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