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?
The Equity by Design Committee of AIA San Francisco is pleased to release our Early Findings Report. This report is available for viewing online. We look forward to issuing a Final Report for online viewing and publication later in 2019.
As we continue our data analysis, your feedback is important. What topics would you like to learn more about? Let us know in the comments!
Special Thank You to our Sponsors, Contributors and Champions! None of this would be possible without all of you.
The 2016 Survey garnered 8,664 responses. This year, EQxD aims to set a new record with over 10,000 responses.
The 2018 Equity on Architecture Survey is on track to be the largest survey ever conducted on equity within the architectural community in the United States. We're thrilled by the support that this project has received, and can't wait to share the results in the fall.
If you've already taken the survey, thank you for sharing your stories, experiences, and aspirations - by using your voice, you're helping to contribute to a better vision for the future of architectural practice!
If you haven't taken it yet, it's not too late! Before the survey closes this Friday, March 16, please check your inbox to look for an invitation to take the survey. The following organizations have become Survey Distribution Partners by distributing the survey to their mailing lists on our behalf:
Our Survey Distribution Partners are an integral part of this project. We would like to thank each of them for their work to promote equity throughout the profession!
Don't see your firm listed above? It's not too late to become a distribution partner! Please click the button below to sign up today!
Thank you to our EQIASurvey18 Sponsors!
@AIASF @AutodeskAEC @AutodeskRevit @HOKNetwork @CannonDesign @HDRarchitecture @SkanskaUSA @SmithGroupJJR @hga @mithun_design @wrnsstudio @IntegralGroupCA @McCarthyBuild
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.
Infographics by Atelier Cho Thompson
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.
Equity by Design is gearing up for our 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey, and we want your input! This project builds on previous survey research conducted in 2014, and 2016, and promises to set the stage for progress towards equity within the profession in the coming years.
There are a number of ways to get involved:
In addition to these opportunities for participating in EQxD’s research project, there are a number of other ways to get involved. Please feel free to use the form below to let us know if you’d like to be contacted for other volunteer opportunities (symposium planning, communications, monthly meeting organization, etc) as they arise.
We hope that you’ll join us in planning for the next phase of the Equity in Architecture Research Project! Please use the form below to tell us how you’d like to participate.
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.
In the metrics below, click over the arrows at the top right above the infographics to see the overview analysis for Work-Life Integration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In 1978, Marilyn Loden was the final panelist to present in a session on “messages of limitation which confront women and the effect on aspirations.” In turn, each of the panelists described women’s failures to get ahead -- women didn’t have high enough self-esteem, or were inadequately socialized for leadership roles. Women, in short, were to blame for their collective lack of professional advancement. When it was Loden’s turn to speak, she chose to describe invisible, and yet systemic, barriers that hindered women’s career progression and, over time, created a climate in which they were less likely to aspire to attain the leadership positions that felt far beyond their collective grasp. The term that she coined to describe this phenomenon was “glass ceiling.”
Nearly 40 years after that panel was convened, the glass ceiling is alive and well in the architectural profession. According to the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey, respondents -- both male and female -- are nine times as likely to work in a firm that was mostly, or entirely, led by men as they were to work in a majority or completely female-led office. While “glass ceiling” was originally coined to describe the challenges that women face, these barriers within the architectural profession hinder people of color as well as women as they strive to attain top leadership positions within the profession. Both of these groups are less likely than white men to be principals or partners in firms at nearly every level of experience. Even though today’s cohort of emerging professionals includes a significant increase in women and an uptick in people of color (although we still have a long way to go before we reach equal representation), the highest rungs of the profession remain pervasively white, and male.
We need to think seriously about the implications that this imbalance at the highest levels of practice might have on the future of the profession. Are we mentoring and training emerging leaders in an equitable manner? Are we restructuring our promotion processes to identify and mitigate the effects of implicit bias? In short, are today’s leaders taking the necessary steps to advance the interests of all employees by fostering a management culture that champions equitable and just practices to achieve true diversity and inclusion?
Results from the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey enable us to begin to answer these questions, and to provide insight into whether there’s a glass ceiling in architecture, and into the ways that each of us might begin to cultivate equitable practices and policies that result in true diversity of representation and thought leadership in our firms. This story has several parallel threads. First, we’ll quantify the leadership gap in architecture – does race or gender matter when considering likelihood of being a firm leader? Are there characteristics of firm leaders’ positions that vary on the basis of race or gender? Next, we’ll examine the importance of equitable representation amongst leadership to all employees – does working in a firm that has a diverse leadership team matter to one’s career perceptions or access to opportunities like mentorship? Finally, we’ll examine pathways to leadership – how does a firm’s review and promotion process correlate with career perceptions? And does ambition vary by gender or race?
At nearly every level of experience, women and people of color were less likely than white men to hold leadership positions within architecture firms. White men held an even greater advantage over other respondents when only top leadership positions were considered, and were significantly more likely to be principals or partners in firms at almost every level of experience. There were also significant differences between male and female principals’ and partners’ leadership positions, compensation, and experiences. Male principals and partners were more likely to lead larger firms and made more money, on average, than female principals within the sample. While deserving of attention in and of itself, this leadership gap also contributed significantly to differences in men’s and women’s career perceptions. Principals and partners -- both male and female -- had more positive career perceptions on average than those who were not principals in their firms.
The leadership gap in architecture clearly impacts individual practitioners’ career trajectories, and, in turn, those practitioners’ career perceptions and compensation packages. The survey also demonstrates that the lack of equity within the ranks of firm leadership impacts all employees, and not just those who may have been passed over for a promotion. While the majority of respondents reported working in firms that were mostly, or completely, led by men, respondents working in firms with equal gender representation amongst firm leadership reported more positive career perceptions. Firm leadership composition also proved to be a significant factor in a respondent’s likelihood of having access to senior firm leaders. Both male and female respondents were most likely to have a leader within their office -- either a principal or partner, or their direct manager -- to whom they could turn for career advice in offices with equally divided leadership (72% of men and 68% of women in equally divided offices). This difference in access to leaders is significant because, compared to those who received no career guidance, those who turned to a senior leader within their firm for this guidance were more more optimistic about their professional futures, more energized by their work, more likely to plan to stay at their current job.
Given the significant race- and gender-based differences in respondents likelihood of advancing into leadership positions, and the significant advantages that were observed amongst those who worked in environments with equitable representation amongst leadership, we were interested in the pathways into leadership positions, and respondents’ perceptions of these processes within their own work environments. We found that, amongst current firm leaders, women and people of color had typically advanced into their leadership positions at the same pace or slightly more quickly than their white male counterparts. This suggests that the pattern observed within other industries, wherein women and people of color tend to advance more slowly than white men, may not hold in architecture. Instead, women and people of color are unlikely to advance at all, but a select number of individuals from these groups are placed along the typical white male leadership trajectory.
According to Loden’s conception of the glass ceiling, gaps in leadership representation contribute over time to to gaps in perceptions of the promotion process, and eventually, ambition and career optimism. We found similar patterns within our sample. While respondents’ opinions of their firms promotion processes were low overall, female respondents were less likely than male respondents to find their promotion processes effective. This was especially true amongst women working in majority-male-led offices, with only 29% of female respondents working in these settings finding their firms’ promotion processes “very” or “somewhat effective.”
Ultimately, we did observe significant gaps between white male and female and non-white male respondents’ career ambitions, with male respondents more likely to aspire to become a principal or partner -- either through promotion or by starting a firm of their own -- at every level of experience. While there weren’t differences overall in likelihood of aspiring to become a principal or partner on the basis of race, there were significant differences in the ways that respondents aspired to attain these top leadership positions, with non-white respondents more likely to aspire to start their own firms and white respondents more likely to aspire to be promoted to a leadership position within an existing firm.
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.