__MAIN_TEXT__

Page 1

EQUITY BY DESIGN: VOICES, VALUES, VISION! 2018 EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY EARLY FINDINGS REPORT

EQUITY BY DESIGN


Published in February 2019 by AIA San Francisco 130 Sutter Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Report prepared by Annelise Pitts, AIA — Research Chair, Equity by Design Rosa Sheng, FAIA, LEED AP — Founding Co-Chair, Equity by Design Kendall Nicholson, EdD — Director of Research and Information, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Michael Monti, PhD — Executive Director, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture ©2018 AIA San Francisco and Equity by Design Committee. All rights reserved. Protected by U.S. and International copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of this report without written permission of the authors is prohibited.


TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND

5

INTRODUCTION

7

METHODOLOGY

8

EARLY FIDINGS

11

DEMOGRAPHICS

15

VOICES

18

VALUES

VISION

37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

28

3


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


BACKGROUND


EQxD Core Group

Survey Design Committee

EQIA 2018 Sponsors

Lilian Asperin, Co-Chair Julia Mandell, Co-Chair Annelise Pitts, Research Chair Rosa Sheng, Founding Co-Chair

Venesa Alicea Gabriela Baierle-Atwood Bridget Basham Zhanina Boyadzhieva Alethea Cheng Fitzpatrick Juliet Chun Michele Grace Hottel Meghana Joshi Hana Kim Richard Murray Melinda Pogwizd-Nerad Leila Shahrampour Julia Weatherspoon Shamila Zubairi

In addition to AIASF 2018 Sustaining Sponsors, the following sponsors championed our research efforts: Autodesk Cannon HOK HDR SmithGroup HGA Skanska Mithun WRNS McCarthy

Focus Group Participants

AIA National NCARB ACSA NOMA AIAS AIA State and Local Components* Participating Schools of Architecture* Participating Firms*

Research Partner Michael Monti Kendall Nicholson Infographics Atelier Cho Thompson Survey Design Core Committee Katie Finnegan Barrett Higginbotham Spencer Lepler Meg Schubert Allen Korey White

We would like to thank all those who contributed to the efforts of the 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

Pam Basch Renee Cheng Carolyn Day Alethea Cheng Fitzpatrick Susan Grant Andrea Johnson Karva Sykes Myra Vaughn

Outreach Partners

*Please see full list of participants in Apendix


This early findings report will highlight key findings from the 2018 survey, calling attention to the career experiences of professionals based on gender, as well as race and ethnicity. The survey was designed with the following 3 research goals/objectives which focus on the differential experiences of professionals based on gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality: • Build a comprehensive, national dataset detailing the career experiences, perceptions, and aspirations of graduates of architecture programs. • Explore career dynamics and pinch points that shape these experiences in the field and determine whether these experiences vary on the basis of personal identity.

NEXT STEPS EARLY FINDINGS

Architecture has long been (and continues to be) a discipline dominated by White men. Equity by Design and AIA San Francisco have teamed up with the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) to investigate this ongoing trend and uncover key career pinch points that may contribute to its perpetuation. For the 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey, the third conducted by the group since 2014, the team set an ambitious goal of reaching 10,000+ respondents, generating a comprehensive national dataset detailing current positions and career experiences of architecture school graduates. Building on the success of the 2016 Equity in Architecture Survey, ACSA used its relevance within the discipline of architecture to expand the reach of the survey, alongside other external partnerships fostered by the Equity by Design Research Committee members.

BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

7

• Highlight practices that help individuals and firms navigate career dynamics and pinch points.


METHODOLOGY RESEARCH TEAM

taking the survey.

The research team consisted of a sub-committee of AIA San Francisco’s Equity by Design comprised of architects, designers, AIA staff and industry consultants. This team was responsible for designing the parameters of the research project and presenting the results of the research to the public.

The result is a 134 question survey, with separate tracks for sole practitioners, those working in firms, those working other settings, and a specialized track for architecture school faculty. This report will focus mainly on the experiences of sole practitioners and those working in firms, but we will also touch on the experiences of those working in other settings. Fuller information on these groups will be available on our website in the coming months.

SURVEY DESIGN This year, the team embarked on our most ambitious research project yet. Working with the ACSA as our research partner, the EQxD core team and the Survey Design Committee designed the survey over a 4-month period, conducting an extensive literature review and holding focus groups on each research topic. The survey questions were written by the Survey Design Core Committee with significant input from Drs. Kendall Nicholson and Michael Monti from ACSA. Collectively, the team reviewed sampling strategies, survey design options and the conversion of research goals to research questions. In the following weeks, the ACSA research team guided the development of the survey design led by AIASF/EQxD and based on conference call discussion and key objectives/goals. Final approval of survey design was conducted by the ACSA Research Team Lead, Kendall Nicholson, and Annelise Pitts, Equity by Design Research Chair. In an effort to confirm construct validity, a small focus group of participants were asked to take the survey and provide feedback regarding the survey’s face and content validity as well as the overall experience of

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION The Equity in Architecture 2018 survey was conducted on the internet, and was available to anyone who received an email with an invitation to take the survey. Email invitations were sent to the mailing lists of national architecture industry groups including AIA, ACSA, NAAB, NCARB and NOMA, over 100 local components of these groups, the alumni mailing lists of 65 schools of architecture, and to the employee mailing lists of over 150 architectural firms of all sizes. ACSA and AIASF/EQxD drafted letters, emails and associated press release content for outreach to collateral organizations, ACSA schools, and other groups (such as the Large and Small Firm Roundtables). ACSA coordinated mailing lists from the past Equity by Design survey as well as those from supporting schools and organizations. The 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey launched the week of February 12. The survey remained open for approximately five weeks closing on March 16th, 2018.


Following a pre-analysis discussion, ACSA continued to run the appropriate preliminary statistical analysis for the agreed-upon research questions, and assembled a report detailing the research questions, the research design and methodology, and noting any limitations and assumptions as appropriate. All questions in the survey were then cross tabulated by gender and ethnic group. Based on the review of the research goals, the ACSA Research Team proceeded to use the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to conduct a preliminary empirical analysis. Equity by Design’s stated objectives require a comparison between males and females, and seven ethnic groups, in a sample that does not meet all of the parametric assumptions. Consequently, Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test appear to be the best fit for the data set. This year’s survey questions included over 750 variables. Having reviewed the questions, ACSA continued to explore career pinch points and compare the effect of each pinch point on men, women, White or Caucasians, Asians or East Indians, Hispanic and/or

LIMITATIONS • The cross-sectional design of this research constrains the study from concluding that gender differences cause career experiences. However, the 2018 Survey is one segment of a longitudinal study in the making and, by comparing previous and subsequent iterations of the survey, can collectively demonstrate trends in the current positions and career experiences of respondents on the basis of personal identity.

NEXT STEPS EARLY FINDINGS

Following closure of the survey, the ACSA research team reviewed the data, removing incomplete or erroneous responses and tabulated basic information about respondents. This was provided to AIASF EQxD in the form of a Raw Data Set in Excel format for reference and future collaboration on identifying topics for further analysis.

• While the sample size suggests external validity, generalization of this study is limited by the lack of verifiable data for the demographic make-up of the discipline of architecture. • The sample selection was comprised of a volunteer, purposive sample. As in most nationwide surveys, participants may not be representative of their own groups with respect to experience and rendered uneven age groups. However, on the whole, the survey was far reaching in that the range of metrics collected was comprehensive.

BACKGROUND

DATA ANALYSIS

Latinx, those from two or more races, and Black or African Americans. For the purpose of our research only ethnic groups with samples of more than 500 respondents could be analyzed in a way that is valid and reliable. All statistical analysis accounted for parametric assumptions. If parametric assumptions are not met, the appropriate non-parametric test was be used in its place.

• Lastly, the overall number of questions may have lowered the number of complete responses. While this did not affect the ability to garner

9

During the survey period, the ACSA research team provided weekly updates on survey completions and monitored the Survey Monkey account.


more than 10,000 participants, the amount of thought and time required to complete the survey could have increased the likelihood that participants do not finish the survey.

ASSUMPTIONS • The survey created provides an adequate evaluation of the topics reported. • The survey respondents are answering questions with honesty and full consideration.

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


EARLY FINDINGS


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


NEXT STEPS BACKGROUND

- Alexandra Lange “Architecture’s Lean-In Moment” Metropolis July 15, 2013

13

We need to create a new set of best practices. That will be a design project in itself, based on data, shared examples, and interpretation. Once written, we need to find leaders who will adopt them, firmby-firm, sector-by-sector. That pincer movement needs to make partners (small p) of those coming into architecture and those with enough seniority to make change happen.”

The analysis focuses on the differential experiences of professionals based on gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. In alignment with this year’s Symposium theme, we present three closely related frameworks for understanding how issues of equity impact the lives of architecture school graduates. Voices offers insight into personal and professional milestones that have the tendency to hinder career progression and influence decisions to leave the field. Values explores the personal and collective values that guide us in our careers, and the ways in which the narratives that we shape about our professional worth influence our professional experiences. Vision enumerates the ingredients of a satisfying career in architecture by detailing the key components of our career perceptions, and the ways in which individuals and firms can positively influence workplace culture and project outcomes through the lens of equitable frameworks.

EARLY FINDINGS

EARLY FINDINGS


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


DEMOGRAPHICS: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

5639 1039 MALE 6543 1079 NON42 BINARY E SURVEY 2018 18

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

14360

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

40%

The majority of the respondent pool, 85%, reported working in either an architecture firm or a sole 20% proprietorship. Meanwhile, approximately 15% of respondents were either working in other settings, or were 0% currently out of the workforce. We have AMERICAN ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC OR NATIVE MIDDLE INDIAN OR LATINX HAWAIIAN EASTERN called this group “Beyond Architecture” throughout OR EAST INDIAN OR OR PACIFIC NORTH this report.ALASKAN NATIVE ISLANDER AFRICAN

TOTAL

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

EARLY FINDINGS

FEMALE

Overall, the survey garnered 14,360 responses, 100% this the largest survey ever conducted on making the topic of equity in architecture in the US. Those identifying as female made up approximately 47% 80% of respondents (represented in orange), while those identifying as male made up approximately 53% 60% (represented in blue). Less than 1% of respondents reported a non-binary gender.

NEXT STEPS

DEMOGRAPHICS RACE/ETHNICITY OF SURVEY RESPON

NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

WHITE

MULT

RACE/ETHNICITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Overall number of survey responses by gender

BEYOND

ARCHITECTURE FEMALE PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

40% 60%

BEYOND FEMALE ARCHITECTURE

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

20% 40%

0%

BEYOND ARCHITECTURE AMERICAN ASIAN INDIAN OR OR EAST INDIAN ALASKAN NATIVE

HETEROSEXUAL

BLACK

OR Race/ethnicity of survey respondents

HISPANIC OR NATIVE LATINX HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER

BISEXUAL

MIDDLE EASTERN OR NORTH AFRICAN

GAY OR LESBIAN

STRAIGHT

WHITE

MULTIRACIAL

OTHER

25

This year’s respondent pool was large enough that we were 20 able to conduct statistically significant analysis on several individual racial and ethnic groups, includ15 ing Asian or East Indian, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, White, and Multi-Racial respondents. 10 5 0

PREFER NOT TO ANSWER

BACKGROUND

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

60% 80%

80TH %

BEYOND MALE ARCHITECTURE

MEDIAN

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

80% 100%

0% 20%

MALE

20TH %

100% SEXUALITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

While we had a relatively even gender representaYEARS INwasARCHITECTURE tion in our EXPERIENCE respondent pool, there little racial or ethnic diversity, with about 78% of respondents describing themselves as “white or Caucasian.” Data 35 from the AIA Firm Survey suggests that this is fairly MALE representative of the level of racial and ethnic diver30 sity that exists within the field.

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

30

80TH %

AGE35OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY RACE AND GENDER MALE

FEMALE

RESPONDENTS BY STATE

15

YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE

HISP O LAT


NATIVE

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

60% 80%

BEYOND

FEMALE ARCHITECTURE

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

40% 60%

BEYOND FEMALE ARCHITECTURE

20% 40%

0%

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

HETEROSEXUAL OR STRAIGHT

BISEXUAL

GAY OR LESBIAN

PREFER NOT TO ANSWER

HETEROSEXUAL OR STRAIGHT

BISEXUAL

GAY OR LESBIAN

PREFER NOT TO ANSWER

100% AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY RACE ANDMALE GENDER MULTIRACIAL BLACK

80% 100%

HISPANIC OR LATINX MALE ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN MULTIRACIAL WHITE BLACK

60% 80%

HISPANIC OR LATINX

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN FEMALE WHITE

40% 60%

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPA OR LAT

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPA OR LATI

RESPONDENTS BY STATE While our overall respondent pool was predominantly white, male, and heterosexual, this conceals an imRESPONDENTS BY STATE portant trend in the data. Our youngest respondents were by far the most diverse, with the survey pool increasingly white and male amongst older respondents. This suggests that the composition of the industry is changing, and that we all have work to do to support this more diverse pipeline

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK HISPANIC OR LATINX FEMALE ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

20% 40%

MULTIRACIAL WHITE BLACK

HISPANIC OR LATINX

45-54

55-64

65-74

75 or OLDER

18-24 25-34 35-44 Age of survey respondents by race and gender 45-54

55-64

65-74

75 or

0%

80TH %

0

AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY RACE AND GENDER

0% 20%

20 10 15 5 10 0 5

Sexuality of survey respondents

MALE

Our 30 respondent pool predominantly identified as heterosexual or straight, with approximately 7% of 35 25 the respondent pool identifying as MALE gay, lesbian, or 30 bisexual. It’s worth noting that male respondents were20 significantly more likely than female respondents 25 to identify as gay or lesbian. 15 80TH %

BEYOND MALE ARCHITECTURE

DEMOGRAPHICS, CONT. 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE

MEDIAN

PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE

80% 100%

0% 20%

MALE

MEDIAN 20TH %

100% SEXUALITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

AFRICAN

YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE

20TH %

SEXUALITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

ISLANDER

18-24

25-34

35-44

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN WHITE

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTEOLDER 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM #EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO INSTITUTE 11/03/18 INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO ART THOMPSON EQUIT Y FORBY MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM DESIGN

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

EQUITY BY DESIGN EQUITY BY DESIGN


AFRICAN

DEMOGRAPHICS, CONT.

YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE 35

MALE

80TH %

30

FEMALE

20 15

MEDIAN

25

5 0

20TH %

10

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX

MULTIRACIAL

BLACK

From a practical perspective, though, this trend also impacted our analysis. While the median experience level of a white male respondent was 15 years, the median experience level of a black female respondent was less than half of that, at 6 years of experience. This means, that when analyzing a factor that was mediated by both experience level and personal identity, we typically display data plotted by years of experience in order to provide direct comparisons between individuals with comparable experience levels.

NEXT STEPS

ISLANDER

EARLY FINDINGS

NATIVE

Years experience in architecture

<50

BACKGROUND

RESPONDENTS BY STATE

50-99 100-249 250-1000

EQUITY BY DESIGN

17

1000+


PROJECT OVERVIEW: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

ALT CAREER

LIFE OF AN ARCHITECT

HISPANIC OR LATINX FEMALE

DESIGNER/EP ARCHITECT

MAIN CARE SHARE CARE SECONDARY CARE

NOT LICENSED

ADULT CHILD

ASIAN FEMALE

SOLE PRACT.

BEYOND ARCH

WHITE FEMALE

ASSOCIATE

BLACK MALE MULTIRACIAL MALE

PRINCIPAL

LICENSED

ASIAN MALE HISPANIC OR LATINX MALE

FIRM

NO CHILDREN

WHITE MALE

BLACK FEMALE MULTIRACIAL FEMALE

In 2014 and 2016, we began our data presentations with a graphic providing a conceptual framework for thinking about equity issues over theSTATEMENT course of a career in architecture. In 2018, as a way of introducing our Voices theme, we have provided snapshot RESEARCH of the profession by identifying the current positions and experiences of every one of our respondents relative to key personal and career milestones. Likeofthe demographics slides on the previous page, graphic reveals that our is predominately white,voices but EQxDV marks the fifth anniversary Equity by Design. We have made incredible strides all this 50 states and nations on six continents. Thisfield unprecedented collection of professional equitable practice with three groundbreaking surveys that have launched a national is the testimony that allows us to build a deeper understanding of our strengths as a profession, ittowards also tells us that the field becomes more white, and more male as we look to the most senior levels of the profession. Meanwhile, movement in architecture and allied professions. In light of deep challenges and uncertainty and to gain insight into the critical work needed to provide each individual within our field with thedemonstrates profession, our communities, and the world, we remain steadfast talent and committed to thrive andthat to make impactto within the communities serve. itwithin also that there is a more diverse pooltoenteringopportunities the profession wea lasting all need work togetherthat towesupport. our collective progress towards equity. Equity is the work of minimizing barriers to maximize our potential for success.

To attract and retain the most diverse talent we must hear from those in practice and beyond. We need to listen to their challenges, concerns, and aspirations. The 2018 Equity in Architecture Survey was designed in partnership with the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture and over 50 volunteers from around the country with the goal of generating a comprehensive national data set detailing current positions and career experiences of architecture school graduates. With the assistance of architecture’s national collateral organizations, AIA components, firms, and academic institutions, survey invitations were sent out to a broad cross-section of the profession. The resulting data set—the largest ever collected on equity within the profession—documents the experiences of 14,360 individuals representing

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18

The resulting analysis focuses on the differential experiences of professionals based on gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. In alignment with this year’s Symposium theme, we present three closely related frameworks for understanding how issues of equity impact the lives of architecture school graduates. Voices offers insight into personal and professional milestones that have the tendency to hinder career progression and influence decisions to leave the field. Values explores the personal and collective values that guide us in our careers, and the ways in which the narratives that we shape about our professional worth influence our professional experiences. Vision enumerates the ingredients of a satisfying career in architecture by detailing the key components of our career perceptions, and the ways in which individuals and firms can positively influence workplace culture and project outcomes through the lens of equitable frameworks.


VOICES - EDUCATION & PIPELINE: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

AVERAGE SALARY - BY YEARS EXP AND DEG

LIKELIHOOD - FIRST GENERATION COLLEGEMALE STUDENT 50%

VOICES: EDUCATION/PIPELINE $180K EXPOSED TO ARCHITECTURE HOW

FEMALE

MALE

PERSON OF COLOR

FEMALE

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

20% 60% 10% 40%

0%

LOW ARCH SALARIES

SOME COLLEGE FIRST GEN

WHITE

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

LONG HOURS HISPANIC, LATINX

COST OF DEGREE BLACK

TWO OR MORE RACES

AVERAGE DEBT AT GRADUATION Likelihood - first generation college student

TIME TO LICENSURE WHITE

NONE OF THESE ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC, LATINX

BLACK

- BY DEGREE LEVEL AND GRAD YEAR

MALE B. ARCH

$100K 50%

M. ARCH MALE WHITE FEMALE

$80K 40%

PERSON OF COLOR B. ARCH

$60K

M. ARCH FEMALE

30% $40K

WHITE ALL RESPONDENTS PERSON OF COLOR

20% $20K

0%

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 20071990 1996 2002 2006 2009 LOW ARCH

LONG

COST OF

20102011

20122013

2014- 2016> 2015

TIME TO

0%

VISITED SIGNIFICANT BUILDING

MAGAZINES BOOKS

FAMIL HIGH SCHOOL VISTED PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MEMBER INDUST SITE

AVERAGE CURRENT DEBT - BY DEGREE LEVEL AND G Another important consideration is making education

HESITATION BEFORE ENTERING FIELD $120K

$0K 10%

TWO OR MORE RACES

26-34

GRADUATION YEAR

NONE OF

Average debt at graduation degree level andDEGREE graduation year SALARIES HOURS LICENSURE THESE #EQxDV AT THEbySAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON AVERAGE DEBT AT GRADUATION - BY DEGREE LEVEL AND GRAD YEAR

AVERAGE BY YEARS EXP AND DEG $120K affordable so SALARY that students- from all socioeconomic backgrounds can enter the field without having to sustain $100K crushing debt. Mirroring a national trend, $180K our respondents indicated that average debt at $160K graduation has climbed steadily over the years, with $80K $140K the highest debt levels amongst those who were in school $60K during the most recent economic recession. $120K Because Masters Degrees are becoming increasib$100K gly$40K prevalent, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also important to note that these $80K post-secondary degrees come, on average, with higher $60K $20K debt owed at graduation. $40K $0K $20K $0K

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 20071990 1996 2002 2006 2009 <1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

HIGHE AVG DE

BACKGROUND

0% 20%

LOWE AVG DE

20102011

20122013

20142015

15-19

20-25

26-34

EQUITY BY DESIGN

19

30% 80%

PARENT HAS DEGREE

40% 100%

$160K One of the key elements of building and sustaining 50% a $140K diverse pipeline is encouraging a wider range of students to enter architecture school. We found that $120K the40% majority of our respondents of all demographic $100K groups reported that one or both parents had finished $80K college. This suggests that our field could do more 30% to attract first generation college students. We also $60K saw that Black and Hispanic or Latinx respondents $40K 20% were more likely than others to report that neither $20K parent had finished college, suggesting that we could also10% increase the diversity of the pipeline by better $0K <1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-10 11-14 15-19 20-25 communicating the social relevance of the profession to diverse communities.

EARLY FINDINGS

WHITE

NEXT STEPS

HESITATION BEFORE ENTERING FIELD

AVERAGE CURRENT DEBT - BY DEGREE LEVEL AND G


R

R

AR

EAR

AVERAGE SALARY - BY YEARS EXP AND DEGREE TYPE AVERAGE SALARY - BY YEARS EXP AND DEGREE TYPE $180K MALE $160K

B. ARCH

$180K $140K

M. ARCH MALE B. ARCH FEMALE

$160K $120K $140K $100K

M. ARCH B. ARCH

$120K $80K

M. ARCH FEMALE

$100K $60K

B. ARCH

$80K $40K

M. ARCH

VOICES: EDUCATION/PIPELINE That being said, it was puzzling to find that increased average debt level isn’t associated with higher average salaries to support loan repayment. At every point in their careers, respondents with master’s and bachelor’s degrees earn statistically similar amounts. This also means that a woman with a masters degree earns less, on average, than a man with a bachelor’s degree.

$60K $20K $40K $0K $20K $0K

<1

<1

2-3

2-3

4-5

4-5

6-7

6-7

8-10

8-10

11-14

11-14

15-19

15-19

AVERAGE CURRENT DEBT - BY DEGREE Average salary by years experience & degree type

20-25

20-25

26-34

26-34

35>

35>

YEARS EXPERIENCE YEARS EXPERIENCE

LEVEL AND GRAD YEAR

AVERAGE CURRENT DEBT - BY DEGREE LEVEL AND GRADM.YEAR $120K ARCH MALE HIGHEST AVG DEBT

$100K $120K HIGHEST AVG DEBT

$80K $100K

BLACK

M. ARCH FEMALE BLACK M. ARCH MALE

BLACK M. ARCH FEMALE ASIAN OR FEMALE EAST M. ARCH INDIAN BLACK

$60K $80K

B. M.ARCH ARCHFEMALE FEMALE ASIAN ASIANOR OREAST EAST INDIAN INDIAN

S

$40K $60K

RANGE, GROUPS B. ARCHALL FEMALE ASIAN OR EAST ALL RESPONDENTS INDIAN

TS

$20K $40K $0K $20K

LOWEST AVG DEBT

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 20071990 1996 2002 2006 2009

$0K

20102011

2014- 2016> 2015LOWEST

ALL RESPONDENTS

GRADUATION YEAR

AVG DEBT

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 2007- 2010Average current debt by 1990 degree1996 level and year 2011 2002graduation 2006 2009

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

20122013

RANGE, ALL GROUPS

20122013

2014- 2016> 2015

EQUITY BY DESIGN EQUITY BY DESIGN

GRADUATION YEAR

Because a master’s degree isn’t typically associated with increased pay, our respondents with master’s degrees tended to carry higher debt levels for longer after graduation than their counterparts with bachelor’s degrees. This was especially true for black men with master’s degrees, who still carried an average of $55k, or about 6 times as much debt on average as an Asian female with a bachelor’s degree, ten years after graduation.


VOICES - PAYING DUES & LICENSURE: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018 MEDIAN TIME TO LICENSURE

MALE WHITE

90%

FEMALE BLACK

80% 15%

RANGE, ALL GROUPS

MORE NEGATIVEALL RESPONDENTS

MORE POSITIVE EARLY IN CAREER

EARLY IN CAREER

MEDIAN

50% 5% 40%

20TH %

30% 0% 20% -5% 10% 0% -10% -15%

Once in the profession, we saw that those in the 10 YR first70% five years of their careers had experiences and career perceptions that differed in important ways 8 YR 60% from their more senior counterparts. While those early in their careers were more likely to report 50% 6 YR having enough time to do their work, and to pursue 40% interests outside of work, we also saw that they 4 YR tended to struggle to make meaning of this work, and30% were less likely to plan to stay in their 2ultimately, YR current positions. 20%

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 20071990 1996 2002 2006 2009 WORKLOAD

WORK-LIFE

20102011

MEANINGFUL WORK

20122013

2014- 2016> 2015

IMPACT

ENERGY

GRADUATION YEAR RETENTION

0 YR 10% 0%

MALE WHITE

<1

2-3

FEMALE WHITE

MALE PERSON OF COLOR

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

EARLY FINDINGS

70% 10% 60%

VOICES: PAYING DUES/LICENSURE LIKELIHOOD - RECOGNIZED FOR DRIVE OR 12 YR NEXT STEPS

EARLY 100% VS. LATER CAREER PERCEPTIONS

80TH %

LICENSURE RATE BY GRADUATION YEAR

15-19

20-25

26-34

LIKELIHOOD - PROJECT ARCHITECT

TOP RETENTION PREDICTORS - EARLY CAR

LICENSURE RATE BY GRADUATION YEAR 80%

MEDIAN TIMErespondents, TO LICENSURE emerging amongst even from an early 40%

Early vs. later career perceptions

Additionally, we saw important advancement gaps

PERSON OF COLOR MALE WHITE

FEMALE BLACK FEMALE

RANGE, ALL GROUPS WHITE

40% 70%

ALL RESPONDENTS PERSON OF COLOR

60% 30% 50% 20% 40% 10% 30% 10% 0%

0% 8 YR

MEDIAN

6 YR -20% 4 YR <1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

<1980 1981- 1990- 1997- 2003- 2007-

2010-

20122013

2014- 2016> 2015

Average debt at graduation degree2002 level and year 1990by 1996 2006graduation 2009 2011

35>

YEARS EXPERIENCE GRADUATION YEAR

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

LIKELIHOOD - PROJECT ARCHITECT

-40% 2 YR 0 YR

20TH %

0% 20%

point in theirLESS careers, with white respondents more LIKELY MORE LIKELY TO STAY of color to report moving TO STAY likely than respondents 12 YR 20% from a production role into a project architect role within 10 YR the first seven years of their careers. BACKGROUND

WHITE

NO TRAINING

MALE WHITE

NO FRIENDS AT WORK

WORK IMPACTS COMMUNITY

MALE PERSON OF COLOR

BUILD RELATIONSHIPS AT FIRM

ONE-ONCOACHI

FEMALE WHITE

EQUITY BY DESIGN

21

70% 100% 60% 90% 50% 80%

80TH %

MALE

TOP RETENTION PREDICTORS - EARLY CAR


VOICES: PAYING DUES/LICENSURE

TOP RETENTION PREDICTORS - EARLY CAREER 40%

LESS LIKELY TO STAY

MORE LIKELY TO STAY

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

NO TRAINING

NO FRIENDS AT WORK

Early career retention predictors

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

WORK IMPACTS COMMUNITY

BUILD RELATIONSHIPS AT FIRM

ONE-ON-ONE COACHING

EQUITY BY DESIGN

MALE FEMALE

We did see some clear factors that were correlated with early career retention. Early career professionals who said that their employers didn’t provide training and those without friends in their workplaces were less likely to plan to stay in their current positions, and those who said that their work positively impacted their community, those who built relationships within their firm, and those who received one-on-one coaching were more likely to stay. In short, it seems that personalized attention from peers and firm management, as well as impactful work, as well as engagement in work that impacts community, make a big difference in junior employees’ decisions regarding place of employment.


K

MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

100% 30% 90% 80%

20% 70%

VOICES: WORKING CAREGIVERS 100% The90% next career milestone, caregiving, is navigated 80% differently by respondents on the basis of gender. 70% Amongst respondents working in architecture firms, male 60%respondents were more likely than female respondents to report being parents at every stage 50% in their careers. 40%

60% 50% 10% 40%

30%

30%

10%

0% 20%

20%

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

35>

10% 0%

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

35>

YEARS EXPERIENCE

LIKELIHOOD OF BEING A MOTHER BY CAREER TRACK AVERAGE SALARY BY CAREGIVING RESPONSIBILITY 100% FEMALE

PRACTICING ARCH FEMALE BEYOND ARCH

80% $200K

CH

70%

D

60% $160K

MALE

PRIMARY FEMALE SOLE CAREGIVER PRACTITIONER SECONDARY CAREGIVER RANGE, ALL GROUPS

50%

ALL RESPONDENTS FEMALE

40% $120K

OUPS

30%

PRIMARY CAREGIVER

NTS

20% $80K

SECONDARY CAREGIVER

10% 0% $40K $0K

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

YEARS EXPERIENCE

Parent likelihood by gender and years experience

90%

0%

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

Likelihood of being a mother by career track

8-10

11-14

19972002 15-19

19901996 20-25

1981- <1980 1990 26-34

35>

GRADUATION YEAR

26-34

AVERAGE SALARY BY CAREGIVING RESPO We believe that this difference in likelihood of being a $200K parent on the basis of gender is at least partially attributable to female respondents being more likely than their male counterparts to make decisions about $160K where they work on the basis of either current or anticipated family obligations. When we analyzed $120K female respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; likelihood of being mothers on the basis of career track, we saw that women $80K in firms were least likely to be mothers, with working those running sole proprietorships much more likely to $40K have children.

ALL RESPONDENTS

2016> 2014- 2012- 2010- 2007- 20032015 2013 2011 2009 2006

EARLY FINDINGS

E

PARENT LIKELIHOOD - BY GENDER AND YEARS EXPERIENCE 40%

BACKGROUND

EXP

PARENT LIKELIHOOD - BY GENDER AND YEAR NEXT STEPS

N ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018 CURRENT OR FORMER CAREGIVER LIKELIHOOD - BY GENDER & YEARS EXP

$0K

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

YEARS EXPERIENCE

PARENTING RESPONSIBILITY BY GENDER

23

FAMILY BUILDING IMPORTANCE BY GENDER PARENTING RESPONSIBILITY BY GENDER VERY


XP

T

T

PARENT LIKELIHOOD - BY GENDER AND YEARS EXPERIENCE 100% PARENTING RESPONSIBILITY BY GENDER 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

16% 5%

11%

40% 30%

31%

MALE

20%

39%

10%

49%

0%

O N

K

MALE FEMALE

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

5%

SINGLE PARENT OR I DO MORE OF THE CHILDCARE

FEMALE

WE EQUALLY SPLIT CHILDCARE

44%

These gender-based differences in career behavior amongst parents are strongly correlated with differences in the roles that mothers and fathers in our sample reported taking in their children’s upbringing. While only 5% of fathers in our sample report being their child or children’s primary caregiver, 44% of mothers report providing most of their children’s care.

MY PARTNER DOES MORE

15-19

20-25

26-34

35>

NEITHER OF US YEARS DOES CHILDCARE EXPERIENCE

AVERAGE SALARY BY CAREGIVING RESPONSIBILITY

Parenting responsibility by gender

EQUITY BY DESIGN

$200K

MALE

H

PRIMARY CAREGIVER

$160K

SECONDARY CAREGIVER

FEMALE

$120K

PRIMARY CAREGIVER

PS

S

VOICES: WORKING CAREGIVERS

SECONDARY CAREGIVER

$80K

ALL RESPONDENTS

$40K $0K

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

35>

Average salary by caregiving responsibility and gender

PARENTING RESPONSIBILITY BY GENDER EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

YEARS EXPERIENCE

Our data suggests that at least part of this difference in the distribution of caregiving responsibilities may be attributable to financial factors. While both male and female primary caregivers earned less than the average salary for all respondents at every level of experience, male respondents who said that their partner was responsible for most caregiving substantially out-earned female respondents with a secondary caregiving role. This suggests that the current distribution of caregiving responsibilities is financially rational in many cases, and that caregiving and pay equity issues should be addressed in tandem to better support working parents.


PROMOTION CRITERIA BY CURRENT POSITION

ALL MID-LEVEL LEADERSHIP

40% 60%

MALE ALL

STAFF

WHITE

50% 30%

PERSON OF COLOR

40% 20%

FEMALE WHITE

30%

PERSON OF COLOR

10% 20% 0% 10% 0%

PROJECT CLIENT PROJECTS OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIPS WON

ALL WHITE

MOSTLY WHITE

LICENSURE RELATIONSHIPS IN FIRM

EQUAL WHITE & MOSTLY PEOPLE OF PEOPLE OF COLOR COLOR

I DON’T KNOW

The final pinch point, Glass Ceiling, addresses respondents’ 60% career aspirations and attainment of leadership positions. We found that most respondents, regard50% less of personal identity, work in firms led mostly, or entirely, by whites and mostly, or entirely, by men. 40%

The relative homogeneity of leadership within the profession may contribute to a number of difficulties 30% for those from diverse backgrounds entering the field, from 20% implicit bias to dificulty finding mentors who can address identity-specific career development concerns on the basis of personal experience, to 10% difficulty envisioning oneself in leadership positions in the 0% future. ALL MALE

ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR

NEXT STEPS

PRINCIPALS

VOICES: GLASS CEILING - GEND FIRM LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION

MOSTLY MALE

EQUAL MALE & FEMALE

MOSTLY FEMALE

EARLY FINDINGS

FIRM 50% LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION - RACE/ETHNICITY ALL

ALL FEMALE

FIRM LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION - GENDER

Firm leadership composition: race/ethnicity

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

50% 30%

FEMALE

40% 20%

WHITE

30% 10% 20% 0% 10% 0%

PERSON OF COLOR

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

ALL MALE <2

3-4

MOSTLY MALE 5-6

Firm leadership composition: gender

7-9

EQUAL MALE & FEMALE 10-11 12-16

MOSTLY FEMALE 17-21

22-28

ALL FEMALE 29-36

37>

10% YEARS EXPERIENCE

LIKELIHOOD - PRINCIPAL OR PARTNER BY YEARS EXPERIENCE #EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM 70% INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON 60%

70%

MALE WHITE

0%

<2

3-4

5-6

7-9

10-11 12-16

17-21

22-28

29-36

EQUITY BY DESIGN

25

40% 60%

LIKELIHOOD - PRINCIPAL OR PARTNER BY YEAR

BACKGROUND

LIKELIHOOD - TITLED NOT PRINCIPAL BY YEARS EXPERIENCE 60% MALE FEMALE 50% 70% MALE

3


Y

R

R

VOICES - GLASS CEILING: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018 FIRM LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION - GENDER

ASPIRES TO LEAD FIRM IN FUTURE 60%

MALE FEMALE MALE

50% 100% 40% 80%

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

30%

FEMALE

60% 20%

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

40% 10%

0% 20% 0%

ALL MALE <2

3-4

MOSTLY MALE 5-6

7-9

EQUAL MALE & FEMALE 10-11 12-16

Likelihood of aspiring to lead firm in future LIKELIHOOD - PRINCIPAL

MOSTLY FEMALE 17-21

22-28

ALL FEMALE 29-36

37>

YEARS EXPERIENCE

60% 60% 50%

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR MALE WHITE FEMALE

50% 40%

PERSON OF COLOR WHITE

40% 30%

PERSON OF COLOR FEMALE WHITE

30% 20%

PERSON OF COLOR

10% 20%

0%

<2

3-4

ALL

5-6

7-9

MOSTLY

This is important because research has shown that 50% who don’t see those like them in leadership those positions are less likely to be able to imagine attaining those 40%positions themselves. We found that, at the outset of their careers, most respondents report aspiring to lead a firm in the future, with likelihood 30% of aspiring to leadership positions, with likelihood of holding these aspirations successively less common 20% amongst more seasoned professionals. Women were less likely to state these aspirations than men at every 10% point in their careers. 0%

PROJECT CLIENT PROJECTS OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIPS WON

LICENSURE RELATIONSHIPS IN FIRM

I DON’T KNOW

OR PARTNER BY YEARS EXPERIENCE

FIRM 70% LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION - RACE/ETHNICITY MALE

0% 10%

VOICES: GLASS CEILINGPOSITION PROMOTION CRITERIA BY CURRENT

10-11 12-16

EQUAL WHITE &

Likelihood - principal or partner by years experience WHITE WHITE PEOPLE OF COLOR

17-21

22-28

MOSTLY PEOPLE OF COLOR

29-36

37>

YEARS EXPERIENCE

ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR

EQUITY BY DESIGN

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN LIKELIHOOD - TITLED NOT PRINCIPAL BY YEARS EXPERIENCE

We also saw gender- and race-based gaps in respon-

FIRM LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION dents’ likelihood of holding top leadership positions, - GEND with white men most likely to be principals and partners at every point in their careers. Since we 60% began conducting the equity in architecture survey in 2014, 50% we have seen the leadership gap between white men and white women narrow. However, the leadership gap between white men and men and 40% women of color is actually wider in 2018 than it was30% in 2016, suggesting that we have work to do to ensure that everyone in our profession is provided with opportunity. 20% 10% 0%

ALL MALE

MOSTLY MALE

EQUAL MALE & FEMALE

MOSTLY FEMALE

ALL FEMAL

LIKELIHOOD - PRINCIPAL OR PARTNER BY YEAR


50%

ALL PRINCIPALS ALL MID-LEVEL LEADERSHIP

40%

ALL STAFF

30% 20% 10% 0%

PROJECT CLIENT PROJECTS OUTCOMES RELATIONSHIPS WON

LICENSURE RELATIONSHIPS IN FIRM

I DON’T KNOW

While most respondents early in their careers aspire to obtain leadership positions, we observed a lack of clarity regarding the criteria by which these promotions were obtained, with about 35% of our staff-level respondents reporting that they didn’t know the criteria for promotion in their firms. We also observed substantial differences in the criteria that mid-level and senior leadership cited as most important in guiding promotion decisions. Overall, the most commonly-cited criteria for promotion were project outcomes, client relationships, and projects won.

EARLY FINDINGS

VOICES: GLASS CEILING

PROMOTION CRITERIA BY CURRENT POSITION

NEXT STEPS

TECTURE SURVEY 2018

FIRM LEADERSHIP COMPOSITION - GENDER 60%

MALE FEMALE BACKGROUND

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

ALL MALE

MOSTLY MALE

EQUAL MALE & FEMALE

MOSTLY FEMALE

ALL FEMALE

LIKELIHOOD - PRINCIPAL OR PARTNER BY YEARS EXPERIENCE

27

0%


WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING VALUES GUIDE PERSONAL FOCUS

ALL RESPONDENTS

ENJOYMENT IN LIFE, HAVING FUN, HAPPINESS 30%

ACH SUCCESS

STIMULATION, VARIATION, CHALLENGE

20% 15%

SOCIAL POWER, AUTHORITY, WEALTH

10% 5%

CURIOSITY, CREATIVITY, FREEDOM

BROAD-MINDEDNESS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY

SECURITY, SOCIAL ORDER, CLEANLINESS

CONFORMITY, OBEDIENCE, POLITENESS

SELF-PROTECTION ANXIETY AVOIDANCE

25%

GROWTH SELF-EXPANSION

SELF-PROTECTION ANXIETY AVOIDANCE

ACHIEVEMENT, SUCCESS, AMBITION

SOCIAL POWE AUTHORITY, WEALT

SECURITY, SOCIA ORDER, CLEANLINES

HELPFULNESS, HONESTY, LOYALTY TRADITION, HUMILITY, MODESTY

SOCIAL FOCUS In the Voices section, we used the collective testimony of 14,360 respondents representing a broad cross section of our professional community to shape an understanding of the challenges that we face individually as we navigate career pinch points. This collective testimony is aimed at helping all of us within the profession with greater understanding of the resources required to foster and support an increasingly diverse talent pool, with the ultimate goal of providing each individual who enters our profession with opportunities to thrive. In the Values section we shift to the collective, asking how these diverse stories might help all of us to reframe our thinking, not just about what an architect looks like, but also about what an architect does, and how we use our personal and collective values to guide professional decision making. Ultimately, we were curious about how a richer understanding of our values would help us to gain new insights into we are valued professionally, and of the value that we provide as professionals to the communities that we serve.

WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S THE GREATEST PLEASURE YOU GET FROM WOR

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

60%

MAL


BLACK

ENJOYMENT IN LIFE, HAVING FUN, HAPPINESS

20%

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN WHITE

10% 5%

CURIOSITY, CREATIVITY, FREEDOM

BROAD-MINDEDNESS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY

SECURITY, SOCIAL ORDER, CLEANLINESS

25% 20%

10%

SOCIAL POWER, AUTHORITY, WEALTH

5%

WHITE

HELPFULNESS, HONESTY, LOYALTY

TRADITION, HUMILITY, MODESTY

TRADITION, HUMILITY, MODESTY

SOCIAL FOCUS

SOCIAL FOCUS

towards preservation and the avoidance of change

each of us as we make professional decisions?FIRM’S One vs. embracing and change. GET FROM WORKING? KEYgrowth VALUES

CURIOSITY, CREATIVITY, FREEDOM

BROAD-MINDEDNESS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY

SECURITY, SOCIAL ORDER, CLEANLINESS

of our “aha” moments during this year’s literature Building on Schwartz’s work, we also read a study review was reading about Shalom Schwartz’s suggesting that individuals within a given profession “Theory of Basic Values”, which suggests that 60% to hold similar personal values (Giandal et MALE of 10 basic values that tend there is a continuum al, 2005). When we asked our respondents what motivate decisions WHITE across all cultures, and the values guided them in their careers, we found values of individuals within a given culture tend to 50% that those in the architectural profession tend to PERSON OF COLOR aggregate in particular portions of the continuum gravitate strongly towards the “personal focus/ (Schwartz, 2012). These values can be understood 40% growth and change” quadrant of the spectrum, FEMALE along two primary axes: how strongly guided is with “stimulation, variation and challenge” and an individual byWHITE personal vs. collective concerns “curiosity, creativity and freedom” as the most and how strongly guided are they by impulses 30% commonly cited personal values. PERSON OF COLOR

NEXT STEPS

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

15%

HELPFULNESS, HONESTY, LOYALTY

We’ll start from the most immediate. What guides

STIMULATION, VARIATION, CHALLENGE

Our personal values, however, are not monolithic. When we analyzed the same data on the basis of personal identity, we found significant differences in distributions of personal values on the basis of race and gender, suggesting that, we need to MALE for thinking develop more inclusive frameworks about what guides architects inWHITE their professional decision-making. PERSON OF COLOR

FEMALE WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

20% 10%

29

SOCIAL POWER, AUTHORITY, WEALTH

HISPANIC OR LATINX

30%

ACHIEVEMENT, SUCCESS, AMBITION

GROWTH SELF-EXPANSION

15%

SELF-PROTECTION ANXIETY AVOIDANCE

STIMULATION, VARIATION, CHALLENGE

GROWTH SELF-EXPANSION

GROWTH

SELF-PROTECTION ANXIETY AVOIDANCE

25%

MULTIRACIAL BLACK

ENJOYMENT IN LIFE, HAVING FUN, HAPPINESS

HISPANIC OR LATINX

30%

ACHIEVEMENT, SUCCESS, AMBITION

FEMALE

PERSONAL FOCUS

MULTIRACIAL

EARLY FINDINGS

MALE

PERSONAL FOCUS

ONDENTS

VALUES: PERSONAL & FIRM

BACKGROUND

LUES GUIDE YOU IN YOUR CAREER?


R

VALUES: PERSONAL & FIRM

FIRM’S KEY VALUES 60%

MALE WHITE

50%

PERSON OF COLOR

40%

FEMALE WHITE

30%

PERSON OF COLOR

20% 10% 0%

CLIENT SATISFACTION

PROFITABILITY & GROWTH

COLLABORATION & TEAMWORK

DESIGN LEADERSHIP

WORKPLACE CULTURE/ RELATIONSHIPS

EMPLOYEE GROWTH/ LEARNING

Top Firm Values

TOP PREDICTORS - “I FEEL LIKE A VALUED MEMBER OF MY TEAM” MALE FEMALE

NOT RECOGNIZED WORK DOESN’T MAKE IMPACT MENTOR IS PRINCIPAL/PARTNER USE OF BENEFITS DOESN’T IMPACT PROMOTION WORK POSITIVELY IMPACTS CLIENTS

-40%

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

EQUITY BY DESIGN

20%

The question of Values grows even more complex as we shift our focus from an individual’s values to our respondents firms’ values. The most common values that respondents say guide their firms’ decision making are client satisfaction, profitability & growth, and collaboration & teamwork. These sound very different from the values that most of us say drive our own professional decision-making, suggesting a potential disconnect and therefore a lack of clarity between the ways that we think of ourselves personally and collectively as architects, and potentially even a lack of clarity in whether we judge one another’s contributions on the basis of our ideas of what a singular architect does, or on the basis of the more client-driven, collaborative notions of what guides a firm.


VALUES - FINDING THE RIGHT FIT: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

MALE

90%

MULTIRACIAL

80%

BLACK

70%

ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

HISPANIC OR LATINX WHITE

60% 50%

FEMALE

40%

MULTIRACIAL BLACK

30%

HISPANIC OR LATINX ASIAN OR EAST INDIAN

20%

PRACTITIONER

25% 30%

Within the Beyond Architecture group, the most

MALE FEMALE MALE WHITE

20%

PERSON OF COLOR

20%

FEMALE

15%

WHITE

10% 10%

0%

O ART, MGMT, BUSINESS, GRAPHIC DESIGN, & DIGITAL ARTS FINANCE

IN ANOTHER FIELD: CURRENT CAREER INDUSTRY

FIRM 40% SIZE BY GENDER & RACE/ETHNICITY

0% 5%

ENGINEERING COMMUNITY HIGHER ED CONSTRUCTION REAL & SOCIAL & TRAINING ESTATE & SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

PERSON OF COLOR

ENGINEERING COMMUNITY HIGHER ED CONSTRUCTION REAL & SOCIAL & TRAINING ESTATE & SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

1-9

10-19

20-49

50-99

Working in another field: current career industry

OFFICE ART, MGMT, BUSINESS, GRAPHIC DESIGN, & ADMIN DIGITAL ARTS FINANCE

100-249 250-499 500-999

MARKETING & ADVERTISING

1000+

TOP REASONS FOR TAKING BY GEND common industries were higher education &JOB training (especially for women), construction, and real estate and development (especially for men). This year’s survey included a special track for architectural educators, and we look forward to sharing more specific findings on this group’s experiences in the coming months.

PROJECT QUALITY

CULTURE

BACKGROUND

Current career track WORKING

0%

BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

OP

SALES & RELATED

FIRM SIZE

33% M

33% F

28% M

31% F

25

TOP REASONS FOR TAKING JOB BY GENDER HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO STAY AT YOUR JOB FOR THE NEXT YEAR?

31

AN

10%

WHITE

10%

0% N ARCHITECTURE FIRMSURVEY 2018 SOLE

AN

One of the most important ways of working in 40% accordance with one’s values is finding a working environment that’s in alignment with one’s personal values. Our respondents reported working in a wide 30% of environments, with most working in firms, variety but with a small number running sole proprietorships, as well as a small number working in settings other 20% than these. We have called this group “Beyond Architecture”

NEXT STEPS

100%

VALUES: IN FINDING THE RIGHT FIT WORKING ANOTHER FIELD: CURRENT CARE

EARLY FINDINGS

FINDING THE RIGHT FIT: CURRENT CAREER TRACK

TOP RETENTION PREDICTORS BY RESPONDEN


R?

R?

TOP REASONS FOR TAKING JOB BY GENDER

VALUES: FINDING THE RIGHT FIT

TOP REASONS FOR TAKING JOB BY GENDER

PROJECT PQRUOAJLEITCYT QUALITY

LEARNING OPLPEOARTNUINGIT OPPORTUNITY Y

CULTURE CULTURE

33% M

33% F

28% M

31% F

25% M

34% F

33% M

33% F

28% M

31% F

25% M

34% F

TopTOP reasonsRETENTION for taking job by gender PREDICTORS

BY RESPONDENT’S GENDER

TOP40%RETENTION PREDICTORS BY RESPONDENT’S GENDER MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE

40% 20%

20% 0%

0% -20%

-20% -40%

-40%

NOT RECOG. WORK MAKES FOR NO IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS NOT RECOG.

WORK MAKES

DOESN’T WORK ONE-ON-ONE KNOW FIRM POSITIVELY COACHING VALUES IMPACTS CLIENTS DOESN’T

Top retention predictors FOR by respondent’s NO IMPACT gender KNOW FIRM CONTRIBUTIONS

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

VALUES

Among those working within architecture firms, we saw striking commonalities, both in what led respondents to choose where to work, and in factors that were strongly correlated with their likelihood of staying in the profession. The most common reasons for taking a job in architecture were project quality, culture, and learning opportunity.

WORK ONE-ON-ONE POSITIVELY COACHING IMPACTS CLIENTS

EQUITY BY DESIGN EQUITY BY DESIGN

Meanwhile, those who said that they weren’t recognized for their contributions, that their work didn’t make an impact, and that they didn’t know their firm’s values were less likely to plan to stay in their current positions, while those who said work positively impacts clients, and who received one-on-one coaching and feedback were more likely planning to stay. This suggests that personalized attention and feedback, being able to measure one’s professional impact, and clarity around values and guiding principles are essential to employee retention.


VALUES - PAY EQUITY: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

MALE FEMALE

$120K $100K $80K $60K

$40K

$40K

$0K TURE SURVEY 2018 DESIGN

PROJECT MANAGER

PRINCIPAL

Median pay by project role AVERAGE SALARY

PROJECT ARCHITECT

$0K

PRODUCTION STAFF

FEMALE BLACK

$160K 60%

RANGE, ALL GROUPS MALE ALL RESPONDENTS WHITE

50% $120K

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

We also observed a race-and gender-based pay gap with the largest pay differences observed between white men and black women. 60% 50%

FEMALE

40%

WHITE

30%

PERSON OF COLOR

$40K 20%

20% 2-3

RAISE OR

26-34

BACKGROUND

30%

<1

20-25

PAY POLICIES AND within CRITERIA at every level of experience the profession,

PERSON OF COLOR

40% $80K

0%

<1

BY YEARS EXPERIENCE

HOW $200K HAVE YOU ADVOCATED FOR YOURSELF?MALE WHITE

$0K 10%

A firm’s values are also expressed in the decisions that they make regarding how to compensate their $200K employees. This year’s data indicates that there’s a gender-based pay gap in every project role, with the $160K largest pay gaps amongst the most senior members of design teams. In fact a man working as a design $120K principal makes roughly $20k more per year on average than the average female respondent working $80Ksame position. in the

EARLY FINDINGS

$140K

NEXT STEPS

VALUES: PAY EXPERIENCE EQUITY AVERAGE SALARY BY YEARS

MEDIAN PAY BY PROJECT ROLE

4-5

6-7

HIGH PROFILE

Average salary byPAY years experience INCREASE PROJECTS

8-10

11-14

PROMOTION CONSIDERATION

15-19

20-25

WORKLOAD

26-34

35>

YEARS EXPERIENCE

10% 0%

FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE

PERFORMANCE NEGOTIATIONS REVIEWS

CONSIDER BOTH PAST & POTENTIAL

REGULAR PERFORMANCE BONUSES

DON’T KNOW

COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS

MARKET STUDIES

TOP 60%PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT STRATEGIES MALE 50%

WHITE

33

PAY POLICIES AND CRITERIA

AVERAGE SALARY - BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS WITH POT


AVERAGE SALARY - BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS WITH POTENTIAL CLIENTS $200K

MALE

BUILDS CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS

$160K

DOES NOT

FEMALE

$120K

BUILDS CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS DOES NOT

$80K $40K $0K

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

Average salary: builds relationships with potential clients

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

15-19

20-25

26-34

EQUITY BY DESIGN

35>

YEARS EXPERIENCE

VALUES: PAY EQUITY A part of this pay is attributable to the different ways in which personal advancement strategies are valued on the basis of personal identity. While both male and female respondents who engage in developing relationships with potential clients earn more, on average, than their counterparts who don’t engage in this behavior, we see that the boost in the average male salary associated with this effort is greater than the average boost in a female respondent’s salary.


VALUES - BIAS INTERRUPTERS: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

VALUES: BIAS INTERRUPTERS

PREVALENCE OF BIAS MITIGATION STRATEGIES

-

TRACK EDI PROGRESS

WRITTEN CRITERIA

HIRINGNG

BLIND APPLICATION REVIEW CLEAR HIRING CRITERIA CONSIDER BOTH PERSONALITY & SKILL SETS CONSIDER BOTH PAST & POTENTIAL

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

PERFRFORMANANCE EVALUA LUATIONN

COMMPENSATATION

30%

50%

DIVERSE COMP COMMITTEE COMP POLICY PAY BANDS

20%MARKET COMP STUDIES SIMULTANEOUS RAISES FOR ALL

10% 0%

PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

60% PAY AUDIT

40%

PROJECT OUTCOMES

60%

60% 50%

UNWRITTEN CRITERIA

CONSIDER BOTH PAST & POTENTIAL

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

CLEAR/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA PERSONALITY & SKILL SETS SEPARATE ONGOING FEEDBACK CONSIDER BOTH PAST & POTENTIAL REGULAR REVIEW SCHEDULED WRITTEN EVAL

0%

60%

EARLY FINDINGS

DIVERSE HIRING COMMITTEE STANDARD INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Another important way of understanding a firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s values is understanding what actions they take to make sure that all individuals within an organization have OF an opportunity thrive. When asked what their firms did to mitigate bias in a number of areas, inEMPLOYER LIKELIHOOD EQUITABLEtoPRACTICES cluding hiring, performance evaluation, compensation, and promotion, we found that most bias mitigation strategies are seldom 80% employed in architecture. We would encourage each of you to study this slide in more detail to understand some theMALE techniques WHITE that70% could be used to address a variety of different types of workplace bias.

BACKGROUND

PROMMOTIONN CRITERIRIA CRITERI

DISTRIBUTE JOB POSTING TO DIVERSE SOURCES

0%

NEXT STEPS

-

PERSON OF COLOR

60%

FEMALE

50%

WHITE

40%

PERSON OF COLOR

30% 20%

0%

HIRES THOSE FROM WORKS WITH CLIENT DIVERSE & USER GROUPS BACKGROUNDS WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

PROMOTES EMPLOYEES WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

ADVOCATES FOR EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE FIRM'S BUILT WORK

DISCUSSES EQUITY WITH EMPLOYEES

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18

MENTORS EMPLOYEES WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

EVALUATES THE ORG'S CULTURAL COMPETENCE REGULARLY

ACTIVELY MITIGATES PROVIDES TRAINING ALERTS OTHERS TO BIAS IN POLICIES & RESOURCES IN BIASED AND PRACTICES CULTURAL EMPATHY INTERACTIONS & AWARENESS WHEN THEY OCCUR

DISCUSS EQUITY WITH CLIENTS

NONE OF THESE

35

10%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

60%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

VALUES: BIAS INTERRUPTERS

EMPLOYER LIKELIHOOD OF EQUITABLE PRACTICES 80%

MALE

70%

WHITE

60%

PERSON OF COLOR

FEMALE

50%

WHITE

40%

PERSON OF COLOR

30% 20% 10% 0%

HIRES THOSE FROM WORKS WITH CLIENT DIVERSE & USER GROUPS BACKGROUNDS WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

PROMOTES EMPLOYEES WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

ADVOCATES FOR EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE FIRM'S BUILT WORK

DISCUSSES EQUITY WITH EMPLOYEES

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 We were also interested in what firm leaders FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM were doing to promote workplace equity more INFOGRAPHICS ATELIER CHOrespondents THOMPSON broadly. While weBY found that most reported that their employers hired employees from diverse backgrounds, we saw that less was done to foster an environment within the firm that supported the growth and development of diverse talent, and to build a culturally intelligent organization better equipped to serve the needs of diverse client and user communities. Critically, we found that less than 10% of respondents reported that their employers discussed equity with clients, suggesting that we have substantial opportunities as a field to provide greater value to our clients by creating equitable environments that treat all users with dignity.

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

MENTORS EMPLOYEES WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

EVALUATES THE ORG'S CULTURAL COMPETENCE REGULARLY

ACTIVELY MITIGATES PROVIDES TRAINING ALERTS OTHERS TO BIAS IN POLICIES & RESOURCES IN BIASED AND PRACTICES CULTURAL EMPATHY INTERACTIONS & AWARENESS WHEN THEY OCCUR

DISCUSS EQUITY WITH CLIENTS

NONE OF THESE

EQUITY BY DESIGN


ED

JUS

TICE

FOR

ALL

PER SUPCEIVED POR ORG T PRO JUS CEDUR TICE AL RET

ENT

ION

SHA

RED

VAL E

S

CUL TUR

E

INF O JUS RMATI TICE ONA L DIS TRIB JUS TICEUTIVE

MET

DE TRIC

RIG HT CMETRIC AR PAT EER H ABS

TION

MEA REWNING/ ARD

es a he t mak ork act in My wive imp posit . ld wor

EME

NT

ISFA CTIO N

ENE

RGY

WO

RKL METRIC OA

, my lt of he field t t h resu As a rience in the rig is expe ecture me. it arch ssion to fe o r p my d in erse imm m a I k. wor

TION

FINI

RIC D

DE TRIC

time ugh eno my e v I ha plete m to co . k wor

ME

rk y wo nd a dm I fin ingful n a e . g m rdin a rew

IMP ACT

SAT

MET

ME

ORP

INV OLV

TION

FINI

RIC

me eat rs tr ade ’s le tion espect. a iz rgan and r My o dignity t with elf a mys eing ble b ta r fo com I am . k y wor of m ber mem lued a v a l like I fee . on team izati rgan my o art, fairly. p t s s mo ployee the For its em ts y trea ut m abo ares on c ti a iz rgan My o being. well iews my v made ess expr re being to able ns a I am decisio ct me. n a whe ill imp w your t a th ave ear? to le y you e next e r a th likely ithin How nt job w e curr any's omp my c and . s e e alu lik My v s are a e of valu lture e cu h th it w d sfie . sati e I am orkplac hen my w id w cand bout are ers h me a b. d a it le jo ng w t my rg’s My o unicati t impac m a com ions th is dec k in ons. wor ti d at ontribu c arde rew to my m a I rtion o p pro

INT E ME JUS RPERS TICE ONA L BEI NG SEL F VAL U

TION

FINI

DE TRIC

WOR K

-LIF

E

t bou tic a sias nthu e I am b. my jo

ime gh t nou ve e gy to sts a h I r tere ene and e my in rk. u o purs de of w i outs

in fied satis , I am b. ll a r jo Ove urrent my c

ed rgiz ene I am . k r wo

y by m

Equitable work environments are environments where every individual has the opportunity to thrive. An important indicator of thriving is being able TOP PREDICTORS PERCEPTIONS TOP PREDICTORS CAREER PERCEPTIONS to express career satisfaction in -a CAREER holistic way. To test this, we developed a panel of 20 questions on- career perceptions that we’ve called the Metrics of Success. These questions assess perceptions from whether a respondent has enough time to do their work to whether a respondent feels that they are a valued member of their team. We performed a statistical analysis between these MALE called a factor analysis, which allows us to see the relationships MALE questions, and to determine whether responses to certain questions are so statistically similar to responses to others that they should be considered FEMALE FEMALE to be components of the same statistical factor. This analysis revealed that there are three distinct factors in career perceptions in architecture. I FIND MY WORK MEANINGFUL AND REWARDING

STARTED MY OWN FIRM

WORK-LIFE BENEFIT USERS PROMOTED

FOR THE MOST PART, MY ORGANIZATION TREATS ITS EMPLOYEES FAIRLY

ONGOING FEEDBACK

The first one, Culture & Relationships, measures a respondent’s relationship to those that they work with, including peers and their firm’s management. A respondent’s likelihood of planning to stay in their current position is also a part of this factor, suggesting that relationships are key to retention. The next factor, Engagement & Impact, measures a respondent’s perceptions of their work itself, and includes whether a respondent feels that architecture is the right career for them, and how satisfied they are in their career. The final factor, Work-Life is very simple — does a respondent have enough time to do their work, and do they have enough time to pursue interests outside of work? We’ll organize the following analysis around ways that individuals MORE and firms can enhance career perceptions in each of these key areas. I FEEL LIKE A VALUED MEMBER OF MY TEAM

NO TRAINING

DOESN’T KNOW FIRM VALUES

MY ORGANIZATION CARES ABOUT MY WELL-BEING

NOT RECOGNIZED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

MY ORGANIZATION’S LEADERS TREAT ME WITH DIGNITY & RESPECT

0%

BACKGROUND

RIC

MY WORK DOESN’T MAKE AN IMPACT

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18

POSITIVE

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

37

CULTURE & RELATIONSHIPS

MET

EARLY FINDINGS

VISION: METRICS OF SUCCESS

METRICS OF SUCCESS - KEY CAREER PERCEPTIONS

NEXT STEPS

VISION - CAREER PERCEPTIONS: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018


VALUES - WORK-LIFE: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018 WORK-LIFE RESPONDENTS W/ POSITIVE VS. RESPONDENTS W/ NEGATIVE WORK-LIFEVISION: PERCEPTIONS So what does success look like in each of these CONFLICTS IN TURNED DOWN A FALLING SHORT POOR PHYSICAL areas? On the whole, we found that respondents PERSONAL PROJECT ON PERSONAL OR EMOTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS OPPORTUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES HEALTH with 0% positive career perceptions differed from those with negative career perceptions in important ways. -100% Compared to those with negative work life perceptions, those with positive work life perceptions were -200% likely to say that they worked very long hours on a -300% single day only infrequently, and they reported being more likely to say that their firms placed value on-400% employee growth and culture and relationships, more likely to say that their personal schedule needs -500% were factored into decision-making regarding project schedules, and more likely to say that they could use -600% work-life benefits without adversely impacting their -700% promotion opportunities.

140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

0% TURE SURVEY 2018 WORKS 10 + HRS A FEW TIMES A YEAR OR LESS

FIRM VALUES EMPLOYEE GROWTH

FIRM VALUES CULTURE & RELATIONSHIPS

PERSONAL SCHEDULES INFLUENCE PROJECT SCHED

USE OF BENEFITS DOES NOT IMPACT PROMOTION

WORKS HOUR D ONCE/WE

Respondents with positive vs. negative work-life perceptions NEGATIVE WORK-LIFE PERCEPTIONS

0%

CONFLICTS IN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

TURNED DOWN A PROJECT OPPORTUNITY

FALLING SHORT ON PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

60% -100% PERSONAL

POOR PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH

PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGE

MALE FEMALE

20TH %

-300% 40% -400% 30% -500% 20%

MALE FEMALE

-600% 10% -700% 0%

and professional setbacks in the face of work-life challenge, and dramatically less likely to report working 55 10+ hour days on a weekly or more frequent basis. This suggests that employees with positive work-life 50 relationships have workplaces that value their individual45needs when considering business decisions, and also that our common assumptions about the 40 damaging nature of long hours in architecture, which tend 35 to focus on the 50+ hour work week, need to be adjusted. We see significantly diminished perceptions 30 in 40-50 hour work weeks, especially when these25include long days, suggesting that we need to move the goalpost when thinking about how to 20 long hours within our profession. address MEDIAN

50% -200%

Meanwhile, those with positive work-life perceptions

HOURS WORKED PER aWEEK BY PROJECT were less likely to have suffered host of personal

WORKS 10+ HOUR DAY ONCE/WEEK

80TH %

WORK-LIFE CHALLENGE

PERSONAL

POOR PHYSICAL

FALLING

CONFLICTS IN

TURNED

DOWN PERSONAL ON OR MENTAL Respondents withCONFLICTS positive vs. negativeSHORT work-life perceptions HEALTH

TRAVEL RELATIONSHIPS PERSONAL OPPORTUNITIES RESPONSIBILITIES

LEFT A POSITION OR FIRM

TURNED DOWN A TURNED DOWN A TURNED JOB OFFER DOWN A PROJECT PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY

DESIGN PRINCIPAL

PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT ARCHITECT

HOURS WORKED PER WEEK BY PROJECT ROLE 55 50

80TH %

EQUIT Y BYUSED DESIGN TOP WORK-LIFE

BENEFITS

HOW DO EMPLOYERS ENCOURAGE WORK


PROJECT SCHED

PROMOTION

HOURS WORKED PER WEEK BY PROJECT ROLE

30% 30

25 20% 20 10% 0%

DESIGN PRINCIPAL PERSONAL CONFLICTS

POOR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH

PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT ARCHITECT

TURNED CONFLICTS IN FALLING DOWN PERSONAL SHORT ON TRAVEL RELATIONSHIPS PERSONAL OPPORTUNITIES RESPONSIBILITIES

LEFT A POSITION OR FIRM

PRODUCTION STAFF

TURNED DOWN A TURNED DOWN A TURNED JOB OFFER DOWN A PROJECT PROMOTION OPPORTUNITY

25 20

DESIGN PRINCIPAL

PROJECT MANAGER

EARLY FINDINGS

20TH %

40% 35

MEDIAN

20TH %

50% 40

MALE FEMALE

PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGE

Indeed, while most of our respondents reported averaging 55 40-50 hours a week, most respondents also reported having suffered from work-life challenges 50 required them to make either personal or that had professional trade-offs. It’s also worth noting that it 45 was far more common for respondents, and especially women, 40 to report that they made personal trade-offs when faced with these issues, with 6 in 10 women 35 reporting that their physical and/or emotional health had suffered as a result of work-life conflict. 30 80TH %

80TH %

PERSONAL

MEDIAN

50 60% 45

NEXT STEPS

VISION: HOURS WORKED PER WORK-LIFE WEEK BY PROJECT

WORK-LIFE CHALLENGE 55

PROJECT ARCHITECT

HOW DO EMPLOYERS ENCOURAGE WORK-LIFE?

Prevalence of work-life challenge

AUTONOMY IN DAY-TODAY SCCOHERDU ELING

WORK-LIFE P O OCCAVSAIOLNTAOLALLICIES WL ORK

BENEFIT USE D IMPACCT OPRO OESN’T MMPOTION

57% M

41% M

28% M

HOURS

59% F

FROM HOME

38% F

How do employers encourage 66% M | 66%work-life? F

TIME

34% F

38% M | 42% F 28% M | 34% F EQUITY BY DESIGN #EQxD V AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

AUTONOMY IN DAY-TO- P POLICIES AVAIL TO ARENTS & NO DAY SCHEDU N-PARENTS LING 57% M | 59% F

WORK

BACKGROUND

TOP USED WORK-LIFE BENEFITS

Our respondents reported that their employers HOW EMPLOYERS ENCOURAGE used a DO variety of strategies to promote work-life, with the most common ones being: providing autonomy in day-to-day scheduling, making work-life policies available to all employees and not just to parents and caregivers, and promoting those who utilize work-life benefits. Given the frequency with which that last factor occurs in our slides as a top predictor of success by a number of measures, it’s also worth pointing out that only 28% of men and 34% of women reported that using these benefits wouldn’t adversely impact promotion opportunities This suggests that about 7 in 10 respondents work in environments where taking advantage of worklife benefits is associated with making trade-offs in future promotion eligibility.

41% M | 38% F

BEN IMP

28

EQUITY BY DESIGN

39

A

OR LESS


VISION - CULTURE & RELATIONSHIPS: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

VISION: CULTURE & RELATIONSHIPS

MOST NEGATIVE

NEUTRAL

MOST POSITIVE

CULTURE AND RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS BY RACE 5.0

MALE

4.5

WHITE

4.0

PERSON OF COLOR

3.5

FEMALE

3.0

WHITE

2.5

PERSON OF COLOR

2.0 1.5 1.0

BEING SELF

VALUED

PERCEIVED ORG SUPPORT

INTERPERSONAL JUSTICE

INCLUSION

JUSTICE FOR ALL

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

RETENTION

SHARED VALUES

CULTURE SATISFACTION

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

Culture and relationships perceptions by race & gender

100% 80% 60%

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

MALE WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

FEMALE WHITE

MORE LIKELY

80TH % MEDIAN 20TH %

MOST NEGATIVE

NEUTRAL

MORE LIKELY

MOST POSITIVE

POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE CULTURE & RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS VOICES: INCLUSION PERCEPTIONS The next factor, Culture and Relationships, comprises therefore require mutiple questions to assess. • Interpersonal Justice: the degree to which a variety the people affected by decision are treated 5.0 140% of measures that assess an individual’s Inclusion MALE is “the act of creating environments in relationship to their peers and their firm’s manby dignity and respect which anyFEMALE individual or group can be and feel 120% agement. We found that white male respondents welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to • Procedural Justice: perceived fairness of the 4.0 tended 100%to have more positive perceptions in each processes by which outcomes are determined fully participate” (UC Berkeley Division of Equity of these areas than women or respondents of color. 80% and Inclusion, 2015). An individual experiences • Informational Justice: explanations provided to people that convey information about why Many60% of these measures are grounded in organi- inclusion when they feel both that3.0they belong procedures were used in a certain way or why zational research on perceptions that have been within a group and that they are able to comfort40% outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion shown to be correlated with employee retention, ably express their unique characteristics within 2.0 satisfaction, trust in an organization’s leadership,, that group setting (Shore et al, 2011). • Distributive Justice perceived fairness of 20% and even quality of work. The components includthe outcomes of decisions and distribution Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ) 1.0 is defined 0% CULTURAL FIRM VALUES FIRM LEADERS USE OF BENEFITS FIRM LEADERS MALE of resources MALE MALE FEMALE OVERALL MALE ed in Culture and Relationships include: Inclusion, COMPETENCE CULTURE/ CALL OUT BIAS DOES NOT IMPACT MITIGATE BIAS IN broadly by an individual’s perceptions of fairness WHITE BLACK MULTIRACIAL BLACK HISPANIC OR AUDIT RELATIONSHIPS INCIDENTS PROMOTION POLICIES Perceived Organizational Support, Perceived LATINX in the workplace. The Equity by Design Survey The final factor in POJ, Justice For All, is a broad Organizational Justice, Retention, Shared Values, uses a 5-factor definition of POJ. The first four measure of the context in chich fairness is achieved, and Workplace Culture Satisfaction. factors are based on research on an individual’s and focuses upon whether an individual believes that all individuals within an organization are Two these phenomena, Inclusion and Perceived perceptions of how fairly they are personally ARE of YOU COMFORTABLE SHARING YOUR GENDER ID OR SEXUALITY BELIEVES FIRM IS FAIR VS. ISN’T FAIR Organizational Justice, are multi-faceted, and treated (Colquitt et al, 2001). These factors include: treated fairly (Ambrose, 2009). 160% 140% 120% 100%

MALE FEMALE


INCLUSION

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

VISION: CULTURE & RELATIONSHIPS 5.0 VOICES: INCLUSION PERCEPTIONS

USE OF BENEFITS DOES NOT IMPACT PROMOTION

FIRM LEADERS MITIGATE BIAS IN POLICIES

CULTURAL COMPETENCE AUDIT

FIRM VALUES CULTURE/ RELATIONSHIPS

FIRM LEADERS CALL OUT BIAS INCIDENTS

USE OF BENEFITS DOES NOT IMPACT PROMOTION

FIRM LEADERS MITIGATE BIAS IN POLICIES

AREvs.YOU COMFORTABLE SHARING Positive negative culture & relationship perceptions

YOUR GENDER ID OR SEXUALITY

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE SHARING YOUR GENDER ID OR SEXUALITY 100% MALE WHITE

80% 100%

PERSON OF COLOR MALE WHITE FEMALE

60% 80%

PERSON WHITE OF COLOR

PERSON OF COLOR FEMALE

40% 60%

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

20% 40% 0% 20% 0%

With whom are

FRIENDS & FAMILY

CO-WORKERS

COMPANY LEADERSHIP

CLIENTS

CONSULTANTS CONTRACTORS

NONE OF THESE

FRIENDS & CO-WORKERS COMPANY youFAMILY comfortable sharing your gender LEADERSHIP

CLIENTS

CONSULTANTS CONTRACTORS

NONE OF THESE

sexuality? #EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCOidentity ART or INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM #EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

80TH %

80TH % MEDIAN MEDIAN 20TH % 20TH %

2.0 1.0

1.0

OVERALL

MALE WHITE

MALE HISPANIC OR LATINX

MALE BLACK

OVERALL

MALE WHITE

MALE HISPANIC OR LATINX

MALE BLACK

EARLY FINDINGS

FIRM LEADERS CALL OUT BIAS INCIDENTS

MUL

M MUL

BELIEVES FIRM IS FAIR VS. ISN’T FAIR

An important component of culture and relationship BELIEVES IS FAIR VS.workplace, ISN’T FAIR 160% perceptions is FIRM feeling included in the or in other words, feeling like you can be yourself 140% at work while simultaneously feeling like a valued 160% 120% of your team. When we asked out LGBTQ member 140% respondents whether they felt comfortable sharing 100% their120% gender identity and/or sexuality at work, we found80% that while most respondents feel comfortable 100% this information with friends and family sharing 60% outside 80%of work and with their peers at work, there 40% hesitation in sharing this information with was more 60% leadership, clients, consultants, and especompany 20% cially40% contractors. It’s also worth noting that white 0% men tended to feel comfortable than TOOK others PLEASURE FROM more NO WORK-LIFE JOB SATISFACTION PAID LEAVE PLANS TO WORKING: CONFLICT OR SABBATICAL 20% in sharing this information. HELPING ORG BACKGROUND

FIRM VALUES CULTURE/ RELATIONSHIPS

0%

EXCEL/GROW

PLEASURE FROM WORKING: HELPING ORG EXCEL/GROW

NO WORK-LIFE CONFLICT

JOB SATISFACTION

TOOK PAID LEAVE OR SABBATICAL

PLANS TO

EQUITY BY DESIGN EQUITY BY DESIGN

41

0%

CULTURAL COMPETENCE AUDIT

Those with positive Culture and Relationships perceptions 5.0 differed from those with negative perceptions in 4.0 important ways. Those with positive perceptions were more likely to say that their employer intentionally 4.0 a equitable workplace culture, conducting created 3.0 cultural competence audits, establishing culture and relationships as a core value, calling out bias incidents when3.0 they occur, ensuring that work-life benefit 2.0 use doesn’t impact promotion, and mitigating bias in policies and procedures.

MORE LIKELY MORE LIKELY

80% 100% 60% 80% 40% 60% 20% 40% 0% 20%

NEXT STEPS

POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE CULTURE & RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS 140% MALE 120% FEMALE 140% MALE 100% 120% FEMALE

MOST NEGATIVE NEUTRAL NEUTRAL MOST POSITIVE MOST NEGATIVE MOST POSITIVE

VOICES: INCLUSION PERCEPTIONS

MORE LIKELY MORE LIKELY

POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE CULTURE & RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS


N ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2018

K?

MY WORK MAKES A POSITIVE IMPACT IN THE WORLD

MORE LIKELY

POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE ENGAGEMENT & IMPACT PERCEPTIONS 160%

17%

140% 120% 100%

4%

19%

5% 14%

22%

MALE

STRONGLY AGREE

MALE AGREE FEMALE HARD TO DECIDE

FEMALE

DISAGREE

80%

58%

58%

60% 40%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

20% 0%

PLEASURE FROM WORKING: HELPING ORG EXCEL/GROW

FIRM LEADERS DISCUSS EQUITY W/ CLIENTS

WORK IMPACTS SOCIETY AT LARGE

WORK POSITIVELY IMPACTS FAMILY

Positive vs. negative engagement & impactARE perceptions WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS YOUR

FIRM LEADERS CALL OUT BIAS INCIDENTS

RECOGNIZED FOR AT WORK?

WHOM DOES YOUR WORK POSITIVELY IMPACT? 60%

MALE WHITE

50% 100%

WHITE PERSON OF COLOR

40% 80%

PERSON OF COLOR FEMALE WHITE

30%

PERSON OF COLOR

60% 20% 40% 10% 20% 0% 0%

WHOM DOES YOUR WORK POSITIVELY IM

VISION: ENGAGEMENT & IMPACT 100% The final factor in the Metrics of Success, Engagement 80% & Impact, tracks an individual’s relationship to their work. We found that, compared to those with negative Engagement & Impact perceptions, those 60% with positive perceptions were more likely to take pleasure from helping their organization to grow, to 40% say firm leaders discuss equity with clients, to say that their work positively impacts society at large as well20% as their own families, and to say that their firm leaders call out bias incidents when they occur. This suggests 0% that employees who are most excited about MY CLIENTS FIRM OCCUPANTS/ MY LOCAL the work that they’re MY doing and who feel that work MY FAMILY END USERS COMMUNITY is most meaningful and impactful are also employees who can trace their impact within their own firms, and in making positive and equitable impacts in the built environment.

LIKELIHOOD - RECOGNIZED FOR CREATIVIT So, working our way outward in terms of spheres of influence, we were interested in knowing what 60% respondents were recognized for contributing at work, and found that the most common contributions 50% were “work ethic or drive”, “creativity or design”, and40% “project management”. It’s worth noting that women were much more likely than men to report 30%recognized for their work ethic, which may be being a contributing factor in some of the work-life issues that20% we looked at earlier. 10%

WORK ETHIC MY CLIENTS

CREATIVITY/ PROJECT DESIGN MANAGEMENT MY FIRM

OCCUPANTS/

What contributions are you recognized forEND at USERS work?

TECHNICAL

MENTORSHIP

MY LOCAL COMMUNITY

MY FAMILY

CA

NOT RECOGNIZED

SOCIETY AT UNDERSERVED LARGE COMMUNITIES

#EQxDV AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON EQUIT Y

BY DESIGN- RECOGNIZED FOR CREATIVITY OR DESIGN LIKELIHOOD

S

0%

<1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

20-25

26-34

EQUITY BY DESIGN


POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE ENGAGEMENT & IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

120% 100% 80%

60%17% 40%

4%

19%

22%

MALE

STRONGLY AGREE

5% 14%

AGREE HARD TO DECIDE

FEMALE

DISAGREE

20% 0%

58%

PLEASURE FROM WORKING: HELPING ORG EXCEL/GROW

FIRM LEADERS DISCUSS EQUITY W/ CLIENTS

WORK IMPACTS SOCIETY AT LARGE

58%

WORK POSITIVELY IMPACTS FAMILY

STRONGLY DISAGREE

FIRM LEADERS CALL OUT BIAS INCIDENTS

NEXT STEPS

FEMALE

140%

VISION:DOES ENGAGEMENT & IMPACT WHOM YOUR WORK POSITIVELY IM Even if we struggle to articulate what value we provide 100% to our co-workers, most respondents believe that their work makes a positive impact, with approximately 75% of respondents either agreeing 80% or strongly agreeing with the statement “My work makes a positive impact in the world”. As a profes60% sion, we should be encouraged by this finding, which suggests that impact could become an important 40% motivator within the field.

EARLY FINDINGS

MORE LIKELY

MY160% WORK MAKES A POSITIVE IMPACT IN THE WORLD MALE

20% 0%

MY CLIENTS

MY FIRM

OCCUPANTS/ END USERS

MY LOCAL COMMUNITY

MY FAMILY

S

WHOM DOES YOUR WORK POSITIVELY IMPACT?

My work makes a positive impact in the world

PERSON OF COLOR

80% 60%

MALE WHITE

50% 60%

PERSON OF COLOR

40% 40%

FEMALE WHITE

30% 20%

PERSON OF COLOR

20%

0% 10% 0%

MY CLIENTS

MY FIRM

OCCUPANTS/ END USERS

MY LOCAL COMMUNITY

MY FAMILY

WORK

CREATIVITY/

PROJECT

TECHNICAL

MENTORSHIP

Whom does your work impact?MANAGEMENT ETHICpositively DESIGN

SOCIETY AT UNDERSERVED LARGE COMMUNITIES CA

NOT RECOGNIZED

LIKELIHOOD RECOGNIZED OR DESIGN #EQxDV AT THE- SAN FRANCISCOFOR ART CREATIVITY INSTITUTE 11/03/18 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT EQxDESIGN.COM 60%

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON 50%

MALE FEMALE

When asked whom their work impacts, however,

LIKELIHOOD FORMost CREATIVIT respondents tend -toRECOGNIZED be a bit more diffident. agreed that their work positively impacted clients, their firms, and end users for the better, but re60% spondents were less likely to report that their work positively impacted their local communities, their 50% families, society at large, and especially underserved communities. Only about 10% of respondents indi40% cating that their work positively these underserved groups. 30% It’s also worth noting that white respondents were more likely than respondents of color to believe that20% their work had a positive impact on all groups, suggesting potential racial disparities in the experience 10% of intrinsic rewards associated with work in the profession. We look forward to delving into this issue0%further in forthcoming analysis. <1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-10

11-14

15-19

BACKGROUND

WHAT AT WORK? 100% CONTRIBUTIONS ARE YOUR RECOGNIZED FORWHITE

20-25

26-34

EQUITY BY DESIGN

43

K?

EXCEL/GROW


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


NEXT STEPS


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


Finally, a lengthy survey track was established in the 2018 survey for architecture school faculty, with questions paralleling those asked of respondents working in firms and sole proprietorships, and focusing on many of the major career pinch points. The team plans to be able to share key findings on Equity in Architectural Academia in the coming months. The research team plans to share these findings on Equty by Design’s website, through an online webinar, and through in-person presentations at conferences and events nationwide. Please feel free to contact Equity by Design for further information.

NEXT STEPS EARLY FINDINGS

In addition to this topical analysis, the team will provide additional targeted analysis on a number of demographic groups. Interactive graphics similar to those created for the 2016 findings will allow individuals to examine results on the basis of personal identity and geographic location. As a part of the team’s agreements with Survey Distribution Partners,, customized reporting will be provided to participating academic institutions on the basis of alumni affiliation, to professional organization components on the basis of geographic location, and to firms on the basis of firm size.

BACKGROUND

Over the coming year, Equity by Design and the ACSA will continue analysis of the dataset, focusing on each of the research topics identified in the preliminary analysis in greater depth. These findings will be published on Equity by Design’s website through a series of “deep dive” articles, with each focusing on a single survey topic. These findings will be compiled in a Final Report, which will be issued in 2019.

47

NEXT STEPS


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


APPENDICES


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


OUTREACH PARTNERS

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AIA National NCARB ACSA NOMA AIAS Society of Arhitectural Historians Entre Architect AIA Buffalo/Western New York AIA Canada Society AIA Chicago AIA Alabama AIA Alaska AIA Arizona AIA Arkansas AIA Atlanta AIA Austin AIA Baltimore AIA Brazos Chapter AIA Brooklyn AIA California Council AIA Central Massachusetts AIA Central Oklahoma AIA Central Valley AIA Charleston

AIA Chesapeake Bay, VA AIA Cleveland AIA Colorado AIA Corpus Christi AIA Dallas AIA Dayton AIA Detroit AIA District of Columbia AIA East Tennessee AIA Eastern Ohio AIA Florida AIA Florida Gulf Coast AIA Fort Lauderdale AIA Fort Worth AIA Gainsville, FL AIA Georgia AIA Golden Empire AIA Grand Rapids Michigan AIA Greater Columbia AIA Greenville AIA Honolulu AIA Houston AIA Indiana AIA Jacksonville AIA Kansas City, MO AIA Long Beach / South Bay AIA Long Island, NY AIA Los Angeles AIA Maine AIA Massachusetts AIA Miami

51

We would like the thank our academic, professional organization, and firm Survey Outreach Partners, who assissted in the distribution of the survey by sending personalized invitations to take the survey to their electronic mailing lists.


AIA Michigan AIA Mid-Missouri AIA Minnesota AIA New Jersey AIA New Mexico AIA New Orleans AIA New York State AIA Northern Nevada` AIA Northern Virginia (NoVA) AIA New York AIA Ohio AIA Orange County AIA Orlando AIA Palm Beach AIA Pasadena & Foothills AIA Pennsylvania AIA Philadelphia AIA Pittsburgh AIA Portland AIA Potomac Valley AIA Puerto Rico AIA Queens AIA Richmond AIA Rochester AIA San Fernando Valley AIA San Francisco AIA Savannah, GA AIA Seattle AIA Silicon Valley AIA South Dakota AIA South Jersey

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

AIA South Carolina AIA Southwest Michigan AIA Southwest Washington AIA Southwestern Oregon AIA St. Louis AIA Tallahassee AIA Tennessee AIA Triangle AIA UK AIA Vancouver (Washington) AIA Vermont AIA Virginia AIA Wichita AIA Wisconsin AIA Wyoming Architects League of Northern New Jersey Boston Society of Architects Texas Society of Architects

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS Auburn University Boston Architectural College Ball State University Boston Architectural College California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Clemson University Columbia University Ferris State University


University of Maryland University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Southern California University of Virginia University of Washington University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Virginia Tech Woodbury University Yale University

ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS 4rmula Agency Landscape + Planning AISC Alliiance Architecture Outfit PLLC architecture+ Arrowstreet Ayers Saint Gross BAMO BAR Architects BKSK Architects BLT Architects Blue Star integrative Studio Inc Bohlin Cywinski Jackson

53

Florida A&M UNiversity Florida International University Georgia Institute of Technology Hampton University Harvard University Louisiana State University Massachusetts Institute of Technology McGill University Mississippi State University Montana State University Morgan State University Norwich University Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Prairie View A&M University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Roger Williams University Syracuse University Temple University The University of the District of Coumbia Tulane University Tuskegee University Universidad de Puerto Rico UniversitĂŠ Laval University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of Calgary University of Hawaii University of Idaho University of Illinois - Champaign Urbana University of Louisiana at Lafayette


Brush architects llc Building Possibilities, Inc. bv architecture + development CallisonRTKL CallisonRTKL Inc. CannonDesign Carleton Hart Architecture PC Centric Design Studio CO Architects CollinsWoerman Cooper Carry Cycle Architecture + Planning DHC Design DIGSAU DiMella Shaffer Assoc. Inc. DLRGroup DOUGLAS OKUN& EHDD Ehrlich Yanai Rhee Chaney Architects ELS Architecture and Urban Design empty space design ESG Architects, Inc. Eskew Dumez Ripple FKP Architects Frederick Fisher & Partners FXFowle Gast Architects Gensler GFF Architects Glave & Holmes Architecture GMK Associates

EQUIT Y BY DESIGN

Goettsch Partners Gould Evans Harrison French & Associates (HFA) HCMFAIA HDR HED HGA HKS HKS, Inc. HOK Imrey Jackson Liles Architecture Jennifer Garcia Architecture Studio, LLC Jeri L. S. Morey, Architect Juliana Inman Architect KMD Architects KSS Architects Kuth Ranieri Lake|Flato Lazarus and Sargeant Architects Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects Leers Weinzapfel Associates Leesa Mayfield Architecture Lewis Colten aia and associates LHB LS3P MADI Group Mancini Duffy MG2 MG2 Michele Grace Hottel, Architect


Scott + Cormia SERA Architects Inc SHELTER Stories Shepley Bulfinch Smith Dalia Architects Smith-Karng Architecture SmithGroupJJR Solomon Cordwell Buenz SOM Stantec Steinberg Hart Studio105 Architecture, LLC Thornton Tomasetti TMPartners, PLLC Trautman Associates Trivers Associates Walter Robbs Callahan & Pierce Architects, PA Waterleaf Architecture, LLC William Wilson Architects, PC Wilson Associates WRNS Studio WXY architecture + urban design Yost Grube Hall Architecture

55

Miller Dunwiddie Mithun Mogavero Architects MWA Architects, Inc. NBBJ Noll & Tam Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Kelly + Kasprak Ohio History Connection Architectural Services Department Opsis Architecture, LLP ORCHESTRA Design Studio Payette Perkins + Will Perkins Eastman Perkins Eastman Pfluger Architects PYATOK architecture + urban design Quattrocchi Kwok Architects Quinn Evans Architects R&A Architecture + Design Red Iron Architects Reif Architects Remodern, Inc. Rice Fergus Miller Rob Walker Architects, LLC Robert AM Stern Architects, LLP RS&H RSP Architects saam architecture Sara Stucky Sayner, Architect Schwartz SIlver


EQUIT Y BY DESIGN


REFERENCES 1. Ambrose, Maureen and Marshall Schminke. “The Role of Overall Justice Judgments in Organizational Justice Research: A Test of Mediation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 2 (2009): 491-500. 2. Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter, and K. Yee Ng. 2001. “Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research” in Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 3 (2001): 425–445. 3. Gandal, Neil, Sonia Roccas, Lilach Sagiv, and Amy Wrzesniewski. “Personal Value Priorities of Economists.” Human Relations 58, no. 10 (October 2005): 1227–52. 4. Lange, Alexandra. “Architecture’s Lean In Moment” in Metropolis Magazine July-August 2013. http:// www.metropolismag.com/July-August-2013/ Architectures-Lean-In-Moment/ 5. Shore, Lynn M., Amy E. Randel, Beth G. Chung, Michelle A. Dean, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, and Gangaram Singh. “Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research.” Journal of Management 37, no. 4 (July 2011): 1262–89. 6. Schwartz, Shalom. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, no. 1 (2012). https://scholarworks.gvsu. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=orpc

57

7. UC Berkeley Division of Equity and Inclusion. Strategic Planning for Equity, Inclusion and Diversity. (2015) https://diversity.berkeley.edu/sites/default/ files/admin_strategic_planning_toolkit_final.pdf

Profile for Annelise Pitts

Equity by Design: Voices, Values, Vision  

2018 Equity in Architecture Survey Early Findings Report

Equity by Design: Voices, Values, Vision  

2018 Equity in Architecture Survey Early Findings Report

Advertisement