests that equity issues are often multi-faceted, and that organizations must address equity holistically by looking beyond issues of representation to address issues of access, relationships, and culture.

The top predictor of whether or not a respondent was satisfied with their workplace culture was the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement “My values and my company's values are alike.” According to a study conducted by Michael Leiter and Christina Maslach, sharing values with one’s company also tends to be the greatest overall predictor of job-person fit, and whether an individual will stay with their current company and be engaged in their work. It’s unfortunate, then, that white male respondents were significantly more likely than others to report that they shared their companies’ values, with women of color least likely to agree with this statement.

Sharing values with one’s employer, meanwhile, was strongly correlated with a range of factors, with those who believed their day-to-day work was relevant to long term goals, those who received ongoing feedback about their work, those who received one-on-one coaching in preparation for new roles and responsibilities, and those who said that use of work-life benefits didn’t affect promotion within their firms most likely to agree that they shared values with their firm. Meanwhile, those who received no training, those without workplace friendships, and those who didn’t know their firm’s performance evaluation criteria were least likely to share values with their company. In short, those with strong, personalized relationships with peers and firm leadership were most likely to see an alignment of values.

Workplace relationships were one of the greatest predictors of workplace culture assessment, with respondents who said that they didn’t have any relationships at work reporting 30% more negative perceptions of their firm culture than those who had workplace friendships. Fortunately, the vast majority of respondents reporting having social relationships at work, with over 70% reporting that they ate lunch or took breaks with coworkers, just over half of respondents reporting that they socialized with coworkers outside of work, and nearly half of respondents reporting that they had close friendships at work. There were slight differences in reported workplace relationships, with women of color least likely to report socializing with coworkers outside of work, and significantly less likely than white women, but slightly more likely than men, to report having close workplace friendships.

Finally, a range of workplace culture initiatives were related to respondents’ perceptions of workplace culture, with respondents reporting that the most effective ways that their firms could promote workplace culture were by organizing social events, by providing space for taking breaks and eating lunch, and by sharing company goals and achievements with employees.

Tenure and Employee Retention

Infographic Slides 2017

As Maslach and Leiter have shown, these firm culture initiatives and other efforts to keep employees engaged and happy are ultimately important because they impact employee retention. On average, respondents had been with their current firms for 6.8 years. This mean is significantly above the median tenure of three years with a firm, in part because 20% of respondents had been with their firms for 11 years or longer, which pushed the mean higher. Average tenure increased with experience level, with average tenure equalling about half of total years of experience in the field at most experience levels.

When asked why they had left their last jobs in the field, respondents cited “better opportunities elsewhere”, a “lack of advancement opportunities”, and “low pay” most frequently.

While average tenure with one’s current firm was relatively high, we also found that a large number of respondents were considering leaving their current jobs. Overall, we approximately 1 out of 4 respondents reported that they were either somewhat or very likely to leave their firms within the next year.

Several factors were strongly correlated with a respondent’s likelihood of planning to remain in their current position, with those who believed that their work was meaningful and rewarding, those who shared values with their company, those who reported feeling involved in their work, those who were given a seat at the table by being included in their firm’s decision-making process, and those who were satisfied with their workplace culture most likely to plan to stay in their current position.

EQxD Metrics: Paying Dues

December 1, 2017

By Annelise Pitts, AIA, Equity by Design Research Chair

According to our respondents, the first few years in a career in architecture can present serious challenges. About half of those in our pool who had left careers in firms for work in other fields said that they had done so during the five years of their careers. Those who were still working through this period tended to perceive their careers differently than more seasoned professionals, with heightened probability of burnout and increased likelihood of planning to quit their current jobs. These retention issues should be of serious concern to those working to increase diversity within the profession, as the industry’s least experienced professionals are the most diverse pool of architecture school graduates in the field’s history. Ensuring that this pool of graduates can find satisfying, supportive working environments where they are able to build their careers is of great importance to the project of promoting equity and ensuring that the profession represents the diversity of our communities. Please use the arrows to click through the slideshows below to learn more.

Overview

Infographic Slides 2017

Within our sample, we saw a the greatest level of diversity amongst those with less than five years of experience, with decreasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the field at each subsequent experience level. This phenomenon is explained, in part, because today’s graduating architecture classes are more diverse than they were previously, but it’s also possible that women and people of color are more likely to exit the field than white men are. In order to create and maintain a talent pipeline that reflects the diversity of our communities, employers and individuals alike should consider addressing several key challenges often faced by practitioners within the first five years of their careers in architecture.

Even within the first several years of one’s career, there were clear gendered divisions in the office management tasks that respondents took on, with female respondents with less than 5 years experience more likely than their male counterparts to take on planning office events and managing the office library and less likely to take on more strategic tasks like firm project standards, strategic planning, or firm operations and management.

While we were interested in the ways that roles and responsibilities were allocated within the population of early career professionals, we were also interested in the ways in which their experiences compared with those who had more experience. We found that, on the one hand, those early in their careers had more positive perceptions of workload and work life and were more optimistic about their futures. However, those early in their careers also tended to be less likely to find their work meaningful and rewarding, feel less involved in, or energized by, their work, and finally, much less likely to plan to stay at their current job for the next year.

There were especially marked differences in the likelihood of burnout, with roughly one in three female respondents with five or less years of experience reporting signs of burnout. This is roughly twice the rate of burnout exhibited by more senior male respondents.

Given this group’s heightened likelihood of attrition, we were interested to see that certain firm-led behaviors, like firm leaders providing one-on-one coaching and feedback and including personal and professional growth as a criteria for performance evaluation, we associated with a higher likelihood of planning to stay at one’s job during the first 5 years of an architectural career.

Work Setting

Infographic Slides 2017

We also observed differences in where respondents reported working on the basis of experience level, with those starting their careers more likely than those with more experience to work in firm with 249 or fewer employees, and much more likely to work in firms with 50 or fewer employees.

The differences in career perceptions between those beginning their careers and more seasoned professionals was most pronounced in the smallest firms. Compared with more experienced professionals working in firms with fewer than 20 employees, early career professionals were much less likely to plan to stay at their current job for the next year, less likely to report being energized by their work, and less likely to report being satisfied by their work.

Those beginning their careers also reported different motivations for taking their current positions, with nearly 60% of respondents with five years of less of experience in the field reporting that they had taken their current job because of “opportunities for learning or professional development.”

Workplace Relationships & Culture

Featured

While junior employees were more likely to take jobs due to learning and professional development opportunities, they were less likely than more senior employees to receive career guidance or advice from a principal or partner within their firm, but more likely to rely on their managers, and their friends and family.

Those early in their careers were more likely, on the other hand, to report that someone within their firm acted as their sponsor or champion, actively advocating for their professional growth and advancement. Roughly 59% of those early in their careers reported having a sponsor, compared with 49% of those later in their careers. Senior firm leaders were the most frequently-cited sponsors.

Those with five or less years of experience exhibited slightly different social patterns than their more experienced counterparts, with those beginning their careers more likely to report eating lunch with co-workers, and socializing outside of work. Meanwhile, however, those with more experience were more likely to report that they had close friendships at work.

There were also differences in the ways in which the most junior practitioners preferred that their employers support firm culture. While social events were the top-rated workplace culture initiative according to junior and more experienced employees alike, those with more than five years of experience were much more likely than their more junior counterparts to believe that sharing company goals and achievements, inviting employees to participate in strategic decision making, holding all-team meetings, and recognizing professional achievements were beneficial to firm culture.

This mix of professional growth and strong relationships was strongly correlated with whether or not respondents at the beginning of their careers believed that their work was meaningful and rewarding, with those who didn’t know their firm’s performance evaluation criteria, or who didn’t receive training for new roles, less likely to find their work meaningful and rewarding. Meanwhile, those who shared their firm’s values, were encouraged to share ideas at work, believed that their day to day work was relevant to their long-term goals, and had sufficient autonomy to make the decisions needed to complete their work were most likely to find their work meaningful and rewarding.

Help design the 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey!

October 4, 2017

16_1016 Equity by Design Infographics_Page_06.jpg

EQxD Metrics: Work-Life Integration

September 27, 2017

By Annelise Pitts, AIA, Equity by Design Research Chair

We all know the classic work-life narrative in architecture. Long hours and low pay are treated as an integral part of our professional culture. This expectation, we tell ourselves, is fostered in architecture school, where we develop a love of the craft and a sense of community during long nights and even all-nighters spent perfecting projects and bonding with our classmates. This narrative contends that architecture is a discipline that requires persistence, dedication, and countless hours laboring alone over a set of drawings. Real architects, we tell each other, are those who are willing to put all else aside and work seemingly impossible hours to achieve perfection.

The Equity in Architecture Survey tells a very different story about the state of work-life issues within our profession. According to respondents’ self-reported hours, very few members of our profession work anywhere close to 60 -- or even 50 -- hours in an average week. The vast majority of respondents, both men and women, report that work-life is an important consideration in their careers. Still, a significant majority of respondents report that they have allowed their careers to negatively impact their personal lives, and less than half of respondents report that they are able to find time to pursue personal interests outside of work.

According to these findings, architects are struggling with weekly work schedules that seem very normal when compared to the myth of the workaholic architect. The data suggests that these challenges are strongly correlated a lack of flexibility in where and when we work, in expectations that we will work as much as necessary to meet deadlines, in a lack of understanding of the criteria used to evaluate our performance, in perceived social cues that urge us to work harder or have our professional commitment doubted, and in the absence of meaningful and rewarding work. The “long hours and low pay” narrative that our field has cultivated isn’t damaging because it encourages most architects to work impossible hours, but instead because it masks and delegitimizes the very real struggles that are associated with a much more typical 40-50 hour work week.

Overview

In the metrics below, click over the arrows at the top right above the infographics to see the overview analysis for Work-Life Integration.

Infographic Slides 2017

Work-life considerations factor strongly into the architectural professionals’ career decisions, regardless of their identity. The vast majority of our respondents report that it was “extremely” or “very important” that their job provided work-life flexibility, integration or balance. In fact, only 4% of men, and 1% or women, believe that these issues were “not too important” or “not important at all.”

While respondents tended to believe that it was important to strike an appropriate work-life relationship, many reported that they had faced challenges in this arena. Women were were more likely to report having faced a host of work-life conflicts, from poor health and neglected personal duties to turning down travel or even leaving a job. It’s also important to note that our respondents, both male and female, were much more likely to report experiencing personal setbacks in the face of work-life conflict than they were to report making professional trade-offs in these situations.

Overall, respondents’ perceptions of their work-life flexibility were relatively low. Just 52% of male respondents, and 45% of female respondents, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I have enough time and energy to pursue my interests outside of work.”

Similarly, many respondents reported that their workloads were too great, with one in four respondents disagreeing with the statement “I have enough time to complete my work.”

Another way of looking at work-life is by considering burnout and engagement, which are considered to be opposite conditions for the purposes of our data analysis. According to research, burnout is identified by feeling exhausted by one’s work, a lack of focus or involvement in one’s work, and doubting one’s ability to meet expectations. Meanwhile, engagement is characterized by feeling energized by work, feeling involved or focused on work, and believing one has the ability to meet or exceed expectations. Our study showed that most respondents, male and female, were either highly or slightly engaged. Female respondents were slightly more likely than their male counterparts to exhibit signs of burnout.

Given the prevalence of work-life conflict, we were surprised to learn that the majority of our respondents worked between 40 and 50 hours a week. This suggests that the average number of hours worked per week may not be the best indicator of whether work-life flexibility is an issue for someone.

Key Work-Life Drivers

Clearly, many architectural professionals struggle with work-life challenges, even though most professionals work fewer than 45 hours per week. This suggests that, while it’s important to address extremely long hours, attention should also be paid to the causes of work-life challenge amongst those who are working fewer hours.

When considering each of the indicators of work-life quality used in the survey (ability to pursue interests outside work, availability of time to complete work, burnout/engagement, and history of facing work-life challenge), we found that positive work-life perceptions were predicted by finding one’s work relevant to long-term goals, and working in an environment where work-life flex is encouraged through the clear communication of expectations, the availability of work-life benefits, compensation for overtime work, and leaders who use work-life benefits themselves. Interestingly, these qualitative and cultural factors were more predictive of positive perceptions than any specific policy, or even the average number of hours that a respondent reported working.

In addition to these top predictors, a number of additional factors were found to be correlated with respondents’ work-life perceptions and experiences. Work environment, career pinch points, work schedule and work-life policies and benefits all bear consideration. Please use the arrows on the upper right side of image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

The top predictors of whether a respondent reported having enough time to pursue interests outside of work were whether they believed their day-to-day work was relevant to long-term goals, and whether their firm’s leaders used work-life benefits themselves. Meanwhile, not knowing performance evaluation criteria, working more than 46 hours a week, and working in a firm without work-life flex policies were associated with negative perceptions of work-life

A respondent’s assessment of one’s workload was another key factor in evaluating work-life flexibility. The top predictors of whether a respondent agreed with the statement “I have enough time to complete my work” were the belief that one’s day-to-day work was relevant to long term goals, being paid more than hourly wage for overtime, and using job sharing. Meanwhile, receiving no overtime compensation, and not knowing performance evaluation criteria were associated with more negative perceptions of workload. Overall, these trends suggest that working in an environment where one’s time is valued -- by making sure that work is relevant to one’s personal goals, and by investing in one’s time either by paying for overtime hours, or by allowing employees to share jobs to allow for part-time schedules -- is critical to managing one’s workload.

The top predictors of burnout were not having friendships at work, aspiring to be an unlicensed staff designer, and not knowing the criteria for performance evaluation. Meanwhile, believing day-to-day work was relevant to long-term goals and receiving feedback on an ongoing basis were associated with higher levels of engagement.

Overall, the top predictors of whether a respondent reported having made personal trade-offs in the face of work-life challenges were working 46 or more hours per week, being expected to work as much as necessary to meet deadlines, and being paid more than one’s hourly wage for overtime. Meanwhile, having access to in-house or subsidized daycare and reporting that one never worked overtime were associated with decreased likelihood of personal trade-off. In short, workplaces that incentivized or created expectations of overtime were associated with increased likelihood of making sacrifices in one’s personal life in the face of work-life challenge.

Meanwhile, the top predictors of whether a respondent reported having made professional trade-offs in the face of work-life challenges were having no friendships at work, not receiving training for new roles, and being a caregiver. Those whose day-to-day work was relevant to their long-term goals, and those who were paid more than their hourly wage for overtime were less likely to have made personal trade-offs.

The size of a respondent’s firm was correlated with work-life perception, with respondents who worked in the smallest firms much more likely than those working in the largest firms to agree with the statement “I have the time and energy to pursue my interests outside of work” (55% M| 50% F in XS firms vs. 39% M| 33% F in XL firms). There were not strong correlations between firm size and whether a respondent reported having time to complete their work, exhibited signs of burnout, or had faced work-life challenges in the past.

Experience level was a significant factor in predicting a respondent’s work-life prioritization and experiences. Those in the middle of their careers were more likely to value work-life flexibility than either those entering the field or the most seasoned professionals, with over 60% of women with 14-18 years of experience indicating that work-life considerations were “extremely important” to them.

While women placed a higher value on work-life flexibility than men at every level of experience, this gap was at its narrowest amongst those early in their careers. This is largely because because junior and mid-level male respondents valued work-life flexibility much more than their more senior counterparts. This suggests that, at least for the younger generations, work-life flexibility is an important issue for all genders.

While work-life flexibility was most important to those with 10-20 years of experience, this was also the career stage at which respondents were least likely to believe that their workloads were manageable. Less than half of respondents with 10-25 years of experience believes that they had enough time to complete their work.

Similarly, those with more experience were more likely than those early in their careers to report that they had faced work-life challenges in the past. Because this question asked whether a respondent had ever faced these challenges, and not whether the respondent was currently facing them, it is somewhat unsurprising that those with the longest career histories were most likely to report facing challenges. The prevalence of these challenges was, however, staggering - 79% of men, and 86% of women, with 14-25 years experience reported that they had made either personal or professional trade-offs in response to work-life challenges.

Promoting a Positive Work-Life Relationship

Firms have a role to play in shaping their employees work-life experiences. A number of factors, from how hours are determined to whether employees are allowed or even encouraged to take time off, were correlated with respondents’ work-life perceptions and experiences. Please use the arrows on the upper right side of image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Sep 26, 2017

How are Your Hours Determined?

Sep 26, 2017

Respondents’ work schedules were determined in a variety of ways. The majority of respondents (77%) reported that they were expected to work as much as necessary to meet deadlines, suggesting that irregular schedules, with peaks in working hours around deadlines, and less hours at other times, might be the norm for architectural professionals. Compared to those whose hours were determined in another way, those who reported that they were expected to put in as many hours as necessary to meet deadlines were 12% less likely (-12% M | -13% F) to believe that they had time to pursue their interests outside of work, 11% less likely to believe that they had enough time to complete their work (-12% M | -10% F), and 13% more likely to have faced work-life challenges (16% M | 11% F).

Sep 26, 2017

How are You Compensated for Overtime Work?

Sep 26, 2017

While potentially long hours were expected of most respondents as needed to meet deadlines, few received compensation for overtime work. Overall, 59% of practitioners reported that they were not compensated in any way for overtime work. White men were least likely to be compensated for overtime work, potentially because white male respondents were more experienced on average, and were more likely to be salaried (vs. hourly) employees. Of those who were offered compensation for overtime work, comp time, or regular business hours off in exchange for overtime hours worked, was the most common form of compensation. Only 23% of respondents received monetary compensation, whether in their paycheck or through a bonus, for overtime work.

Sep 26, 2017

Access to Work-Life Benefits

Sep 26, 2017

According to respondents, firms are offering a variety of benefits and policies intended to to promote work-life flexibility. Most respondents reported that they had flexibility in terms of start and end times for work (“core hours”), and firm-provided technology to support working from home. Other common work-life benefits included the ability to work from home during normal business hours, comp time (time off in exchange for overtime hours worked), part time schedules, and a compressed schedule (40+ hours/week, with more than 8 hours on some days of the week, and a regularly scheduled full, or partial day off). White male respondents were more likely than women and people of color to report having access to every one of these work-life benefits.

Sep 26, 2017

Work-Life Benefits Used in Last 3 Years

Sep 26, 2017

The vast majority of respondents reported that they had used work-life benefits within the last three years, but there was a great deal of variety in terms of which work-life benefits respondents reported using. White males were also more likely than others to report using the three most commonly offered work-life flexibility benefits (core hours, technology to support remote work, and working from home). People of color were less likely than white respondents to report using each of the most common benefits. Female respondents, meanwhile, were more likely than male respondents to use comp time.

Sep 26, 2017

Top-Rated Work-Life Benefits

Sep 26, 2017

When asked which benefits were most helpful in promoting work-life flexibility, the most common responses were: “core hours,” “technology to support remote work,” and “comp time.” in other words, respondents most likely to value benefits that offered them flexibility in terms of where and when they worked, rather than benefits that allowed them to work less hours overall.

Sep 26, 2017

Likelihood - Works an Alternative Schedule

Sep 26, 2017

Overall, 49% of respondents reported having worked some kind of alternative schedule over the last 3 years. For the purposes of our analysis, the following types of schedule were considered “alternative”: compressed (40 hours/week, with some days longer than 8 hours, and some days with fewer or no hours), telecommuting (working from home during regular business hours), part time (less than 40 hours per week), and job sharing (two or more people work part time hours to do the equivalent of one full-time employee’s workload). There wasn’t much variation in likelihood of working an alternative schedule, but white men were actually slightly more likely than other respondents to have worked an alternative schedule. The most common type of alternative schedule was working from home, while job sharing was the least common.

Sep 26, 2017

Top Reasons for Working Alternative Schedule

Sep 26, 2017

The most common reasons that respondents reported working alternative schedules were overall flexibility, increased productivity, and to pursue personal interests. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report working an alternative schedule in order to provide childcare.

Sep 26, 2017

Works Alternative Schedule: Perceived Impacts

Sep 26, 2017

Overall, most respondents who worked an alternative schedule reported that the schedule hadn’t had any adverse impacts on their career. White men were least likely to report adverse impacts, while non-white men, white women, and non-white women were each successively more likely to report adverse impacts.

The most commonly reported adverse impact was a belief that co-workers perceived alternative schedule users as less committed to their careers. Women who had worked alternative schedules were twice as likely as men who worked these schedules to report this adverse impact.

Sep 26, 2017

Part-Time Work: Perceived Impacts

Sep 26, 2017

Respondents’ perceptions of the ways in which their alternative schedules had impacted their careers varied by alternative schedule type. Part-time schedules were associated with the highest probability of believing that one’s schedule had adversely impacted one’s career, with less than half of respondents reporting no impacts. Women were much more likely than men to report being adversely impacted by their schedules (65 % of men reported no impacts vs. 36% of women). The most common reported impact of working part time was a reduced rate of compensation.

Sep 26, 2017

Likelihood: Spent a Month of More Away from Architecture

Sep 26, 2017

Amongst our respondents working in firms, we found that it was relatively rare to have taken off a month or more in the past, either by taking a leave of absence, or by leaving a job entirely.

Sep 26, 2017

Desire for Time Away

Sep 26, 2017

However, amongst those who had never taken this time off, we found that only 31% of our male respondents, and just 19% of our female respondents had never wanted to do so, and didn’t anticipate wanting to take a month or more off in the future. With so many practitioners hoping to take time away from a job in architecture, employers would do well to consider sabbatical or leave of absence programs.

Sep 26, 2017

Leave Takers: Reason for Taking Leave

Sep 26, 2017

Amongst those who had taken a leave, the most common reasons were childbirth, having been laid off, and taking a personal leave or sabbatical. Women were much more likely to have taken a leave for childbirth, with 53% of white female leave-takers, 37% of non-white female leave-takers, 7% of non-white leave-takers, and 5% of white leave-takers reporting taking a month or more for childbirth.

Sep 26, 2017

Leave Takers: Length of Leave

Sep 26, 2017

There was considerable variation in the amount of time that leave-takers spent away from the field, with a 20th percentile leave length of 2 months, a median leave-length of 5 months, and an 80th percentile leave length of 18 months. Male respondents took slightly shorter leaves, on average, than female respondents.

Sep 26, 2017

Leave Takers - Perceived Impacts

Sep 26, 2017

White male leave-takers were much more likely than women and people of color to report that their leaves had caused no adverse impacts on their careers (59% of White Males | 52% Non-White Males | 43% White Females | 41% Non-White Females). The most commonly reported adverse impacts were delayed advancement or promotion and reduced rates of compensation.

Sep 26, 2017

Average Salary by History of Leave Taking

Sep 26, 2017

A history of leave-taking was also correlated with measures of professional success like salary and compensation. Men who had taken a leave in the past made less, on average, than those who had never taken time away. Similarly, women who had never taken a leave in the past made more on average than those who had taken a leave.

Sep 26, 2017

Likelihood of being Principal/Partner by Leave History

Sep 26, 2017

Meanwhile, women who had never taken a leave were much less likely than leave-takers at nearly every level of experience to be a principal or partner. Amongst those with more than 13 years of experience, men who had never taken a leave were more likely to hold these leadership positions.

Sep 26, 2017

Career Perceptions by History of Leave Taking

Sep 26, 2017

There were no significant differences in career perceptions amongst leave-takers and those who had never taken a leave.

Sep 26, 2017

Key Take-Aways

Work-life considerations factor strongly into the architectural professionals’ career decisions, regardless of their identity. The vast majority of our respondents reported that it was “extremely” or “very important” that their job provided work-life flexibility, integration or balance.
Work-Life perceptions were strongly correlated with gender, with women much more likely to report having faced work-life challenges, and less likely to have time to pursue personal interests outside of work.
Access to, and utilization of, work-life benefits was strongly correlated w/ both race and gender, with non-white respondents less likely to have access to these benefits than white respondents.
Work-Life considerations were often most important for those with 10-20 years of experience, but industry response hasn’t met demand. This group utilized work-life benefits at the highest rate of any group, but still struggled with low levels of satisfaction with their workloads, and their work-life flexibility.
Work Environment was also strongly correlated with at least some work-life considerations, with those in the largest firms expressing the lowest satisfaction w/ their ability to pursue interests outside of work.
Most importantly, the strongest predictors of work-life experience were related to workplace culture: we found that positive work-life perceptions were predicted by finding one’s work relevant to long-term goals, and working in an environment where work-life flex is encouraged through the clear communication of expectations, the availability of work-life benefits, compensation for overtime work, and leaders who use work-life benefits themselves.

EQxD Quarter 3 - Charting Your Path

August 14, 2017

Our next quarterly topic will be a timely discussion about "Charting Your Path", which spans several related areas influencing talent retention. These include - professional satisfaction, aspirations for career progression and professional development, the likelihood of burnout vs. engagement, work/life flexibility and caregiving.

The expression "work–life balance" was first used in the United Kingdom in the late 1970s to describe the balance between an individual's work and personal life.[5] In the United States, this phrase was first used in 1986. Well, it's 2017 and in 30+ years that this term has been referenced, mis-used, and over-used; the quest for a harmonious state of equilibrium between our life and work remains illusive. Moreover, Work/Life balance - the control and separation of the two sides has become disingenuous given the rapid evolution of technology and connectivity that has blurred the lines of where and how traditional work is being done.

In the context of equitable practice, the concept of "Charting Your Path" expands the discussion beyond reactionary approaches into channeling our ability to be proactive in problem solving. The key findings from the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey reveal Career Dynamics and Pinch Points that could pose challenges in your career. By understanding the factors that influence career success, we can explore the skills needed to "prepare and pivot" when difficulties arise. We will also discuss strategies for self-assessment to chart your progress (career mapping) and for being self-aware of how that relates to your personal and professional goals. Finally, we will share active ways to discuss adopting equitable practices in the workplace to minimize barriers and maximize the potential success for all professionals.

The subtopics of this quarter will include:

Paying your Dues - Challenges for early career professionals experience in the first 5 years
Caregiving - Whether caring for children or others, what are the impacts of reduced workhours?
Work/Life Flexibility - Within the Work/Life Dichotomy, how do we reconcile meaningful work and the need for personal restoration?

This week, please join us on, Thursday August 17th at AIASF from 6pm-8pm for our 3rd EQxD “U” Workshop "Charting Your Career Path: Creating a Roadmap for Success", where we will explore the many possible ways to conceptualize meaningful work that does not come at the cost of our personal health, wellness, and happiness. Panelists, Jill Bergman AIA of HDR Inc., and Lilian Asperin, AIA of WRNS will share how they set goals for navigating career goals, pivots and unexpected transitions with graphic mapping tools to guide key decisions. They will also guide participants in reflecting on their own approach, how it is working for them and re-evaluate areas needing improvement.

EQxD Metrics: Closing the Pay Gap (3 of 3)

July 6, 2017

This is the third installment in a three-part series that explores what the data from the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey tells us about Pay Equity in the architectural profession. Article 1 “Pay Equity Overview” and Article 2 “From ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ to Pay Equity” provide a useful context for understanding this article.

By Annelise Pitts, Assoc AIA, Equity by Design Research Chair

Over the last two weeks, we’ve published data that illustrates just how far our industry has to go in order to close the wage gap. There are, however, steps that each of us can take to work towards more equitable compensation practices. In today’s article, we’ll take a look at policies, behaviors, and practices that the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey indicates are associated with higher wages, and discuss the roles that individuals and firms can play in adopting these equitable practices.

This article isn’t intended to provide a comprehensive guide of all of the best ways to close the pay gap or promote pay equity. There are a number of firm-led behaviors practices, like pay audits, that won’t be covered in today’s article because we didn’t collect data on these policies. We recommend looking at additional resources like Parlour’s “Pay Equity” guide before deciding on the best ways to tackle pay equity in your firm or career.

Policies, Practices, and Earnings

Data from the survey shows that there are both firm-led and individually-led behaviors that are strongly correlated with earnings. Certain kinds of personalized attention and feedback from senior firm leaders, whether through mentorship or sponsorship, or through addressing particular topics in performance reviews, were strongly correlated with increased earnings. Meanwhile, individuals’ work schedules and knowledge of the review process were most strongly correlated with earnings.

Infographic Slides 2017

The kinds of attention that firm leaders pay to their employees are strongly correlated with employee salary. After adjusting for experience, individuals who received feedback on their embodiment of firm values, their leadership traits, and their business development skills during the performance review process made more, on average, than those who did not receive this type of feedback. Meanwhile, those individuals who reported that their firm did not have a performance review process, or who did not know the criteria for performance evaluation, made less, on average. In all cases, the performance review process was more strongly predictive of male respondents earnings than of female respondents’ earnings.

As discussed in the last article, individuals’ schedules were strongly predictive of earnings. Respondents of both genders who reported that they never worked overtime made substantially less, on average, than those who did reported working overtime, with male respondents who never worked overtime averaging about $23K less than those who did, and women who never worked OT averaging $17k less. Meanwhile, female respondents faced a steeper penalty for working a part-time schedule, with part-time female employees averaging $13k less than full-time female employees while part-time male employees averaged $8k less than full-time male employees.

Receiving career guidance from a senior leader within one’s own firm was also strongly correlated with higher annual earnings. Amongst respondents with 8 or more years of experience, the wage difference associated with mentorship was larger for male respondents than for female respondents, suggesting that men may reap larger financial rewards from their mentor-mentee relationships with firm leaders.

Respondents who indicated that their had a sponsor, or someone who advocated for them, within their firm also earned more, on average, than those who did not have such a person. Once again, the identity of one’s sponsor was a significant predictor of earnings. In this case, however, having a peer advocate was at least as beneficial as having an advocate in management, especially amongst more experienced respondents. This may be because many respondents with more than 18 years of experience were in management themselves, suggesting that even firm leaders need peer advocates within their organization’s management structure. More analysis would be required to explore why respondents with peer advocates made more, on average, than those with advocates in mid-level management.

Negotiation

A respondent’s history of negotiation was another important predictor of wages. The survey data shows that male and female respondents who had been unsatisfied with their salaries in the past were roughly equally likely to have negotiated their offers. However, male negotiators were slightly more likely to have success at the negotiation table, and earned more than female negotiators. Negotiators of both genders, however, earned more, on average, than those who had never negotiated their salary, suggesting that negotiation is an important tool!

Infographic Slides 2017

Contrary to conventional wisdom, female respondents were actually more likely to indicate that they had negotiated their salary in the past. Most of this difference, however, can be attributed to similar difference in male and female respondents’ likelihood of saying that they had always been satisfied with their salary offers. In other words, women were more likely to negotiate, but only because they were less likely to be offered a satisfactory wage in the first place.

Amongst those who had negotiated their salary, respondents of both genders had high rates of success, with roughly ⅔ of respondents receiving either the full amount that they had requested, or an increased offer that was smaller than their initial bargaining position. Male negotiators, however, were slightly more likely to receive the full amount that they had requested, while female negotiators were slightly more likely to receive a partial amount.

Compared to those who were dissatisfied, but did not negotiate, and even to those who had always been satisfied with their salary offers and had never felt the need to negotiate, negotiators of both genders made more, on average, at nearly every level of experience. Compared to those who had always been satisfied, these increases were quite modest, however, for female negotiators. Male negotiators with more than 13 years of experience, on the other hand, made significantly more than those who had always been satisfied with their earnings. This suggests that female negotiators were adept at negotiating for earnings that were considered “fair”, while male negotiators tended to pull in salaries well above the average.

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

Part 1 - EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Series - Overview

Part 2 - EQxD Metrics: From "Equal Pay for Equal Work" to Pay Equity

Part 3 - EQxD Metrics: Closing the Pay Gap

EQxD Metrics: From "Equal Pay for Equal Work" to Pay Equity (2 of 3)

July 3, 2017

by Annelise Pitts - Assoc. AIA

When describing the gender wage gap, we often hear basic comparisons of men’s and women’s average salaries, like “Women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.” While this is technically accurate, it isn’t the most useful way of describing why there’s a gender pay gap, or what we can do to fix it.

According to Harvard Economist Claudia Goldin, the wage gap is better understood by applying the idea of “equal pay for equal work.” In other words, the wage gap should be quantified as the difference in men’s in women’s salaries after we’ve controlled for differences in work setting, job function and responsibility, experience level and training. These “apples to apples” comparisons show that much of the gender pay gap can be explained by differences in men’s and women’s work settings, schedules, roles, and responsibilities.

Controlling for these variables (or “correcting” the earnings ratio, according to Goldin) doesn’t show why women would systematically make professional choices that are financially disadvantageous to them. Examining the wage gap through the lens of pay equity, on the other hand, requires us to question these “apples to apples” comparisons further. Do all workers have the opportunity to make professional choices that have been shown to be financially advantageous, and are these decisions rewarded evenly? Do we ascribe inflated value to characteristics of work that are commonly seen as “white” or “male”? Once we’ve seen that differences in pay are directly correlated to differences in how, where and when different demographic groups tend to work, can we rethink the ways in which we ascribe value to work in order to devise compensation systems that are more just?

Goldin’s framework for understanding the wage gap does help to uncover some of the ways in which work seems to valued within our profession. The major drivers of the pay gap can be understood through two forces: Occupational Segregation and In-Sector Differences.

Occupational segregation describes the phenomenon whereby men are more likely to work in high paying industries and while women are more likely to work in lower paid industries. According to Goldin’s research, occupational segregation accounts for only about 35% of the pay gap amongst college graduates, with the other 65% of the gap deriving from in-sector differences, including temporal flexibility. As noted in the first article in the series, this seems to be one of the reasons that women in the “Beyond Architecture” population made less, on average, than men who work outside of a firm setting.

More significant to the pay gap in the US workforce are in-sector differences, which include differences in roles, responsibilities, and work environment within industries. These wage drivers, which account for the bulk of the wage gap in the US, will be the focus of today's article. The largest contributor to in-sector differences is what Goldin calls “temporal flexibility.” Women are more likely than men to take jobs that provide reduced hours, flexibility in hours, or work-life benefits like the ability to work from home or robust leave policies. These flexibility options, she has found, are associated with lower hourly earnings, indicating that women pay a price for access to flexibility.

Goldin’s work on the pay gap illustrates that the wage gap runs deeper than individual employers discriminating against individual workers when making compensation decisions (although this does happen!). Instead, the pay gap must be understood as a complex matrix of forces that produce gendered differences in workers’ choice of market sector, occupation, work setting and flexibility. In other words, simply saying that we must provide “equal pay for equal work” ignores the fact that gender is deeply entwined with the supposedly neutral criteria by which we value work in the first place.

The 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey illustrates that these forces are at play within our industry:

In many cases, there were significant wage advantages associated with choosing to work in particular settings – particularly within the largest firms, and within certain cities. These advantages were more significant for men than they were for women.
An individual’s schooling, professional history, strengths, and professional qualifications were also predictive of earnings. Again, many of the factors that were associated with the highest salaries overall were also associated with higher than average gender pay gaps
Temporal flexibility was identified as a major factor in pay inequality within the industry. Mothers made significantly less than fathers with comparable levels of experience, but also reported working less hours on average. Closing the wage gap amongst caregivers is likely to require more equal distribution of caregiving duties, as well as the implementation of policies and procedures whereby output and value provided to one’s firm are at least as important as billable hours in determining earnings.

As we saw in our last article, there are also significant differences in pay on the basis of race and ethnicity, with black or African American respondents earning less than other respondents at nearly every point in their careers. Because this group is underrepresented in the field, and in our survey sample, it wasn’t possible to perform the cross tabulations that you’ll see in today’s article on the basis of individual racial or ethnic group. We hope to oversample this population in our next round of research so that we can obtain statistically significant results from the more detailed types of analysis that the 2016 sample allows us to do on the basis of gender. Our hope is that this will allow the AEC community to better understand the dynamics that are driving the race and ethnicity-based pay gap and other important issues.

Key Salary Predictors

Infographic Slides 2017

Key Wage Predictors

Several characteristics of one’s job were strongly correlated with either elevated or depressed annual earnings. After adjusting earnings to account for differences in average levels in experience across populations, we found that the strongest predictors of in-sector differences in earnings were related to work setting, and to professional title. Principals and partners made approximately $34,000 more annually than non-licensed designers with comparable experience levels, while titled leaders other than principals or partners made approximately $11,000 more, and licensed architects made approximately $6,000 more. These factors contribute to the wage gap in architecture because female respondents at every level of experience were less likely to hold titled leadership positions within their firms.

Meanwhile, those working in the smallest firms and offices made less money, on average, than those working within larger organizations. Again, because female respondents were more likely than male respondents to work in firms with 20 or fewer employees, the reduced earnings amongst those who worked in these settings contributed to the overall pay gap.

Human Capital

In addition to job title, many factors related to a respondent’s skills, knowledge, and experience – broadly described as human capital – were predictive of annual earnings. In many cases, financially advantageous attributes, like having graduated from a top-10 architecture program, made a bigger difference in men’s salaries than women’s salaries. Please use the arrows on the image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Jul 2, 2017

Professional Experience

Jul 2, 2017

The single best predictor of earnings was the number of years of experience that one had in the profession, with each year of experience worth approximately $2700 in earnings. There was, however, a great deal of variation in average earnings amongst those with equivalent experience, with the highest degree of variability amongst those with the most experience. The infographic above shows the median salary for each experience level, as well as a shaded area representing the middle 80% of earners in each experience group. This demonstrates that, while there is a large degree of overlap between men’s and women’s salaries, the highest male earners in most experience categories had higher wages than the highest female earners. Conversely, the lowest female earners with more than 10 years of experience made less than the lowest male earners with comparable levels of experience.

Jul 2, 2017

Education: Average Salary by Degree Type

Jul 2, 2017

The Equity in Architecture Survey indicated that post-secondary degrees have become more common amongst architectural graduates in recent years. This movement towards higher levels of education wasn’t, however, correlated with higher earnings. At every experience level, we found that earnings were comparable for those with and without graduate degrees, meaning that men with Bachelor’s degrees earned more, on average, than women with Master’s degrees.

Jul 2, 2017

Average Salary by Licensure Status

Jul 2, 2017

One’s professional credentials were also important predictors of salary. Licensed architects made more, on average, than their unlicensed counterparts at every level of experience, with the largest differences in earnings amongst those with the most experience. The salary increase associated with licensure was greater for male respondents than it was for female respondents. Adjusted for experience, licensed men receiving a boost of approximately $8k per year while licensed women received a boost of only $4k per year.

Jul 2, 2017

Jul 3, 2017

Experience-Adjusted Wages by Professional Org Membership

Jul 3, 2017

Membership in a professional organization was also correlated with increased earnings for respondents of both genders. AIA, NCARB, and USGBC members made more than those who did not belong to any professional organizations at every level of experience. It’s worth noting that this correlation doesn’t necessarily prove that membership in a professional organization increases one’s earning potential. Each of these organizations has annual dues, which may be easier for those with elevated earnings to pay.

Jul 3, 2017

Jul 2, 2017

Average Salary by Professional Strength

Jul 2, 2017

Respondents’ self-identified professional strengths were also correlated with differences in earnings. Those who reported specialized strengths in “business and finance”, “negotiation”, or “mentorship and teaching” averaged the highest earnings. Meanwhile, those who listed more general traits like “work ethic and drive”, “creativity or design”, or “efficiency” as their greatest strengths made the least, on average. The largest gender-based earnings gap was between men and women who listed “negotiation” as a strength, with skilled male negotiators earning $37K gross, or $15K experience-adjusted, more on average than skilled female negotiators.

Jul 2, 2017

Average Salary by Number of Firms and Years of Experience

Jul 2, 2017

While there is anecdotal evidence that young practitioners routinely move between firms in pursuit of salary increases that exceed typical annual raises, the data from the 2016 Equity in Architecture demonstrates no significant correlation between one’s history of switching firms and average earnings.

Jul 2, 2017

Average Salary by Tenure at Firm and Years Experience

Jul 2, 2017

Meanwhile, the data shows that, amongst those with 8 or more years of experience, a longer tenure at one’s current firm was associated with higher pay. Together, these statistics demonstrate that, on average, staying with a single firm over a long time period is more financially rewarding than frequently moving between firms.

Jul 2, 2017

Work Environment

In addition to one’s professional credentials and history, physical work setting was correlated with one’s earnings. Both geographic location and firm size were associated with differences in earnings, with those working in the largest cities, and the largest firms making the most, on average. Both firm size and location also seemed to be drivers of inequity, with male and female respondents equally likely to work in large cities and firms, but with male respondents reaping most of the financial benefits associated with working in these lucrative settings. Please use the arrows on the image below to click through the slide show and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Experience-Adjusted Salary by Geographic Location

The geographic location of one’s firm was significantly correlated with both overall earnings, and with the size of the wage gap. Those working in major cities made more, on average, than those working outside of these metropolitan areas. After normalizing average salaries in the five most common locations from the survey to the national average of 14 years of experience, the highest average salaries were observed in San Francisco ($105,031 per year for men and $93,015 per year for women) and New York City ($102,718 annually for men and $94,331 for women).

The gender wage gap also varied considerably by office location, largely because men’s salaries varied considerably by geographic location while women’s salaries were more consistent across regions. The largest salary wage gaps were generally observed in the locations where men’s average salaries were highest, while smaller gaps were observed in locations where men’s average salaries were lower. In San Francisco, where experience-adjusted male respondents’ salaries were the highest in the nation, the average experience-adjusted female made $0.89 for every dollar a man earned. Meanwhile, in Seattle, WA, where the average experience-adjusted salary was actually lower than the national average, the average experience-adjusted female actually made more than the average experience-adjusted male -- $1.01 for every dollar that a man earned.

Average Salary by Years Experience - San Francisco vs. National

Similar to the national pattern, the wage gap in top metropolitan regions was at its widest amongst those with the most experience. In San Francisco, where the average wage gap was wider than the national average, men and women with 10 or fewer years of experience made comparable amounts, while, the wage gap amongst those with more than 10 years of experience was considerably larger than the national average. Much of this difference can be attributed to the fact that experienced male respondents working in San Francisco made considerably more than the national average, while experienced women working in this location made only marginally more than the national average salary.

Average Salary by Firm Size

We also saw that firm size was correlated with wages, with those working in the largest firms making the most money on average. However, the relative difference in wages based on firm size was much smaller amongst female respondents than it was amongst men.

Experience-Adjusted Wages by Firm Size

Smaller, but still significant, differences in average annual pay were observed within most size categories after adjusting the data to account for differences in average experience level between male and female respondents. Again, the largest pay gap was observed within the largest firms. Male respondents working within these settings tended to make far more than the national average salary, while female respondents saw only minor increases above the average female salary for opting to work in these settings.

Job Description

In addition to wage differences related to workplace, there were significant wage differences observed that were related to job descriptors such as roles and responsibilities, compensation structure, and the average number of hours worked per week. Please use the arrows on the image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Average Salary by Project Role

One of the most important ways of looking at the wage gap is to assess whether respondents are receiving equal pay for equal work. Our data showed a gender-based wage gap for every project role, with the largest gap between male and female design principals.

Average Wages by Project Responsibility

Male respondents also made more, on average, than female respondents with equivalent project responsibilities. This was true for every project responsibility listed in the survey. The largest gross difference observed was for management of client relationships (pay gap of $26k/year gross, or $6k experience adjusted). The largest experience-adjusted pay gap was observed amongst those responsible for design leadership (pay gap of $22k/year, or $7k/year experience adjusted).

Average Wages by Office Management Responsibility

Female respondents made less, on average, than male counterparts with similar office management responsibilities. The largest gaps were observed between those responsible for marketing and new business development (pay gap of +$29k gross, or $9k experience adjusted), and strategic planning (pay gap of +$27k gross, or $9k experience adjusted)

Temporal Flexibility and the Care Penalty

Other than level of experience and job title, the largest predictors of one’s salary were whether and to what extent one adopted a flexible schedule. Female respondents who prioritized work-life flexibility or who used certain types of work-life benefits faced heftier financial penalties than men who reported comparable views or used similar programs. Women were more likely to use these benefits, and especially to report working reduced schedules, which contributed significantly to the absolute differences in men’s and women’s average earnings. Meanwhile, men with more than 10 years of experience made more per hour than their female counterparts, indicating greater financial incentives for men than for women to put in long hours. Please use the arrows on the image below to click through the slide show and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Experience-Adjusted Salary by Work-Life Flex Importance

A side-by-side comparison of respondents’ experience-adjusted average salaries based upon gender and response to the question “How important is it to you that your job provides work-life flexibility, integration, or balance?” demonstrates that those who place higher importance on work-life flexibility, integration, or balance make less, on average, than those who view the issue as less important. Moreover, women’s average earnings vary considerably based on their response to this question, while men’s salaries vary more subtly based on work-life importance. This suggests that work-life prioritization is correlated with salary, and that decisions to prioritize work-life flex impact women disproportionately.

How Important is Work-Life Flex to You?

This phenomenon is particularly significant because female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report that work-life considerations were “extremely” or “very important” to them, and were less likely to report that they were “not too important”, or “not important at all.” Just three female respondents indicated that work-life flex was “not important” to them at all as a consideration.

Experience-Adjusted Salary by Work-Life Benefits Used

Use of work-life flexibility benefits was correlated with earnings, with the use of benefits that entailed working fewer hours correlated with decreased earnings, and the use of benefits that facilitated working outside of the office correlated with increased earnings. Women averaged lower earnings than men, regardless of which benefits they used.

There was an interesting gendered difference in the pay of those who used schedule flexibility benefits like comp time, core hours, and compressed schedules. Each of these benefits allows a user to trade time away from the work during some regular business hours for work conducted outside of the normal 9-5 workday. When adjusted for experience, men who reported using these benefits made more than men who said that they hadn’t used any work-life benefits. Meanwhile, women who used these benefits earned the same amount, or slightly less than women who reported using no work-life benefits.

Average Hourly Wage by Years Experience

All of this suggests that the average number of hours that one works, when coupled with experience level, is highly predictive of wages. In fact, respondents’ calculated hourly wages, which were derived from the average number of hours that a respondent reported working per week and reported annual earnings, were comparable for men and women with 10 years of experience or less. However, there were significant gender differences in hourly wages amongst more experienced professionals, with women earning less money per hour than male respondents.

Hours Worked per Week by Gender

The smaller gender difference between hourly wages than between absolute earnings suggests that female respondents reported averaging fewer hours per week. It’s worth considering why women might average fewer hours per week, and to ask ourselves whether a system whereby earnings are so heavily focused on the number of hours, and particularly overtime hours, is inherently biased against women, who tend to bear the load of caregiving and are often less able to work overtime due to these commitments. Are hours worked really the best measure of the value that one provides to a company? It’s not something that we can answer with our survey data, but something that we would like to research further in the future!

The Care Penalty

Finally, family life was an important predictor of pay, with caregiving responsibilities closely tied to average earnings at every point in one’s career. In architecture, as in other fields, mothers earn less, on average, than women without children, regardless of experience level. Meanwhile, fathers out-earn men without children. Please use the arrows on the image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Average Salary by Caregiver Status

Parenthood was an important predictor of earnings, largely due to differences in mothers’ and fathers’ reported caregiving responsibilities, and the work settings and schedules that they chose in order to accommodate these responsibilities. We saw that, while men and women without children had similar average salaries by years of experience, fathers made more, on average, than men without children, while mothers made less, on average, than women with children.

Average Experience-Adjusted Salary by Reason for Alt Schedule

We saw additional evidence for the idea that childcare places an undue financial burden upon working women when we compared the experience adjusted salaries of men and women who reported working an alternative schedule (part time, comp time, core hours, or compressed) based on their reason for working that schedule. Men who chose an alternative schedule to accommodate childcare made the most money, on average, while women who worked one of these types of schedules to accommodate childcare earned the least, on average.

Average Salary by Experience When Oldest Child Born

The timing of the birth of one’s child relative to one’s professional development was significant. By subtracting respondents’ children’s ages from their level of experience, we were able to approximate their level of experience at the time of the birth of their children. This analysis revealed that fathers’ salaries were comparable to, or exceeded, those of their counterparts without children, no matter when in their career their oldest child had been born. Those who had become fathers when they had four or fewer years of experience made less, on average, than those who had become fathers later in their careers. Meanwhile, mothers tended to make less than their counterparts without children at most stages in their careers. The only exception was amongst women who had become mothers with 8-10 years of experience. These women made comparable amounts to, or even more than, their counterparts without children.

Average Salary by Experience When Youngest Child Born

Amongst female respondents, patterns in earnings related to when one’s children were born were even more significant when we considered a respondent’s experience level at the time of the birth of her last child. Women whose youngest child was born when they had seven or fewer years of experience in the field made substantially less, on average, than women without children as well as women who had finished giving birth later in their careers. This difference in earnings was at its largest amongst those with the most experience, suggesting either that the penalties related to motherhood were much more significant in the past than they are today, or that the impact of having children at the beginning of one’s career lingers late into one’s career. Like their female counterparts, men who had finished having children early in their career made less, on average, than fathers who had amassed more professional experience before the birth of their last child. However, these differences in salary on that basis of work-life sequencing were far smaller for fathers than they were for mothers.

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

Part 1 - EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Series - Overview

Part 2 - EQxD Metrics: From "Equal Pay for Equal Work" to Pay Equity

Part 3 - EQxD Metrics: Closing the Pay Gap

EQxD Actions Re-Post - Know your Worth!

June 29, 2017

Happy Thursday, Equity Champions! This week, we're exploring Pay Equity by sharing findings from the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey. We'll have another of these articles ready to share tomorrow. As we explore the data on Pay Equity, it's also important to consider the steps that each of us can take to advocate for ourselves and others. Action #9 from our EQxDActions Series offers a glimpse at the steps that you can take to determine whether you're being compensated appropriately, and to negotiate a raise if appropriate. Click on the link below to read more!

Featured

Apr 10, 2017

Know Your Worth! (and Use Negotiation as Your Power Tool!)

Apr 10, 2017

It’s not just about negotiating an individual’s salary, but also about building a skill set that is invaluable to any architecture firm. If you are not building your negotiation skills, you are leaving money on the table for client fee proposals and additional services. You also won’t be advocating for your clients with contractor’s change orders.

Apr 10, 2017

16_1016 Equity by Design Infographics_Page_05.jpg

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Series Overview (1 of 3)

June 27, 2017

by Annelise Pitts - Associate, AIA, EQxD Research Chair

In both 2014 and 2016 Equity in Architecture Surveys, our respondents cited “low pay” as one of the top reasons for having left their last job in architecture. This was even more common amongst those who had left the profession entirely. Meanwhile, “earnings” was one of the most commonly cited characteristics of professionally success in the 2016 survey. Clearly, compensation is an important factor in considering whether to stay in a job in architecture, and in evaluating one’s professional well-being.

It’s problematic, then, that white men were found to earn more, on average, than women or people of color, even after adjusting for factors like level of experience and average number of hours worked per week. This week, we’ll be taking a deep dive into the subject of pay equity, with three articles providing metrics from the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey as a means of delving into the issue. We’ll start with a broad overview of the issue, quantifying the pay gap in its simplest terms, and explaining why it’s a critical issue to address. Part 2 of the discussion will follow with a more in-depth article that explores the ideas of “equal pay for equal work” and “pay equity” by showing key drivers of pay in architecture, and ask whether the ways in which we value architectural labor carry inherent biases. Finally, Part 3, we’ll discuss ways in which firms and individuals can work to increase earnings and promote pay equity.

The “pay” numbers that you’ll see this week are based on responses to the question “what was your total income, including salary and bonuses, last year?” Respondents were asked to choose from 21 different income brackets, which began at “$35k or less”, and increased to the top of the pay scale at “325k or higher.” These brackets began in $5k increments at the bottom of the pay scale, and grew gradually to encompass $20k increments in the top earnings brackets. In our analysis, “average earnings” have been approximated by assigning all respondents within a pay bracket with a salary that is the average of the higher and lower end of their bracket. These brackets were used in lieu of asking each respondent to report their absolute earnings in order to follow standard data collection practices adopted by the AIA, NCARB, and other industry partners.

Relatively few respondents (144 total of 8431 respondents who reported income) reported salaries in excess of $325k, indicating that this was an adequate top salary. Meanwhile, approximately 10% of respondents (658 total) reported earning $35k a year or less, suggesting that the lowest income bracket should have set at a lower level. This likely means that average salaries, as reported in our findings, are slightly higher than the average that would be calculated by asking each respondent to report their absolute earnings, or had the lowest bracket been a lower number. We continue to believe in the validity of our findings, but share this information as a way of suggesting that you focus on the trends and income gaps that this work reveals, rather than concentrating on the absolute quantities associated with any individual data point.

Mind the Gap

The data from the Equity in Architecture survey demonstrates that white men earn more, on average, than white women or people of color. Respondents identifying as black or African American were at a particular financial disadvantage, averaging lower incomes than other respondents at nearly every point in their careers.

The wage gap is not only a driver of financial inequality, but potentially an important contributor to gender and ethnicity-based differences in job satisfaction and in retention. Respondents indicated that pay was often an important consideration in the decision to leave a job, and also indicated that earnings were one of the most important considerations in defining their own professional success. Pay Equity, then, isn’t just about fairness (although we think that’s an important enough reason to develop equitable pay practices!). Working towards Pay Equity is an important part of establishing an environment in which all practitioners have the opportunity to have a rewarding career in architecture. Please use the arrows on right corner of the image below to click through the slideshow and learn more.

Infographic Slides 2017

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

Overall Pay Gap

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

White male respondents made more annually, on average, than white women or people of color. While white men made $96,514, on average, non-white women earned $69,550 on average. It’s important to note, however, that a large part of this difference in annual earnings can be attributed to discrepancies in the average experience level of demographic groups within the survey sample – while the average white male respondent had 18.5 years of experience, the average non-white female averaged 9.0 years, for instance.

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Average Salary by Gender and Years Experience

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

While the difference in respondents’ average levels of experience accounts for some of the wage gap, significant differences in pay were observed between white male and other respondents even after controlling for years of experience. At every level of experience, male respondents made more, on average, than female respondents, with the largest differences amongst those with the most experience in the field.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Average Salary by Race/Ethnicity and Years Experience

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

There were also differences in annual earnings on the basis of race, with Black or African American practitioners with 14 or more years of experience earning less, on average, than White, Asian, Hispanic, or multiracial respondents. There were not significant differences in average annual earnings when comparing white and non-white respondents more generally.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

How do You Define Success in your Career?

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

This wage gap is important because earnings played a significant role in the way that respondents evaluated their professional success. “Earnings” were the most commonly cited component of career success, with 42% of females, and 44% of males, stating that they used earnings to define success in their careers.

Pay Equity, Pay Equity Overview

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Practicing Architecture: Top Reasons for Leaving Last Job

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Earnings were also tied to decisions about whether respondents stayed at a firm. Amongst those still practicing architecture, “low pay” was the third most commonly cited reason for having left one’s previous employer, after “better opportunity elsewhere” and “lack of opportunities for advancement.” Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report leaving a position due to low pay.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Beyond Arch: Top Reasons for Leaving Last Job

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Amongst those who had left architecture for careers in other fields, earnings were an even more important factor, with “low pay” as the second most commonly cited reason for leaving. The most common reason was “better opportunity elsewhere”. Again, female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report leaving a position in architecture due to low pay.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Average Salary by Career Path and Grad Year

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Even though women in the “beyond architecture” population were more likely to leave a position in architecture due to low pay, those who left an architectural firm for a career in another field made less on average than female full-time architectural practitioners within their graduation cohort. Men in the “beyond architecture” population, on the other hand, made more than full-time practitioners at most points in their careers. Simply put, the gender-based wage gap is larger for those who have been trained as architects, but no longer work in an architectural firm, than it is for those working in firms or as sole practitioners.

Part of this large gap in the “beyond architecture” population may be due to the different industries that men and women enter after leaving an architecture firm. While men were more likely to enter high paying fields like construction and real estate development, women were more likely to take positions in education, and the public sector.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

Average Salary by Years Experience - Faculty vs. Practitioners

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

The most common occupation for both men and women in the “beyond architecture” population was architectural education. Within this field, there was a significant, but narrower, par gap, with male architectural educators out-earning women at every level of experience.

Pay Equity Overview, Pay Equity

Career Dynamics

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

Part 1 - EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Series - Overview

Part 2 - EQxD Metrics: From "Equal Pay for Equal Work" to Pay Equity

Part 3 - EQxD Metrics: Closing the Pay Gap

Team "Our Town" - How Do We Increase Public Access to Architecture?

June 16, 2017

By Korey White (in collaboration with her teammates: Annelise Pitts, Atianna Cordova, Joel Avery and Julia Weatherspoon)

First, let’s give everyone a voice.

For one, half-day, a group of diverse individuals from all backgrounds, all across America, came together in a safe environment to discuss issues facing the profession of architecture, our society and our communities. The open door format of the Equity by Design Hackathon created the right foundation for catalyzing a new mindset.

We stripped collaboration of the traditional roles that we each fulfill everyday. We eliminated hierarchy in decision making and we placed all of our thoughts on the table, despite the vulnerability that typically comes with discussions of equity, diversity and inclusion. When you have four hours to work through a solution, you don’t have time to allow yourself to get paralyzed by the complex nature of these issues. Instead, you adopt a new modus operandi: you throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

At the beginning of the afternoon, we jumped into an exercise to identify what our group of hackers had in common and what set us apart. This set the stage for us to understand the strengths and perspectives we each brought to the table. After this warm up, we identified a long list of the challenges we experience within the profession of architecture. To honor our process to be divergent first and then converge, we used voting dots to identify those topics that resonated the most within our group. As passionate professionals, we landed on one big question:

“How do we increase public access to architecture?”

For Team “Our Town”, “Access” means having visibility, participation, advocacy, and funding; “Access” means building local capacity; and “Access” means sharing resources. We then proceeded to define our problem statement:

Not enough communities have access to design services and when they do, it is during times of disaster/in response to disasters. In contrast, designers don’t have access to data that would help them identify what the community actually believes is needed.

Then, aggregate that voice.

Our solution would be brilliant in its simplicity. Our goal: to better engage and listen to understand what they believe are the areas of opportunity. It would give a voice to people in local communities who are typically not heard to have a say in how their community develops.

To achieve that, we prototyped a software app that would be available on mobile phones as well as local library and school computers to increase access. This app would allow community members to, for example, go out and identify open or vacant parcels and crowdsource votes on what they believe to be the best fit for their needs. Users of the app would have the ability to document positive happenings in their neighborhoods, as well as areas of improvement. They can event propose new programming in different spaces with an Augmented Reality function. All of this is to close the gap between users and designers, and add communities to the process of design.

Strengthened by the clarity between opportunity matched with need and community buy in, design teams would engage meaningfully. For example, competitions for design concepts would be launched with these community-authored briefs - a grassroot effort rather than a top-down result imposed by external interests.

Designing for Access.

Data has the power to be an equalizer in our communities and a source that makes our contributions as architects ever more meaningful. Perhaps it is a revelation to us that we need to be more insistent on inclusivity and engagement. Not only would our app be active in collecting data, but it would also be passive for those that downloaded it onto their phones - for instance, it could collect data on how far they walked to the grocery store or pharmacy or whether there was a lack of a particular resource.

Team “Our Town” wants to give the power back to the community. As architects, we recognized that we need to be better listeners and to do that, we first need to design more effective ways to engage with the communities we serve. What better way to listen than to have the community participate and rate the importance of services that might become a reality?

Lessons Learned

“Attending the EquityxDesign Hackathon at the 2017 AIA conference was a genius way to get a lot of thinkers in the same room to unpack the issues that plague the architecture and design industry. This was my first AIA Conference. and I attended the conference, in part, to participate in the hackathon.

The largest takeaway from the hackathon was that understanding rapid and unfiltered design based solution is something that we can do more of to begin conversations of how to tackle issues in areas of interest. Good ideas always come from collaboration and we have the power to change and mold our industry in measurable ways. I look forward to participating again.”

— Julia Weatherspoon

EQxDHackathon Blog Series

Access the entire experience of the Equity by Design Hackathon here:

Joining a Firm

Career Perceptions

Workplace Culture and Shared Values

Tenure and Employee Retention

Overview

Work Setting

Workplace Relationships & Culture

Overview

Key Work-Life Drivers

Promoting a Positive Work-Life Relationship

Key Take-Aways

Policies, Practices, and Earnings

Negotiation

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

Key Salary Predictors

Human Capital

Work Environment

Job Description

Temporal Flexibility and the Care Penalty

The Care Penalty

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

Mind the Gap

EQxD Metrics: Pay Equity Blog Series

First, let’s give everyone a voice.

“How do we increase public access to architecture?”

Then, aggregate that voice.

Designing for Access.

Lessons Learned

EQxDHackathon Blog Series

Special Thanks to our #EQxDHack17 Sponsors!