Page 1

EQUITY BY DESIGN: KNOWLEDGE, DISCUSSION, ACTION! 2014 EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY REPORT AND KEY OUTCOMES

EQUITY BY DESIGN


Published in 2015 by AIA San Francisco 130 Sutter Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Report prepared by Annelise Pitts, Assoc. AIA — Head of Research, Equity by Design Rosa Sheng, AIA, LEED AP — Founding Co-Chair, Equity by Deisgn Eirik Evenhouse, PhD — Associate Professor, Mills College Ruohnan Hu — Research Assistant, Mills College ©2015 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 4

BACKGROUND

9

KNOWLEDGE

15

SURVEY

16

METHODOLOGY

17

DEMOGRAPHICS

19

HIRING & RETENTION

22

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT

29

MEANING & INFLUENCE

34

DISCUSSION

39

ACTION!

44

NEXT STEPS

49

EQUITY BY DESIGN

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY


SUMMARY 1

Equit y by Design: The Missing 32% Project calls on both women and men to realize the goal of equitable practice, advance architecture, sustain the profession and communicate the value of design to society

2

The Equity in Architecture research project is an ongoing effort to identify conditions impeding the advancement of the profession’s best talent, highlight best practices, and measure progress towards equity over time


1 American Institute of Architects, Firm Survey Report 2014, by Kermit Baker, James Chu, and Jennifer Riskus (Washington, DC, 2014), 12. Figure 0.1: Infographic board based on initial findings from the Equity in Architecture 2014 Survey. These infographics were originally presented at the 2014 Equity by Design Symposium.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

2 Royal Institute of British Architects, Why do Women Leave Architecture?, by de Graft-Johnson, et al., 2003 3 Stead, “Equity and Diversity in the Australian Architecture Profession”, 2009.

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND

The disparity between male and female representation within the profession and limited leadership opportunities have been well documented and are a growing concern. Our global peers in the United Kingdom’s RIBA study “Why do women leave architecture?” and Australia’s Parlour study “Equity and Diversity in the Australian Architecture Profession: Women, Work and Leadership” have conducted research studies on the topic that inspired further inquiry.2,3 Recognizing a paucity of similar research and documentation of best practices within the United States, Equity by Design’s mission is to supplement this conversation with more targeted information about our local and national community of practitioners.

SUMMARY

While women comprise nearly half of graduates from architecture programs in the United States, they make up only about 22% of licensed architects, and only 17% of partners or principals in architecture firms.1 In recent years, although more women are entering the profession, far fewer attain their license or reach leadership positions in their firms.

5

INTRODUCTION


4 The Missing 32 Percent Project, “Mission Statement”, accessed May 1, 2015, http://themissing32percent.com/origins/

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

The group is made up of a diverse cross section of the industry: participants include both men and women; new graduates and seasoned industry professionals; architects, designers, industry consultants, and those working in allied fields; those without children, parents who have continued to work full time in traditional practice and those who have devised alternative situations to accommodate the demands of raising a family. The group has dual aims. First, we seek to forge strong personal and professional ties amongst like minded individuals. Second, we aim to leverage these connections to achieve progress towards more

BACKGROUND

Equity by Design is a committee of AIA San Francisco. Originating as The Missing 32% project, the group grew out of a series of symposiums conceived and produced between 2011 and 2013 by the AIA SF Communications Committee. Out of the 2nd Symposium, The Missing 32% Project became a formal committee of AIASF with an evolving mission. Today, the group has found national and international resonance as Equity by Design (EQxD), and aims to advance the goal of equitable practice in architecture.

SUMMARY

Equity by Design is a call to action for both women and men to realize the goal of equitable practice, advance architecture, sustain the profession and communicate the value of design to society. Our mission is to understand the pinch points and promote the strategic execution of best practices in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of our profession’s best talent at every level of architectural practice.4

6

EQUITY BY DESIGN


The Discussion portion of our programming is designed to provoke discourse within local and national forums by sharing the results of our research efforts. We invite participants to become active collaborators in imagining and evaluating solutions to the pinch points highlighted in our research, participants offer diverse voices and perspectives based on personal and academic backgrounds as well as professional experience. This diversity of viewpoints contributes to the creation of novel solutions to seemingly intractable problems related to where, why and how we practice architecture. Finally, the Action portion of our initiatives leverage the information, ideas, and personal as well as professional ties created by the knowledge and discussion

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

In order to optimize the impact of these efforts, we believe that finding and promoting evidence-based solutions is essential. The Knowledge portion of our program aims to establish and track metrics for women’s participation and success in the field, and identify career pinch points, or areas for targeted efforts towards change.

BACKGROUND

Equity by Design’s advocacy work is oriented along three parallel, but interrelated tracks: Knowledge, Discussion, and Action. Gender and equity issues within our profession are complex, and often extend into the deep tissue of the ways in which practices are structured. To resolve these issues, and create better practice environments for men and women alike, it will take a concerted effort, creativity, and willingness to try unconventional and even counter intuitive solutions to problems.

portions of our programming to galvanize change within the profession. Some action may be modest and on a personal scale, such as coaching an emerging professional through the ARE process, or mentoring an expecting mother through negotiations related to maternity leave or establishing a part-time schedule. Other initiatives encourage firm leaders to establish more inclusive policies, or to incentivize behaviors that have been proven to promote success within the profession and in other industries. Finally, the group has taken action at the level of national policy, introducing the Equity in Architecture Resolution 15-1 cosponsored by AIA San Francisco and AIA California Council at the 2015 AIA National Convention. If passed, this resolution will enable the AIA to establish a commission of experts to make recommendations to increase equity in gender and racial diversity and leadership throughout the profession.

SUMMARY

equitable and sustainable practice across the field.

7

EQUITY BY DESIGN


HIRING & RETENTION 1. Five key career pinch points impact women’s success within the profession. These pinch points are: Hiring, Paying Your Dues, Licensure, Working Caregivers and Work-Life Flexibility, and the Glass Ceiling. These career hurdles should become areas of focus for those attempting to close the gender gap in architecture. 2. Women are significantly less likely than their male counterparts to report that they are satisfied, and planning to remain in their current positions.

2. Among those who had left the field of architecture to begin alternate careers, the majority did so within their first five years in architectural practice. Primary reasons for leaving architecture included low pay, long hours, and few opportunities for promotion.

CONCLUSION

1. Across each of the populations surveyed (men and women in traditional practice, sole proprietorships, and alternative career paths), respondents cited similar criteria when asked “How do you define success in your career?” Of those surveyed, men and women alike cited “working with the talented and collaborative A-team”, “working on projects of personal and professional significance”, and “the ability to achieve work-life flexibility” as important attributes of career success.

ACTION

MEANING & INFLUENCE

DISCUSSION

The Equity in Architecture 2014 survey documents the career status, attitudes, and aspirations of 2,289 respondents with architectural degrees or experience in architectural practice. While the primary survey respondents consisted of those working in traditional firms, alternate survey tracks were offered for sole practitioners and those who have left architectural practice to pursue alternate career paths. The findings distilled from this data are organized into three major knowledge areas.

KNOWLEDGE

KEY FINDINGS

1. Despite gains in terms of educational attainment over the last decades, women remain significantly underrepresented at the highest levels of practice.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

8

SUMMARY

2. At every level of experience, women make less, on average, than their male counterparts. These pay discrepancies are the largest amongst those with the most experience.

BACKGROUND

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT


BACKGROUND 1

According to a number of existing data sources, women are underrepresented at all levels of practice

2

Existing data doesn’t provide enough information to suggest why these inequalities persist even though increasing numbers of women have been entering the field for decades


29

LICENSED ARCHITECTS

(NOT PRINCIPAL/ PARTNER) 8 ARE WOMEN

28 PRINCIPALS

OR PARTNERS 5 ARE WOMEN

Figure 1.1: Women’s representation in architectural practice by job title. Data Source: AIA, 2014 Firm Survey Report

EQUITY BY DESIGN

WOMEN IN PRACTICE While there wasn’t a single existing data set that met our research objectives, various related data sets and analyses were instrumental in the design of our survey and the interpretation of our findings. According to the US Census Bureau, women made up 50.8% of the population of the United States in 2010.5 Meanwhile, women made up 44% of students and 42% of graduates of NAAB-accredited architecture programs.6, 7 While women are cur-

5 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/00000.html

6 National Architecture Accrediting Board, 2014 Report of the National Architectural Accrediting Board, 14. 7

ibid, 19.

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

UNLICENSED

DESIGNERS NOT PURSUING LICENSURE 7 ARE WOMEN

KNOWLEDGE

20

BACKGROUND

INTERNS

ON THE PATH TO LICENSURE 9 ARE WOMEN

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence suggesting that women are less likely than men to remain in the field of architecture, and that those that do remain in the field are less likely to advance to leadership positions, are paid less, and are less likely to experience career satisfaction. At the outset of this project, however, there wasn’t a statistically significant data set focused on gender equity in US architectural practice. While other data sets made it possible to show that women were underrepresented in all levels of architectural education and practice, it was impossible to delve into these demographics to better understand factors contributing to the gender imbalance within the profession, and more critically, to highlight areas of focus for individual practitioners, firms, and policy makers such as the AIA seeking to take action in order to close that gender gap and improve conditions of practice for all architects.

SUMMARY

23

EXISTING DATA

10

IN AN AVERAGE GROUP OF 100 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS...


8 American Institute of Architects, Firm Survey Report 2014, 12. 9

ibid.

10 National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, NCARB by the Numbers 2014, 28. 11 Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, ACSA Atlas 2015, http://www.acsa-arch.org/images/default-source/data/ acsa-atlas-2015-02.jpg?sfvrsn=0.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

12 National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, NCARB by the Numbers 2014, 5. 13 National Architecture Accrediting Board, 2014 Report of the National Architectural Accrediting Board, 14 14 32.

Holland & Knight LLP, Demographic Diversity Audit,

15 AIA and NCARB, 2012 AIA/NCARB Internship and Career Survey, 24. 16

ibid, 22.

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

Similar phenomena have been observed in the licensing exam process. A joint report released by NCARB and the AIA in 2012 suggests that women tend to rate the exams as more difficult than their male counterparts, with 72% of female interns rating the exams as “too hard”, compared to 61% of male interns.15 Male interns are also more likely than female interns to believe that they will be able to pass all divisions of the ARE within one year (20% of men vs. 13% of women).16 The disparities between men’s and women’s actual rates of licensure, as well as

BACKGROUND

Women are also less likely than their male counterparts to successfully pursue licensure. The percentage of female record applicants to the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, the organization that administers the architecture exam, has hovered at 40% since 2011.10 Women’s current percentage of overall applications is currently the highest in the organization’s history. This rate also represents significant advancement relative to women’s gains in educational attainment: while women constituted 30% of graduates from NAAB accredited architecture programs in 1990, they made up only 10% of applicants for NCARB records in the same year.11 Today, this

The path to licensure is, however, longer on average for women than for men. According to a 2005 report on diversity commissioned by the AIA, women were half as likely as men to complete the IDP in under three years, and slightly more likely than men to take four or more years to complete the process.14 As the ACSA’s Lian Chicako Chang has argued, if this statistic is still accurate, it suggests that the IDP process may be more difficult to complete, on average, for women than it is for men.

SUMMARY

LICENSURE

gap is much smaller: In 2014, women made up 42% of graduates from accredited programs, and 40% of record applicants, suggesting that female graduates are now almost as likely as their male counterparts to take initial steps toward licensure.12, 13

11

rently almost equally represented in professional architectural programs, they are underrepresented in the workplace. Overall, just 28% of architectural staff in AIA Member-owned firms are women.8 The AIA’s 2014 Firm Profile demonstrates that women are best represented in entry level positions, with reduced representation at each subsequent level of seniority (See fig 1.1). Just 26% of licensed architects other than principals or partners, and 17% of firm principals and partners are women.9


While women make up 15% of the AIA’s licensed membership, 23% of those elevated to the College of Fellows since 2011 have been women.18,19 The AIA writes “Election to Fellowship not only recognizes the achievements of the architect as an individual, but also honors before the public and the profession a model architect who has made a significant contribution to architecture and society on a national level.” 20 While women’s representation is better within this elite group than in the AIA as a whole, men still outnumber women 3 to 1. As long as men 17 Chicako Chang, “Where are the Women?,” http:// www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women 18 American Institute of Architects, AIA Foresight Report 2014, 16. 19 Data extrapolated from AIA Fellowship Award Announcements for the past five years. Announcements accessed via http://www.aia.org/practicing/awards 20 AIA, “Fellowship,” http://www.aia.org/practicing/ awards/AIAS075320

EQUITY BY DESIGN

The history of gender imbalance within the profession is clear. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, for instance, there were twenty male graduates for each female graduate of an architecture program in 1969 (fig 1.3). In the years following, there have been two periods of growth in women’s attainment of architectural degrees. The first was a period of rapid growth extending from at least 1969, when NCES began reporting this data, until about 1990. The second period is characterized by slower growth, and extends from about 1991 until present. According to the AIA, the median age of a Partner or Owner is 53.7, suggesting that today’s cohort of leadership-aged professionals is still influenced by a pipeline that has been historically under supplied with female talent.21 As graduates from the second wave of growth in educational attainment advance in their careers and the male-dominated generation of baby boomers begin to retire over the next decade, 21

AIA, AIA Foresight Report 2014, 17.

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

Women are even less likely to have received professional recognition. Only 5% of Pritzker Prize winners, and 1% of AIA Gold Medal Recipients, have been women.17 Progress is being made in this arena as well, although women are still underrepresented in the highest levels of practice. Over the last 10 years, roughly 10% of these awards have gone to women.

The stark gender imbalance at the highest levels of the profession is at least partially attributable to architecture’s history as a male-dominated field. Given women’s increased rate of entry into the field over the last several decades, one could expect corresponding increases in achievement at the highest levels of the profession as today’s more diverse cohort of emerging professionals advance in their careers.

KNOWLEDGE

RECOGNITION

BACKGROUND

TALENT PIPELINE

SUMMARY

are better represented within this and other similar groups, the “model architect” will continue to be tied to gender norms.

12

their experiences of the licensure process, suggest that licensure is an area in which work can be done to promote equity.


35 30 25 20 15 10

0

1967-68 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-200 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

5

Figure 1.3: Women’s share of architecture degrees granted in the US by year, 1969-2012. Data Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES Digest 2013, Table 325.15.

This information is all promising, and suggests that, women’s increased educational attainment over the last 30 years is beginning to translate into gains in more advanced levels of the profession. There is, however, still work to be done. Women’s gains in educational attainment continue to outpace gains in professional advancement and recognition. The Equity Alliance’s research project aims to build upon this existing knowledge by collecting targeted metrics to measure men’s and women’s career success across a number of rubrics, as well as their attitudes toward various aspects of practice that impact their satisfaction in 22 Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, ACSA Atlas 2015, http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/ acsa-atlas-project 23 ibid, http://www.acsa-arch.org/images/default-source/ data/acsa-atlas-2015-02.jpg?sfvrsn=0 24 AIA, “Facts, Figures, and the Profession,” http://www. aia.org/press/AIAS077761

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

40

KNOWLEDGE

45

BACKGROUND

US ARCHITECTURE DEGREES BY GENDER 50

Lian Chikako Chang’s research and data visualization for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture has utilized a broad range of existing data to shed light upon the talent pipeline leading into the highest levels of practice. 22 Chikako Chang’s impressive work shows that women have made significant gains in educational attainment over the last 30 years, and that even larger gains have been made in terms of NCARB record applications, suggesting that female graduates of architecture programs are much more likely than they were previously to take initial steps toward professional licensure.23 Meanwhile, between 2000 and 2011, women’s representation within the AIA grew from 9% to 17%.24

SUMMARY

we might expect to see corresponding increase in women’s representation amongst firm leadership.

13

TALENT PIPELINE


EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION

14

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

KNOWLEDGE

DISCUSSION

their current positions and within the profession as a whole. This will allow individual practitioners, firm leaders, and policy makers to identify and address pinch points contributing to the profession’s leaky talent pipeline, and establish best practices in order to increase women’s participation in architecture.

ACTION

TALENT PIPELINE


KNOWLEDGE 1

The Equity in Architecture 2014 survey documents the career status, attitudes, and aspirations of 2,289 respondents. The study examines “pinch points� impacting the career progression of women and men alike.

2

Survey results were initially disseminated through infographics and presentations followed by hands-on workshops in an effort to make the data accessible and digestible to a wide audience


EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND

- Alexandra Lange

The survey was designed to compare male and female respondents based upon quantitative criteria such as title, salary, licensure status, and years of work experience. We also sought to measure our respondents’ attitudes towards their current places of work, benefits offered, and challenges related to professional hurdles, or career “pinch points.” Finally, we asked our respondents about their career ambitions and definitions of success in an attempt to learn more about men’s and women’s aspirations for their careers in architecture. Together, these questions provide a rich data set which informs us of current conditions of practice for men and women working in a variety of architectural environments, and of changes to the status quo that may be beneficial in easing the challenges caused by pinch points throughout one’s career trajectory.

SUMMARY

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.

Equity by Design’s Equity in Architecture Research Initiative is a multi-phase project consisting of biannual data collection, followed by analysis, knowledge sharing, and advocacy related to our findings. The ultimate goal of this work is to inform the global discussion on gender in architecture and inspire targeted action to improve equity within the profession. Phase I of the project, a 90 question survey conducted in February and March 2014, explored the workplace participation and career aspirations of 2,289 participants with architectural degrees and/or experience in architectural practice within the United States. While the primary survey respondents consisted of those working in traditional firms, alternate survey tracks were offered for sole practitioners and those who have left architectural practice to pursue alternate career paths.

16

2014 SURVEY


The survey questions were written over the course of 4 months by the Equity by Design Research Team and iteratively vetted with the Mills College Research Team for question bias, ambiguity and survey length. Based upon recommendations from the Mills College Team, the survey was designed to take approximately 15-25 minutes to complete. Beyond the general demographics, the questions were designed with 3 general category pairings in mind: Hiring and Retention, Growth and Professional Development, and Meaning and Influence. The questions were designed to understand topics within these categories that include job satisfaction, engagement, work/ life flexibility, licensure, mentorship, promotion and 1 Evenhouse, E., Hu, R., Reddell, J. (2014) “Summary of Early Findings from the 2014 Equity in Architecture Survey” Equity by Design. http://www.themissing32percent.com

EQUITY BY DESIGN

A pilot version of the survey was sent out to a control group of 15 women and men to test the skip logic functionality and the question/answer logic, as well as biased or ambiguous questions, but those responses were not recorded in the final survey. Questions were modified based on feedback from the pilot.

IMPLEMENTATION The Equity in Architecture 2014 survey was conducted on the internet, and was available to anyone with a link to the Survey Monkey site that hosted it. The survey period commenced on February 18, 2014 and closed on March 24, 2014. Initial invitees consisted of design professionals in mid to large size

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

SURVEY DESIGN

Most questions asked respondents to report facts related to their professional experience (i.e. “Approximately what percentage of architects in your office are women?”) rather than opinions about gender equity (i.e. “Why do you believe women are underrepresented in architecture?” or “What would be most effective in increasing women’s participation in architectural practice?”). Several questions did, however, ask respondents to report attitudes related to their personal experiences in the profession (i.e. “How would you rate your satisfaction with your career?” or “In your personal experience, what are the most effective benefits that firms provide to promote work-life flexibility?”). This survey design generated nearly 600 variables, allowing the team to perform regression analyses to test inter-relationships between data points such as salary and gender or firm size.

BACKGROUND

The research team consisted of a sub-committee of AIA San Francisco’s Equity by Design made up 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. They commissioned a team of researchers from Mills College, who were responsible for vetting the survey questions for statistical accuracy, cleaning and performing the preliminary analysis of the data set. A preliminary research report produced by the Mills College Research Team is referenced throughout this document.1 Ming Thompson of Atelier Cho Thompson provided the infographics that accompany the text of this report.

advancement process, negotiation, leave of absence, definitions of success and reasons for leaving.

SUMMARY

RESEARCH TEAM

17

METHODOLOGY


The key findings generated for this study were generated using Excel and Stata (a statistical analysis program). Initial analysis was provided by the Mills College research team. The methodologies employed in this phase of data analysis are elaborated in the team’s preliminary report of research findings. . As this report notes, the findings related to each individual question are helpful in understanding the range of answers to each question, and highlighting some of the questions that men and women answered

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

After the survey was closed, the data set was downloaded from the Survey Monkey website as an Excel file provided to the Mills College Research Team. Under the supervision of Professor Eirik Evenhouse, PhD, two student researchers, Ruohnan Hu and Jesseca Reddell, undertook the task of cleaning the data, processing it for analysis, and carrying out a variety of regression analyses. The cleaning and processing phase was time-consuming, as many questions did not impose a fixed format on respondents’ answers and because many other questions allowed respondents to choose more than one response. The result, however, is a rich data set, with nearly 600 variables.

The more robust regression analysis that the team provided for key questions, including satisfaction level, licensure rate, wage information, and several others, adjusts for these other factors simultaneously, and is therefore less likely to suggest erroneous correlations between data points. The regression models still cannot, however, demonstrate causality. The observed correlations reported here – their magnitudes and their signs, expected or unexpected – will not answer any questions definitively. But they are likely to prompt discussion and reflection.

BACKGROUND

DATA ANALYSIS

rather differently. Looking at one particular question in isolation, or at a particular pair of questions, can be misleading. Demographic differences between male and female respondents in the survey sample such as age, licensure status, and seniority, are likely to contribute to many of the distinctions between male and female respondents that can be observed in the responses to a single question.

SUMMARY

architectural firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additional respondents accessed the survey by way of a link shared via e-mail invitations to AIA National Leadership and AIA Chapters. The survey link was also disseminated over social media outlets Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Finally, the link was available on the homepage of Equity by Design’s website for the duration of the survey period.

18

METHODOLOGY


10% B.ARCH

37% 44%

BA/BS IN ARCH BA IN RELATED FIELD

Figure 2.2: Age of survey takers

BA IN OTHER FIELD

25%

7% 11%

75+

65-74

MW

7%

8%

27% 16%

42% 37%

YEARS WORKED IN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE EQUITY BY DESIGN

40+

CONCLUSION

55-64

DISCUSSION

ACTION

45-54

35-44 11%

7% 8%

5%

8% 15-20 10% The large majority of respondents—85 percent—are 10-15 11%are employed still practicing architecture, 11 percent in another industry, 5-10 and 4 percent 16% are unemployed. <5 24%

1% 2%

BACKGROUND

20% M.ARCH I/II

7%

YEARS WORKED IN ARCHITECTU

4% 6% 6%

SUMMARY

HIGHER LEVEL DEGREE

30% M.ARCH III

0% 1%

The average age of all survey respondents was 40. A high concentration of female respondents were between 25 and 34 years old, while male respondents’ ages were more evenly distributed. (fig. 2.2). The40+ respondents have an average of 14 years of experience, 35-40 and have been with their current employer for an average of 7 years. Mirroring 30-35 the difference between the median age of male and female respondents, 25-30 the median level of experience for male respondents—10 to 15 years— was greater than that for 20-25 female respondents, who had a median experience level of 5 to 10 years (fig. 2.3).

19

W M

SILENT GEN

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

40% PHD IN ARCH

55-64

BOOMERS

KNOWLEDGE

BY GENDER

45-54

35-44

25-34

18-24

DEGREE RECEIVED

30%

W M

10%

AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS Figure 2.1: Overall number of survey responses by gender GEN X

40% 20%

TOTAL

MILLENIALS

A total of 2,289 respondents participated in the survey, although MILLENIALS not all of them chose to Xcomplete it. GEN BOOMERS The sample consists of 788 men and 1,501 women (Fig. 2.1). This constitutes the largest sample that has completed a survey on issues related to gender or minority equity issues in US architectural practice to date. This phase of the research project represents a grassroots effort. As such, the goal for this phase of the project was to maximize the number of responses in order to raise awareness around issues of equity and the power of data to shape the conversation. The Equity in Architecture Survey sample is not random, and the results of this survey should be viewed in the context of exploration rather than definitive results. Precise percentages are not so important to the interpretation of these results as the general trends, and orders of magnitude. These findings are meant to generate conversation and inform the next phase of research.

25-34

2289

W

AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHICS

18-24

1 200 400 600 66% 34% M744

NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS


15-20 BA IN OTHER FIELD 10-15

16%

5-10

7% 11%

8%

10%

14%

24% ARE YOU A LICENSED ARCHITECT? Figure 2.3: Distribution of experience levels by gender

16%

<5

36%

50%

65%

W

36%

HIGHEST % OF WOMEN

PRINCIPAL 30% 24%DESIGNER/INTERN 20% 11% M

EQUITY BY DESIGN

16% 19% NO 22%

Partner/Principal

20% IN PROCESS Licensed Architect 19% Figure 2.4: Are you a licensed architect? Designer/Intern 24% Sole Practitioner 2% YES

CONCLUSION

CURRENT POSITION

CURRENT POSITION HIGHEST % OF MEN

1

5-10 A third of the respondents are childless, and 39 percent are their <5 household’s primary earner. Among the two-thirds of respondents who supplied salary information, the average salary is $79,000, the 10th percentile salary about $40,000, and the 90th percentile salary about $140,000. Two percent of respondents earn $250,000 or more. Firm size varies widely. Ten percent of respondents work in a firm of 3 to 10 people, a fifth work in 2-person firms, a fifth in firms of 11 to 25 people, a fifth in firms of 26 to 50 people, and nearly fifthMEN in firms of over 100.HIGHEST HIGHEST % aOF Forty-five percent of men and 58 percent of women indicated that they are willing to be contacted for follow-up questioning.

24%

22%

16%

ACTION

8% 10% 11%

27%

8% 10% 11%

4% 6% 6%

Other Leadership Position

4%

38%

PRINCIPAL

KNOWLEDGE

BA20-25 IN RELATED FIELD

4% 6% 6%

11%

2%

DESI

Compared to the population of staff working in AIA member-owned firms, the Equity in Architecture survey sample is younger, more junior,Partner/Principal and much more likely to be female (see fig. 1.1 for comparison). Leadership Position Given that women make up only 28%Other of architectural practitioners working in the US, but made up about Licensed Architect 60% of the Equity in Architecture sample, they are Designer/Intern overrepresented relative to male respondents in this sample by a factor of almost 5:1.1 The Equity in Sole Practitioner Architecture sample also carries a significant geographical bias: while only 14% of those working in US

36%

20% 19% 24%

BACKGROUND

25% 11%

1% 2%

7% 8%

Slightly more 30-35 than half of the respondents are licensed, 364 (22 percent) of them are principals or partners, and 308 hold25-30 other senior positions (figs. 2.4, 2.5). Only 55 respondents are sole practitioners. The 20-25 sample is almost evenly split between respondents whose highest degree is a Bachelor’s degree and 15-20 those with a Master’s degree; a mere 15 respondents 10-15 hold PhDs.

2%

1 American Institute of Architects, Firm Survey Report 2014, 12.

SUMMARY

7% 8%

35-40 B.ARCH 30-35 BA/BS IN ARCH 25-30

5%

7%

20

37% 44%

40+ I/II M.ARCH

7%

35-40

5% 1% DEMOGRAPHICS

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

HIGHER LEVEL DEGREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

M.ARCH III

40+

DISCUSSION

MW M37%42%W

PHD IN ARCH YEARS WORKED IN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE 0% 1%


DEMOGRAPHICS: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2014

36%RESEARCH STATEMENT 20% 19% 24%

16% 19% 22%

Partner/Principal Other Leadership Position

The research portion of the Missing 32% Project was envisioned as an endeavor with multiple stages, starting locally with the Bay Area, then expanding to a national scale, with the ultimate goal of informing the global conversation on the issue of Equity in Architecture. Phase I of the project, a 90-question survey conducted via Survey Monkey in February thru March 2014, explores the workplace participation and career aspirations of 2,289 participants with architectural degrees and experience in architectural practice within the United States. While the primary survey respondents consisted of those working in traditional firms, it was also beneficial to assess sole practitioners and those who have left professional practice to pursue alternate career paths. With this in consideration,

the project aims to understand the current career status and potential hurdles or "pinch points" of design professionals employed at every level of practice. Additionally, the findings will explore what the architectural firms are doing in terms of professional advancement, licensure support, and workplace culture to attract and retain the best talent. A few key questions arise: “What are the key factors that hinder advancement and create pinch points? Why do so few women advance to ownership and senior leadership positions in the largest architecture firms? And what measures could be taken to promote Equity in Architecture as it relates to hiring, retention, professional growth, leadership, meaning and influence?

Licensed Architect

38%

Designer/Intern

2%

4%

Sole Practitioner

Figure 2.5: Current Position

GEOGRAPHY OF SURVEY RESPONSES

In the next phase of the project, clearer identification of the target sample from the outset of the survey, as well as the use of component and other partner organizations’ mailing lists to reach this target sample, would generate a more statistically valid sample that could be used to set benchmarks for measuring future progress toward equitable practice. This initial phase of research, however, met its goal of suggesting patterns of inequality, and sparking conversation and action to address these issues.

SATISFACTION GENDER

M

W

NUMBER OF RECORDS

1 200 400 600 744

W

66% 34%

M

40% 30% 20% 10%

W M

CONCLUSION

75+

SILENT GEN

65-74

55-64

BOOMERS

45-54

GEN X

35-44

25-34

18-24

2289

EQUITY BY DESIGN

AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS MILLENIALS

2 Design Intelligence, “US Architecture Firm Statistics,” http://www.di.net/almanac/stats/firm-statistics-architecture/ 3 ibid. While the average pay for staff working in architectural practices in California is $78, 341, the average salary for the same population nationally is $71,522

Figure 2.6: Geography of survey responses NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Overall, job satisfaction rates amongst our respondents were low -- only 28% of women, and 41% of men, were “satisfied and not looking for new opportunities” (fig. 2.7). While there is a sizeable gender-linked gap, we found that the discrepancy between men’s and women’s satisfaction rates wasn’t directly correlated to gender, but rather to a number of other factors

ACTION

DESIGNER/INTERN

DISCUSSION

PRINCIPAL

Architecture firms are located in California, 44% of the Equity in Architecture sample hails from the Golden State (fig. 2.6).2 Californians earn more, on average, than the national average salary for architecture staff, so it is therefore likely that the salary information in this report is somewhat elevated relative to the average salary for architects and designers nationally.3 It is likely that the experiences of Californians differ from those of practitioners working elsewhere in other important ways, and that the results published in this report are impacted by these dissimilarities.

KNOWLEDGE

HIGHEST % OF WOMEN

21

HIGHEST % OF MEN

BACKGROUND

DEMOGRAPHICS

SUMMARY

CURRENT POSITION


N TO OR OPE SE

N TO OR OPE SE

N TO OR OPE SE

N TO OR OPE SE

KEY FACTORS Figure 2.7: Are you satisfied at IN work?JOB SATISFACTION PARTNER

BELIEVES FIRM HAS

DAY TO DAY WORK ALIGNS WITH

KEY FACTORS IN JOB SATISFACTION OR EFFECTIVE

PRINCIPAL

PARTNER OR

PROMOTION PROCESS

BELIEVES FIRM HAS EFFECTIVE

CAREER GOALS

DAY TO DAY WORK ALIGNS WITH

+30% +25% +23% +30% +25% +23% PRINCIPAL

PROMOTION PROCESS

CAREER GOALS

CAREER PINCH POINTS

CONCLUSION

0 YEARS H

Given women’s lower overall job satisfaction, we were interested in exploring whether there were particular points in women’s careers that posed unique challenges, and, over time, increased the gender gap in representation at the highest levels of practice. If we could focus on addressing these pinch points, we could have a greater, and more targeted, impact on women’s career outcomes.

EARLY CAREER EARLY CAREER

<3 YEARS P

MID CAREER MID CAREER

<7 YEARS P

LATE CAREER

<12 YEARS P

<3 YEARS P

In our analysis of our survey data, we identified five career pinch points (fig. 2.9). The first two, “hiring” and “paying your dues”, occur at set points early in women’s careers. The next three, “licensure”, “working caregivers”, and “glass ceiling”, are related to life and career milestones. The differences between our male and female respondents’ choices, priorities, and experiences at each of these pinch points offer valuable insight into ways in which we, as an architectural community, can promote equity throughout all professionals’ careers.

Figure 2.8: Key factors in job satisfaction

EQUITY CHALLENGES OF WORK-LIFE FLEXIBILITY BY DESIGN

0 YEARS P ACTION

GRADUATION GRADUATION

DISCUSSION

SA T

that had embedded gender differences (fig. 2.8). For instance, principals or partners were 30% more likely to be satisfied in their current job, and men were much more likely than women to be principals or partners. The other two top predictors of job satisfaction were: the belief that one’s firm had an effective promotion process (25% more likely to be satisfied), and the belief that one’s day to day work aligns with long-term career goals (23% more likely to be satisfied).

KNOWLEDGE

41% 41%

S ITIE N TU

M M

BACKGROUND

SA T

<7 YEARS L SUMMARY

IES NIT U T

D FIE IS

W W

NEW OPP NEW OPP OR OR ING ING K E EK

SA T D FIE IS

NEW OPP NEW O O PPO NG I INGR R EK K E

D FIE IS

28% 28%

S ITIE N TU

SA T

D FIE IS

IES NIT U T

LIFE OF HIRING AN ARCHITECT: CAREER & RETENTION

22

ARE YOU SATISFIED AT WORK?


+30% +25% +23% <12 YEARS

>12 YEARS

PAYING DUES

LICENSURE

WORKING PARENTS

GLASS CEILING

Figure 2.9: Life of an Architect: Career Pinch Points

JOIN US AT #EQUITYBYDESIGN 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT

LARGE OFFICE

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

(+ 76 PEOPLE)

$100k

+ $15k

$80k

LEADERSHIP

$120k

POSITION

MW

$40k

25-30

20-25

15-20

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

$20k <3

SALARY

$60k

Figure 2.10: New hires’ salaries (1 year or less in current position)

EQUITY BY DESIGN

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

+ $13k FEMALE

EMPLOYEE

- $15k

While men and women’s reasons for joining a practice were similar, their starting salaries were not. Within the population of respondents who had been with their current firm for a year or less, women made, on average, less than their male counterparts with the same levels of experience (fig. 2.10). A wage gap between new male and female hires was observed at every experience level, including those new to the field. Amongst those new hires who had a year or less of experience in architecture, male respondents made, on average, $6000 more than their female counterparts. These discrepancies between new hires’ salaries are greatest, however, amongst those with 10-25 years of experience. Within that group, the wide salary gap was partially attributable to men’s greater likelihood of joining a large practice (resulting in an average of $15k/year more per year than those in mid-sized firms), and a greater likelihood of being hired into a leadership position (an average increase of $13k/year). Even after adjusting for these and other factors, a $15k/year wage difference between new male hires and new female hires remained. This $15,000 per

ACTION

<7 YEARS

DISCUSSION

<3 YEARS

KNOWLEDGE

0 YEARS

HIRING

GRADUATION EARLY CAREER MID CAREER LATE CAREER RETIREMENT

The first pinch point: “hiring”, relates to men’s and women’s priorities as they seek employment, and to the terms of employment that they negotiate. Amongst our respondents, we found that men’s and women’s top reasons for joining a practice were similar. The top three reasons were the belief that the position offered professional opportunities; the firm’s reputation; and a belief that one’s personal design philosophy or way of working aligned with that of the firm.

BACKGROUND

PINCH POINT 1: HIRING

SUMMARY

HIRING & RETENTION

LIFE OF AN ARCHITECT: CAREER PINCH POINTS

CONCLUSION

KEY FACTORS IN SATISFACTION

23

ARE YOU SATISFIED AT WORK?


MW

PINCH POINT 2: PAYING YOUR DUES

+50% +48% +45%

38%

ITUTE

2%

Primary Spouse is Shared EQUITY Caregiver Primary Duties DESIGN ReducedBYCaregiver Hours

5%

3%

Employ Caregiver

38%

Extended Family Caregiver

School Aged Children

8%

Adult Children

Primary Spouse is Caregiver Primary Reduced Caregiver Hours

Shared Duties

JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE $120k THE MISSING FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM

Employ Extended Caregiver Family Caregiver

School Aged Children

DISCUSSION 10-15

10-15

7-10

40+

35-40

30-35

10-15

10-15

10-15

13% 15%

10-15

5-7

3-5

19% 20%

7-10

13% 17%

22% 25%

<3

We were especially $100kinterested by the gender differences in perceived relevance of day to day work amongst PRINCIPAL DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT PRODUCTION TECHNICAL SUSTAINABLE INTERIOR $80kIN CHARGE PRINCIPAL MANAGER ARCHITECT $80k OF men and women who held specialized roles YEARS outside STAFF LEAD LEAD DESIGNER EXPERIENCE TRADITIONAL PROJECT HIERARCHY SPECIALIZED ROLES of the traditional project hierarchy. Male sustainable $60k $60k leads and interior designers were almost 20% more likely than their female counterparts to report that $40k $40k they found their day-to-day work relevant. We hyFigure 2.12: Believes day to day work is relevant to long-term goals by gender and project role $20k that$20k women who have departed from the PARENTS’ CAREGIVER SITUATION MEAN SALARYpothesize BY CAREGIVER SITUATION Adult Children

BACKGROUND

M W

KNOWLEDGE

MW

80% 70% PrimarySpouse Spouse SharedEmployEmploy Extended Adult Primary is isShared Extended School School Adult 60% CaregiverPrimary Primary DutiesDuties Caregiver Aged Caregiver Caregiver Family Family Aged Children Children 50% Reduced Caregiver Caregiver Reduced Caregiver Caregiver Children Children 40% Hours Hours 30% $120k 20% 10% $100k

29%

5-7

MEAN SALARY BY CAREGIVER

When we analyzed the reported relevance of one’s day-to-day work by project role, we also saw this pattern. Within the traditional project hierarchy, Primary Shared Principals in Charge were mostSpouse likely tois report that Employ Caregiver Primary Duties they believed their day-to-day work was relevant, Caregiver Reduced Caregiver while production staff Hours were least likely to report that $120k they found their day-to-day work relevant (2.12).

SUMMARY

MEAN SALARY BY CAREGIVER CAREGIVER SITUATION SITUATION 90% PARENTS’

3-5

YEARS OF

<3

40+

35-40

30-35

10-15

10-15

10-15

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

<3

PHILOSOPHY

71%

REPUTATION

%

OPPORTUNITIES

%

The second career pinch point, which affects both men 58 and women in the first 3-5 years of their careers, is a 55 period that our research team has called “paying your dues.” As shown previously, one of the top predictors of job satisfaction amongst our respondents was the belief that one’s day-to-day work aligned with longTECHNOLOGY TO FACILITATE WORK discouraging FROM HOME to term career goals. It was therefore see that, amongst those with less than three years PROFESSIONAL FIRM ALIGNED COMP TIME NABLE INTERIOR PRINCIPAL DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT PRODUCTION TECHNICAL SUSTAINABLE INTERIOR of experience, only about 40% of women, and 45% FLEXIBLE START AND END TIMES FOR WORK AD DESIGNER IN CHARGE PRINCIPAL MANAGER ARCHITECT STAFF LEAD LEAD DESIGNER of men, believed that their daily work was relevant to EXPERIENCE ED ROLES TRADITIONAL PROJECT HIERARCHY SPECIALIZED ROLES these goals. These impacts lingered long into one’s career. It wasn’t until after 15 years of experience Figure 2.11: Believes day to day work is relevant to long-term goals by gender and years of experience for men, and 35 years of experience for women, that over half of respondents reported a belief that their BELIEVES DAY-TO-DAY WORK RELEVANT TO LONG-TERM GOALS day-to-day work was relevant. (fig. 2.11)

24

MW

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CONCLUSION

year wage penalty is attributable to FLEXIBILITY gender. TOP RATED BENEFITS FOR WORK-LIFE

KEY REASONS FOR JOINING PRACTICE

ACTION

HIRING AND RETENTION: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2014

HIRING & RETENTION RM GOALS BELIEVES DAY-TO-DAY WORK RELEVANT TO LONG-TERM GOALS

TH


Very

20%

Effective

10%

Somewhat Not

40%

MW 25

20

15

10

5

20%

YEARS SINCE

LAST DEGREE

JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM BY DESIGN

65%

Co-Worker

CONCLUSION

Principal Relationships

KNOWLEDGE

W

NOT PU

60%

Following the “paying your dues” pinch point, the next major career hurdle is achieving licensure. Early in their careers, our male respondents were slightly more likely than their female counterparts to be IN G P licensed Architects.NAmongst those with more than 16 years since their last degree, this relationship flipped, with women slightly more likely than men to have achieved licensure (fig. 2.14). This suggests that a woman is more likely to exit the profession if she hasn’t achieved licensure within the first 16 years of architectural practice; leaving a higher concentration of licensed female professionals in the field at higher levels of experience. Licensure, therefore, may be further studied as a predictor of a woman’s persistence and likelihood to advance in the profession. Future longitudinal study in this area would be necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

S CES RO

PERCENTAGE LICENSED

80%

EQUITY INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

EXTR

IF NOT LICENSED, ARE YOU PURS

PINCH POINT 3: LICENSURE

100%

Figure 2.14: Licensure rate by years since last degree

36% 82% 35% 30% 37% 55% 43% 70% 65% 56% 54

BACKGROUND

LICENSURE RATE Figure 2.13: When do people leave architecture?

While our respondents with less than five years of experience in the profession were amongst those who believed that their work was least relevant to their long-term goals, our research team also found that these first five years in practice were a critical period for establishing long-term commitment to the NOT EFFECTIVE PROCESS profession. Amongst our respondents who had left architectural practice for another field, or to take on the role of caregiver, over half had left before obtaining 5 years of experience in the field (fig. 2.13).

ACTION

Extremely

SUMMARY

30%

EFFECTIVE + < EFFECTIVE

THE M 32% P

25

40%

MW

NOT PUR SU I

50%

DISCUSSION

EFFECTIVE + < EFFECTIVE

HIRING & RETENTION

traditional project hierarchy for a more specialized role may feel differently about these roles than their male counterparts. Anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that women can feel typecast in these roles.

70% 60%

Client Relationships

80%

Unwritten Criteria

90%

Written Criteria

Performance Reviews

100%


MW

CONCLUSION

-TERM GOALS

HIRING RETENTION SITUA MEAN SALARY BY&CAREGIVER

PARENTS’ CAREGIVER SITUATION

PINCH POINT 4: FLEXIBILITY

Primary Shared Employis Extended The next major careerSpouse pinchispoint in our study Caregiver Primary Duties Caregiver Family attributed toReduced “workingCaregiver caregivers” and impacts both Caregiver genders. Amongst Hours those with more than 10-12 $120k years of experience in the profession, more than half $100k of our respondents were parents/caregivers. Men’s and women’s experiences of care giving were, $80kquite different (fig. 2.15). Mothers were however, 7 times more likely than fathers to report working SUSTAINABLE INTERIOR $60k a reduced schedule to accommodate primary care LEAD DESIGNER EXPERIENCE giving$40k responsibilities. Meanwhile, men were more CIALIZED ROLES likely than women to report that their spouse was $20k caregiver, or that they shared care giving a primary responsibilities equally. We were also interested to see that female caregivers were almost twice as likely as their male counterparts to employ a part-time or Figure 2.15: Parents’ care giving situation MEAN SALARY BY CAREGIVER SITUATION full-time caregiver. These differences in mothers’ and JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE fathers’ care giving arrangements had real economicTHE MISSIN FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM 32% PROJE impacts upon our respondents. Primary Spouse is Shared Employ Extended School Adult

$120k

Reduced Hours

Caregiver

Family Caregiver

Aged Children

$100k $80k $60k $40k $20k

Figure 2.16: Average salary by care giving situation

T INSTITUTE

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT EQUITY BY DESIGN

ACTION

13%YEARS15%OF

Children

DISCUSSION

40+

35-40

30-35

22% 25%

When compared the average earnings of mothers and fathers by care giving situation, we saw that, regardless of situation, fathers’ average salaries exceeded those of mothers (2.16). Perhaps most interestingly, some of the largest wage gaps between men and women were for those with school-aged children who no longer needed full-time care and those with adult children who had left home. This suggests that the economic impacts of care giving persist in women’s careers long after their children no longer need full time care. Regardless of whether or not respondents were parents or caregivers, many of our respondents reported that the challenges of work-life flexibility had made an impact on their decisions with respect

KNOWLEDGE

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER THOMPSON Caregiver PrimaryCHO Duties Caregiver

Adult Children

BACKGROUND

3%

8%

School Aged Children

SUMMARY

5%

10-15

10-15

19% 20%

10-15

38%

Extended Family Caregiver

26

2%

<3

13% 17%

Employ Caregiver

10-15

29% 5-7

M W

Shared Duties

7-10

Spouse is Primary Caregiver

3-5

Primary Caregiver Reduced Hours


22%

E SURVEY 2014 6% 9% TURNED DOWN PROMOTION

TURNED DOWN PROJECT

TURNED DOWN TRAVEL

MW

LEFT A POSITION/ FIRM

TOP RATED BENEFITS FOR WORK-LIFE FLEXIBILITY Figure 2.17: Challenges of work-life flexibility

PINCH POINT 5: GLASS CEILING

58

%

55

% 71% TECHNOLOGY TO FACILITATE WORK FROM HOME COMP TIME FLEXIBLE START AND END TIMES FOR WORK Figure 2.18: Top rated benefits for work-life flexibility

TERM GOALS EQUITY BY DESIGN

Our survey results also indicated actionable ways in which firms could help employees with the pinch point of care giving by defining strategies for work-life flexibility (fig. 2.18). When asked which firm-provided benefits would best facilitate work-life flexibility, respondents cited “flexible start and end times for work”, “comp time”, and “technology to facilitate work from home” as the most effective benefits. It’s important to note that our respondents didn’t ask to work less, but instead wanted flexibility in terms of where and when they worked.

Over time, we hypothesize that the cumulative impacts of the first four pinch points and factors of implicit bias all contributed to a glass ceiling in architecture, with men much more likely than their female counterparts to be principals or partners in firms (fig. 2.19). Amongst our respondents, men and women in the first 12 years of their careers were equally likely, but had an overall low probability, of being a firm principal or partner. Amongst men with 12 or more years of experience, however, each additional year of experience was correlated with a significantly greater probability of being a partner or principal. Women, too, were more likely to be a

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

23%

KNOWLEDGE

20%

30%

BACKGROUND

32%

36%

SUMMARY

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

to employment or turning down professional opportunities (fig. 2.17). The most commonly cited impact of challenges of work-life flexibility was turning down travel opportunities. We were also interested to see that almost 10% of our female respondents had turned down a promotion due to challenges of work-life flexibility.

27

HIRING & RETENTION


W

PRINCIPAL START When our children were young, my wife and I both continued OWN FIRM 40+

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

15-20

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

to work and utilized a daycare that was equidistant for our jobs, shared pick up/drop off responsibilities based onYEARS OF EXPERIENCE our day to day schedules and assumed equal parenting roles and responsibilities.

KEY SALARY FACTORS EQUITY BY DESIGN

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

SUMMARY

Figure 2.19: Likelihood of being a principal or partner by gender and years of experience

40+

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

15-20

CE

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

<3

OF

MW

28

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

BACKGROUND

KNOWLEDGE

-Male Respondent, 45-54

CONCLUSION

START

OWN FIRM - Female Respondent, 35-44

principal or partner with each year of experience, but the year-over-year rate of increase in probability was much lower for them than it was for men. The result is that while, amongst those early in their careers, men and women achieved the highest positions in firms at roughly equal rates, amongst those with 40 or more years of experience, men were more than 20% more likely than their female counterparts to be principals or partners.

ACTION

M

DISCUSSION

HIRING & RETENTION

My spouse and I share, but not equal. I tend to take more PRINCIPAL reduced hours to support care giving in our household.

<3

” ”

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

PRINCIPAL

W

HIGHEST POSITION ASPIRING TO HOLD IN CAREER


KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND 25-30

SUMMARY

20-25

15-20

10-15

35-40

ACTION 30-35 DISCUSSION

25-30

20-25

15-20

10-15

7-10

KEY SALARY FACTORS

29

AVERAGE EQUITY SALARY BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BY DESIGN

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

5-7

40+

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

15-20

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

<3

MW

We’ve already seen that, amongst those respondents with more than 12 years of experience, males were more likely than their female peers to hold a principal or partner position within a firm. While a clear trend showed90% that women late in their careers were less likely to 80% hold the executive positions in firms, our research also showed that women in the first 70% 12 years of their careers were slightly more likely 60% than their male counterparts to hold firm leadership positions (fig.50% 2.20). “Firm leadership” was defined 40% of this survey as: principal or partfor the purposes 30% ner, sole practitioner, associate, or senior associate. Because our 20% study was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, it is impossible to predict whether this 10% gender-balanced cohort of young leaders will advance equitably into partner positions over time, leading to increased female representation at the highest levels of practice. Similarly, it is impossible to know whether the leadership distribution that existed during the more advanced cohort’s early years in 3-5

WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

Figure 2.20: Likelihood of being a firm leader by gender and years of experience

7-10

PROMOTION & ADVANCEMENT

-Male Respondent, 35-44

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

5-7

<3

CREASE E IN OM

Performance criteria is not necessarily communicated clearly; rather it is an implied set of expectations.

3-5

INCREASE NO

that their firm lacked transparent pathways to promotion. Our research also highlighted ways in which some respondents’ firms were cultivating talent and promoting their employees’ career growth.

SO

S

41% 32% - Female Respondent, 46% 32% 55-64 27% 22% REASE NC EI M

NO INCREAS

M

AL GO ET

AL GO ET

MEN

W

<3

The gender line is a source of confusion. Yes it is relevant in that I think that subtly women are not I’m not sure WOMEN considered suitable for advancement. M M they [firm leaders]E are even aware of the bias.

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT

90% 80% In the Growth & Development knowledge area, our 70%results provides insights into how male and survey female 60%respondents viewed the issues of licensure, career 50%development, and advancement. Our team found 40%that both genders’ experiences in each of these areas differed, with female respondents less 30% likely to hold a senior position in a firm, less likely to 20% command a higher salary, and more likely to believe 10%

PRINCIPAL

NEGOTIATED THEIR SALARIES AFTER RECEIVING UNSATISFACTORY OFFER

+34% ”+29%

AMONG THOSE WHO NEGOTIATED

CONCLUSION

HIGHEST POSITION ASPIRING TO HO

HAVE YOU NEGOTIATED A SALARY OFFER?


OPINIONS OF PROMOTION PROCESS

Effective

10%

Somewhat Not

TOP CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION Licensure

Gender

Co-Worker Relationships

100%

Principal Relationships

LICENSURE RATE

Client Relationships

Unwritten Criteria

Written Criteria

Performance Reviews

Figure 2.21: Respondents opinions of their firms’ promotion process

PERCENTAGE LICENSED

36% 82% 35% 30% 37% 55% 43% 70% 65% 56% 54% 56% 44% 22% 38% 49%

MW

EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE PROCESS

25

20

15

10

Figure 2.22: Top criteria for promotion in firms in firms with processes rated “not effective” and “extremely effective”

5

YEARS SINCE

LAST DEGREE

IF NOT LICENSED, ARE YOU PURSUING LICENSURE EQUITY BY DESIGN

Co-Worker

ACTION

Principal Relationships

Given that our female respondents were less likely than their male respondents to have been promoted to leadership positions, and given their lower probability of finding their firm’s promotion process to be effective, our research team was interested in determining whether particular practices or criteria were correlated with perceptions of an effective promotion process. To do so, our team compared those who believed their firms’ promotion IN processes were G P N those who believed “highly effective” with their process was “ineffective”, observing the criteria deemed by each group to be very or extremely important to the promotion process (fig 2.22). In those firms where the promotion process was rated as highly effective, people were far more likely to say that the employee reviews were very or extremely important criteria in determining promotion. Meanwhile, only 36% of those in offices with ineffective promotion

JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM

65%

S CES RO

60%

20% NOT EFFECTIVE PROCESS

36% 82% 35% 30% 37% 55% 43% 70% 65% 56% 54

EXTR

IF NOT LICENSED, ARE YOU PURS

80%

40%

DISCUSSION

20%

KNOWLEDGE

Extremely TIME OFF FOR EXAMS OR STUDYVery

W

NOT PU

SALARY RAISE UPON LICENSURE

BACKGROUND

EFFECTIVE + < EFFECTIVE

40% REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXAMS UPON LICENSURE 30%

While we couldn’t compare male and female respondents’ trajectories through the promotion process, we could compare their opinions of their firms’ promotion practices (fig. 2.21). Our data shows that our female respondents were less likely than our male respondents to find their firms’ promotion processes effective: 38% of men find the promotion process to be not,EFFECTIVE or only somewhat effective, while NOT PROCESS 54% of women find the promotion process less than effective.

SUMMARY

50%

MW

30

EFFECTIVE + < EFFECTIVE

60%

Written Criteria

52%

Client Relationships

70%

Unwritten Criteria

80%

the profession. It’s possible that the greater likelihood of emerging professional female respondents holding lower level leadership positions, coupled with the lower likelihood of more advanced female respondents holding senior positions, is indicative of a glass ceiling within the profession.

NOT PUR SU I

90%

TOP CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT Performance Reviews

70%

100%

CONCLUSION

TOP-RATED BENEFITS FOR LICENSURE

THE M 32% P


EXPERIENCE

IF NOT LICENSED, ARE YOU PURSUING LICENSURE Figure 2.23: What’s the highest position you hope to hold in your career?

73%

P

40+

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT

35-40

30-35

20-25

15-20

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

<3

EQUITY BY DESIGN

IN

M

MW

Figure 2.24: If unlicensed, are you in the process of becoming licensed?

NSTITUTE

ING SU

25-30

NOT PUR SU I

PRINCIPAL

W

S CES RO

65%

S CES RO

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

P

NOT PU R

IN

NG

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

CAREER ASPIRATIONS But the survey results also point to another dynamic -- the fundamental differences between our male and female respondents’ reported career aspirations. Across every level of experience, male respondents were more likely than their female counterparts to report that their highest career aspiration was to be a principal in a firm or to start their own firm (fig. 2.23). Further study on why these differences in reported career aspirations might exist, and how they impact men’s and women’s career trajectories, would lend much to the study of women’s under representation at the highest levels of the profession.

LICENSURE Parallel to our observations about our female respondents’ lower reported career aspirations, we found that unlicensed female respondents were less likely than unlicensed male respondents to be advancing their careers by pursuing licensure (fig. 2.24). Because an architectural license is necessary to practice as a sole practitioner or to hold a principal or partner position in most jurisdictions in the United States,

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

YEARS OF

40+

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

15-20

EXTREMELY EFFECTIVESTART PROCESS OWN FIRM

10-15

7-10

5-7

3-5

<3

36% 82% 35% 30% 37% 55% 43% 70% 65% 56% 54% 56% 44% 22%W PRINCIPAL 38% 49%

KNOWLEDGE

PRINCIPAL START OWN FIRM

BACKGROUND

M

processes rated performance reviews as being very or extremely important to the promotion process. In fact, in those firms where the promotion process was believed to be ineffective, principal relationships were perceived as the most important criteria for promotion. This begs further study on the impact of perceived In-group favoritism as a factor of ineffective promotion processes.

SUMMARY

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%NOT EFFECTIVE PROCESS 10%

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT

31

Licensure

Gender

Co-Worker Relationships

Principal Relationships

Client Relationships

Unwritten Criteria

Written Criteria

Performance Reviews

HIGHEST POSITION ASPIRING TO HOLD IN CAREER


70%

100% 90% 80%

52%

70% 60% 50% REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXAMS 40% UPON LICENSURE 30%

EFFECTIVE + < EFFECTIVE

EFFECTIVE + SALARY RAISE UPON EXAMS < EFFECTIVETIME OFF FORExtremely

MW

LICENSURE

OR STUDY

Very Effective

Figure20% 2.26: Top rated benefits for licensure

Somewhat

10%

Not

ure

der

rker hips

ipal hips

lient hips

tten eria

tten eria

BY DESIGN nce ews

ACTION DISCUSSION

TOP CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION

While female respondents made less money on average, they were also slightly more likely to have negotiated their salaries. Overall, however, salary

36% 82% 35% 30% 37% 55% 43% 70% 65% 56% 54 NOT EFFECTIVE PROCESS

EXTRE

32

TOP CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION EQUITY

Finally, our survey compared men’s and women’s earnings, as well as their perceptions and behaviors surrounding salary negotiation. On average, female practitioners earned less than men, with an unadjusted salary gap of $21,000 between our male and female respondents. Women made less money, on average, than their male counterparts at all levels of experience (fig. 2.27). Of that differential, $17,000 can be attributed to having fewer years of experience, being less likely to be principals or partners, or to hold another leadership position, being more likely to work in a firm of 3 to 10 people, and less likely to work in an office of 75 or more people, being less likely to be licensed, and working slightly fewer hours per week. Each of these factors has a price tag associated with it (fig. 2.28).

Co-Worker

OPINIONS OF PROMOTION PROCESS

WAGE GAP

SALARY RAISE UPON LICENSURE

KNOWLEDGE

TOP-RATED BENEFITS FOR LICENSURE Figure 2.25: Greatest obstacles toward licensure

REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXAMS UPON LICENSURE

BACKGROUND

HIGH COST OF EXAMS

SUMMARY

LONG HOURS

Principal Relationships

LACK OF INCENTIVES FOR LICENSURE

CTURE SURVEY 2014

70%

Client Relationships

35%

Amongst our respondents, the top-cited obstacles to licensure were long hours, lack of incentives, family or caregiver obligations and a lack of a clear value proposition beyond legal necessity (fig. 2.25). Respondents shared that their firms offered incentives for licensure, with the most popular being reimbursement for the cost of exams, ensuring salary increases, and providing time off for study (fig. 2.26).

Unwritten Criteria

43%

obtaining an architectural license is an important prerequisite to firm leadership. Addressing perceived obstacles to licensure, then, may increase the pool of female practitioners eligible for promotion.

Written Criteria

56%

GROWTH &BENEFITS DEVELOPMENT TOP-RATED FOR LICEN

Performance Reviews

GREATEST OBSTACLES TO LICENSURE

CONCLUSION

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2014


YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

KEY SALARY FACTORS

Figure 2.27: Average salary by years experience

JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM

+ + + + $26k $8k $8k $7k $35k

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

POSITION

(+76 PEOPLE)

Figure 2.28: Factors contributing to the wage gap RT INSTITUTE

EQUITY BY DESIGN

LICENSED

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT

SMALL OFFICE

CONCLUSION

ACTION

LEADERSHIP LARGE OFFICE POSITION

(+76 PEOPLE)

L

THE M 32% P

(3-10 PEOPLE)

SUMMARY

LEADERSHIP LARGE OFFICE

PRINCIPAL

OR PARTNER

33

PRINCIPAL

OR PARTNER

+ + + $26k $8k $8k $ DISCUSSION

40+

35+

MW

negotiation was fairly uncommon: only 34% of women, and 29% of men reported having negotiated their salary in the past. Amongst those who had negotiated their salaries, the men and women experienced similar rates of self-reported success. Between those who had not negotiated in the past, and those who had negotiated successfully, we saw that successful negotiators of both genders made more money on average than their non-negotiating counterparts.

KNOWLEDGE

35-40

30-35

30-35

25-30

25-30

20-25

20-25

15-20

15-20

10-15

10-15

7-10

7-10

5-7

5-7

3-5

<3

$20k

KEY SALARY FACTORS GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT

BACKGROUND

PRINCIPAL

$40k

3-5

NCE

MW <3

S OF

90% 80% 70% $120k 60% $100k 50% 40% $80k 30% $60k 20% 10%

SALARY

W

AVERAGE SALARY BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE


FLEXIBILITY

WORKING IN ARCH. FIRMS

39% 34% 40%

Working with an A-Team Working on significant projects Work/life flexibility

SOLE PRACTITIONERS

45% 30%

9% 18%

46%

26% 73%

OUTSIDE OF ARCHITECTURE

40% 30% 53%

42% 85%

46% 38% 54%

Social impact Recognition by community

RE SURVEY 2014 Professional development Positive project outcomes Job title status Meeting professional goals

CURRENT VS DESIRED EXPERIENCE MEN

WOMEN

MEN

WOMEN

MEN

Figure 2.29: Definitions10/18/14 of success JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE URE SURVEY 2014 FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM

M

INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON

CURRENT ROLE

DESIRED ROLE CURRENT VS DESIRED EXPERIENCE 60% 50%

M

60% 40%

CURRENT ROLE DESIRED ROLE

W

W

WOMEN

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT

CURRENT ROLE DESIRED ROLE

CURRENT ROLE DESIRED ROLE

50%

30%

40%

20% 30% 20% 10%

DEFINING SUCCESS We asked each of our survey populations—people working in architecture firms, sole practitioners, and people who have left the field of architecture — “How do you define success in your career?”, and discovered that key attributes of respondents definitions of success were similar, regardless of current career path (fig. 2.29). Across each of these populations, men and women alike cited “working with the talented and collaborative A-team”, “working on projects of personal and professional significance”, and “the ability to achieve work-life flexibility” as important attributes of career success. Our team was interested to note that, even though attributes more commonly associated with success like independence or autonomy, job title, and commanding a high salary were offered as potential responses to this question, respondents gravitated towards more qualitative and holistic definitions of success.

CURRENT VS. DESIRED EXPERIENCE

10%

Production

Production

Design Lead

Design Lead

Design Studies

Figure 2.30: Current vs. Desired experience

EQUITY BY DESIGN

Design

Construction Studies Documents

Construction Firm Documents Management

Firm Management

Amongst the population that was still practicing architecture, we explored the relationship between our respondents’ current job responsibilities, and their desired experience (fig. 2.30). We observed differences both between men’s and women’s current job

CONCLUSION

SIGNIFICANCE

ACTION

A-TEAM

DISCUSSION

WORK / LIFE

KNOWLEDGE

WORKING ON PROJECTS OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL

BACKGROUND

WORKING WITH A POSITIVE, TALENTED, COLLABORATIVE

The final portion of our research, Meaning and Influence, focused on respondents’ definitions of success and satisfaction, and the ways in which their careers in architecture were facilitating or hindering progress towards those goals.

SUMMARY

MEANING & INFLUENCE

KEY ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS

34

HOW DO YOU DEFINE SUCCESS?


I actually think that I have always wanted to start my own company. But, I felt the NEED to do it when I became MEANING ANDand INFLUENCE: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2014 a mother was working ridiculous hours for ZERO overtime pay or comp time.

SOLE PRACTITIONERS

39%

9%

WORK/LIFE

FLEXIBILITY

42% 36% NO OPPORTUNITIES FOR

ADVANCEMENT

45%

32% W M DESIGN

AUTONOMY

Figure 2.31: Sole practitioners’ top reasons for leaving their last firm to start their own practice

HOWEQUITY DO YOU DEFINE SUCCESS? BY DESIGN

KEY ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS

M

CONCLUSION ACTION KNOWLEDGE

CURRENT VS DESIRED EXPERIEN

With such a disconnect between current and desiredCURRENT R DESIRED RO experience, 60%and relatively low levels of job satisfaction amongst our population currently practicing architecture 50% within firms, we were interested in exploring the motivations of the small cohort of respondents 40% who had left an architecture firm, either to start their own practice, 30% or to begin a career in another field. Amongst sole practitioners in our sample, male and female 20% respondents’ reported reasons for leaving to start their own practice differed (fig. 2.31). While 10% both men and women cited leaving due to a lack of opportunity for advancement in their last position (42% of women Production vs. 36% of men),Design women were more Lead Design Studies likely to also cite a desire for increased work-life flexibility (39% of women vs. 9% of men), while men were more likely to cite a desire for design autonomy (45% of men vs. 32% of women). BACKGROUND

TOP REASONS TO START YOUR PRACTICE - Female SoleOWN Practitioner, 25-34

SUMMARY

- Female Sole Practitioner, 35-44

responsibilities, and between a respondent’s current and desired responsibilities. Our male respondents were more likely to perform firm management or design leadership roles, while our female respondents were more likely to perform production and construction document roles. It’s interesting to note the discrepancy between the most commonly performed roles and the most commonly desired roles – while the bulk of our respondents were responsible for design studies and production, very few desired these roles, opting instead for firm and design leadership roles. This provokes questions about what makes leadership so desirable, and whether leadership could be redefined so that there are more leaders at every level of practice.

35

” ”

Independence is the greatest achievement. If you care about having a life as human being outside of work you can be flexible in your own terms. The challenges is to keep moving even if things look like they are not working out.

DISCUSSION

MEANING & INFLUENCE


I will always be an architect, but my peers working in traditional firms do not always agree. I often have to defend my choice to leave practice.

- Female respondent, 35-44 MEANING AND INFLUENCE: EQUITY IN ARCHITECTURE SURVEY 2014

LEAVES OF ABSENCE

Long Hours

No Opportunity, Promotion

Lack of Role Models

21% 23% Unprofessional Behavior, Bullying

Figure 2.32: Top reasons for leaving architecture for another field

WHERE DO WOMEN GO AFTER LEAVING ARCH? EQUITY BY DESIGN

10-15 A large percentage of respondents, however, indicated 7-10 leaves of absence of one month to one having taken year. In 5-7 every age group, women were more likely than men 3-5 to have taken a leave. While Millennials of either gender were unlikely to have taken leaves, <3 those in Generation X and older were much more likely to have taken a leave – and incidentally, were much more likely to be parents (fig. 2.33).

KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND

MW

We were interested in examining those who had left architecture and then returned to the profession. A statistically >40 insignificant number of our respondents – male or female – had taken leaves of absence of 35-40 one or more years, so we were unable to use this data set30-35 to draw conclusions about the career out25-30 comes and perspectives of those who have spent a 20-25 long period of time away from the profession before returning to it. 15-20

SUMMARY

Low Pay

32% 26%

WHEN DO PEOPLE LEAVE ARCHITECTU

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

WHY DO PEOPLE LEAVE ARCHITECTURE?

49% 48% 44% 37% 38% 36%

CONCLUSION

Amongst those who had left the field of architecture to begin alternate careers, we observed yet another set of motivations. Both genders reported leaving due to low pay, long hours, and few opportunities for promotion (fig. 2.32). Those who had left architecture were pursuing careers ranging from set design to medicine. Many of these respondents had chosen to enter an allied field. Amongst female respondents who had left architecture for another career, the most common fields were: education (25%), construction (15%), real estate (14%), administrative (13%) and marketing (10%).

ACTION

- Male respondent, 25-34

ALTERNATIVE CAREER PATHS

DISCUSSION

Yes, I do consider myself an architect. Other architects frequently talk about envying my lifestyle, etc. I still admire their willingness to endure the process of getting licensed; I don’t have that in me.

REASONS FOR TAKING LEAVE OF ABSE 36

” ”

MEANING & INFLUENCE


MW

>40

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

35-40

70% 30-35 25-30 60% 20-25

50%

15-20

40% 10-15

MEANING & INFLUENCE PERCEIVED V. ACTUAL IMPACT OF Childbirth and related care giving was cited as the most common factor noted for taking leave as 69% of women compared to 54% of men respondents (fig. 2.34). It60% was also noted that women who took leaves were less likely to do so for non-medical sabbatical 50% men taking a leave were more likely to leave while cite sabbatical or medical reasons. 40%

W

TOOK LE NO LEAV

ACTION

TAKEN A LEAVE OF ABSENCE

CONCLUSION

WHEN DO PEOPLE LEAVE ARCHITECTURE?

While women were more likely than men to have 30% taken a leave of absence, we examined whether those 20% who had taken leaves of absence believed that time 3-5 20% away from the profession had negatively impacted <3 10% 10% We asked those who had taken a leave their careers. of absence to document the impacts of their leave Perceived Lack Meanwhile, Delay of weReduced on career goals (fig. 2.35). asked Rate of Le of Commitment Advancement/ Compensation those who had never taken a leave to anticipate the to Career Promotion O impact the impact that taking a leave would have on Figure 2.33: Percentage of respondents who have taken leave ofOF absence by age REASONS FOR TAKING LEAVE ABSENCE careers goals. Women had taken leaves were more likely than men who had taken leaves to state that JOIN US AT #EQUITYXDESIGN14 10/18/14 AT THE SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE THE M they had experienced negative career impacts as a FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT THEMISSING32PERCENT.COM 32% PR result of taking a leave including a perceived lack of commitment to their careers, delayed advancement, INFOGRAPHICS BY ATELIER CHO THOMPSON reduced compensation, less desirable project opportunities and limited project roles. 7-10

30%

65+

14%

16%

11%

21%

15%

FAMILY

OTHER

28%

54%

24%

MEDICAL

CHILDBIRTH

PERSONAL

Figure 2.34: Actual vs. Perceived impacts of taking a leave

PERCEIVED V. ACTUAL IMPACT OF TAKING LEAVE EQUITY BY DESIGN 60%

W

TOOK LEAVE NO LEAVE

M

TOOK LEAVE NO LEAVE

In parallel, women who had never taken a leave were more likely than their male counterparts to anticipate each of these career setbacks should they choose to take a leave in the future. Amongst those who had never taken a leave, women were particularly likely to anticipate that others would perceive that they lacked commitment to their careers, that there would be delays in their promotion, and that limited project roles would be available to them as a result of their leaves of absence. Amongst men and women alike, those who had never taken a leave were more likely

SUMMARY

69%

BACKGROUND

KNOWLEDGE

55-64

45-54

35-44

AGE

37

19%

25-34

18-24

W M

DISCUSSION

MW

5-7


W

M

TOOK LEAVE NO LEAVE

than those who had taken leaves to anticipate that a leave would negatively impact their career. This suggests that those who never have taken a leave may over anticipate a leaveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disruption of their careers.

ACTION

60%

TOOK LEAVE NO LEAVE

MEANING & INFLUENCE

CONCLUSION

PERCEIVED V. ACTUAL IMPACT OF TAKING LEAVE

50% 40%

10% Perceived Lack Delay of Reduced Rate of Less Desirable of Commitment Advancement/ Compensation Project to Career Promotion Opportunities Figure 2.35: Actual vs. Perceived impacts of taking a leave

INSTITUTE

EQUITY BY DESIGN

38

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

THE MISSING 32% PROJECT

Limited Project Roles

KNOWLEDGE

20%

DISCUSSION

30%


DISCUSSION 1

The 2014 Equity by Design Symposium introduced 250 participants to the Equity in Architecture survey results in three major panel sessions: Hiring & Retention, Growth & Development, and Meaning & Influence

2

Following each panel session, symposium participants engaged in smaller interactive break-out sessions on topics highlighted in the survey findings; each with the goal of devising actionable initiatives to overcome career pinch points.


EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION

40

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The structure of the day was designed to strike a cadence between knowledge sharing, followed by deep dive discussions, with the end goal of inspiring action. Mirroring the structure of the Equity in Architecture Survey, the day was divided into three major content areas: Hiring & Retention, Growth & Development, and Meaning & Influence. Each of these content areas began with a knowledge session in which Results of the Equity in Architecture survey were presented in a panel discussion. Following each knowledge panel, were 3 interactive break-out sessions with deeper discussions in each area. Through active discussion and engagement of open design thinking exercises, participants generated creative solutions to the relevant practice issues confronting architects, emerging professionals, and firm leadership.

DISCUSSION

On Saturday, October 18th, AIA San Francisco and Equity by Design presented its 3rd sold-out symposium, Equity by Design: Knowledge, Discussion, Action! The day was designed to combine data sharing and learning-by-doing, while experiencing the studio-like environment of the San Francisco Art Institute, one of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s richest architectural assets.

KNOWLEDGE

EQxD SYMPOSIUM


The following break-out sessions were offered as a part of this programming: HR 1. Finding the Right Fit: Effective Strategies for a Targeted Job/Candidate Search. HR 2. (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction: Workplace Innovations to Attract, Develop and Keep Talent.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION

41

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

HR 3. What’s Flex Got to do with it? Win-Win Strategies for Work/Life Flexibility

DISCUSSION

While nearly half of today’s graduates from architecture programs are women, they make up only 26% of practitioners, and 17% of partners or principals in architecture firms. In the Hiring & Retention Knowledge Session, we examined survey results on the initial employment and retention of architectural professionals as it relates to gender equity. We highlighted “pinch points” around major career and life milestones at which women are more likely to leave a firm. Together, we discussed, designed, and proposed best practices for individual practitioners, firms, and policy makers to implement actionable change.

KNOWLEDGE

HIRING & RETENTION


The following break-out sessions were offered as a part of this programming: GD1: Innovating Licensure: Creating a new Value Proposition for Architects GD2. Collaborative Negotiation is your Power Tool!

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION

42

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

GD3. How to solve the Confidence Conundrum? Change your View, then Change the World.

DISCUSSION

Licensed or not, principals or not, women are more likely than men to rate their firmsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; promotion practices as ineffective at advancing talent, and substantially more likely to believe that gender plays a role in promotion decisions. In the Growth and Development Knowledge Session, survey results provided insight on how women and men view the key challenges and issues for emerging professionals and firm leadership face today: The need to cultivate innovation and leadership, provide meaningful project assignments, professional development opportunities, and foster transparency in performance reviews, promotion and compensation practices.

KNOWLEDGE

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT


The following break-out sessions were offered as a part of this programming: MI 1. Entrepreneurship: Lessons Learned when Starting your Own Practice MI 2. Architecture and... (Expanding Influence by way of Multidisciplinary Practice)

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION

43

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

MI 3. Welcome Back! Recapturing the Missing 32%

DISCUSSION

In the Meaning and Influence Knowledge Session, we explored the opportune juncture we have in the architectural profession; the moment to be an agent of positive change. With the potential of digital revolution and changing values and viewpoints, it is our chance to evaluate traditional models of practice with new ideas that promote and elevate the Value of Design; partnerships with clients, integrated delivery with multidisciplinary teams, recapturing talent with diverse skills and increased engagement in the workplace. Re-designing Architectural practice to be inspiring, stimulating and gratifying is the best way to increase job satisfaction, prevent additional loss of talent, and support generational renewal.

KNOWLEDGE

MEANING & INFLUENCE


ACTION! 1

Following the sold out 2014 Equity by Design Symposium, Equity by Design has begun a number of programs to educate, inspire, and align with local design communities across the US and internationally

2

One of Equity by Design’s “Action!” initiatives is the Equity in Architecture 15-1 Resolution, which will be debated at the 2015 AIA National Convention in Atlanta


INSPIRE In addition to the group’s real-world programming, Equity by Design has an active blog and social media presence. INSPIRE% is an initiative that was envisioned to grow concurrently with our research studies to connect the data with real people. The blog format has allowed for personal stories of amazing people who embody our vision of equitable practice, fostering and keeping talent within the profession and elevating the value of Architecture to society. Our first interview is one of the most inspirational of all.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

EQxD “U” plans to revisit four of the top sessions from the Equity by Design Symposium in extended evening workshops that will occur throughout 2015 at AIA San Francisco. At each workshop in the series, the committee will present Equity in Architecture Survey results in a panel format focused on one of the following major knowledge session topics: Hiring & Retention, Growth & Development, and Meaning & Influence. Small group break-outs will follow to discuss the findings and develop accountable solutions for implementation in participants’ workplaces.

BACKGROUND

EDUCATE

SUMMARY

With the popular reception for the Equity by Design Symposium on October 18th, the committee planned to continue a trajectory of action based initiatives. The following is a summary of the current active projects that the group is pursuing.

45

INITIATIVES FOR 2015-2016


Meanwhile, the research committee is gearing up for the next phase of the Equity in Architecture research project. Phase II of the research project will aim to build upon the grassroots efforts of Phase I with increased statistical rigor in sampling methodologies and analysis in order to establish metrics for women’s participation in the profession. Most recently, the committee collaborated with the editors of AIA Young Architects Forum’s bimonthly publication Connection to publish a special Equity by Design issue.1 The Equity in Architecture survey findings and related topics have been received positively 1 Young Architects Forum, Connection 1302, http://issu. com/youngarchitectsforum/docs/1302_-_00_-_equity_x_design_-_full_/1

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE

In addition to the committee’s local outreach, the popularity of the research findings has fueled requests for outreach and presentations both nationally and internationally. The survey findings have been presented to architects, emerging professionals, and firm leaders in seven major cities in 2015, with several additional speaking engagements scheduled in the upcoming months.

BACKGROUND

OUTREACH

SUMMARY

Based on an exhibit that was first initiated by AIA Houston, the INSPIRE% Gallery Exhibit features the lives and work of female designers in a quilt-like array of 6x6 in squares. These pixels are interspersed with larger modules for major milestones or notable women such as Julia Morgan. Submissions are stitched together in a modern quilt about inspiring stories and people.

46

INITIATIVES FOR 2015-2016


By adopting a crowd-sourced approach, we will create an easy way to share information and link resources of best practices and new approaches to address areas where equity is lacking. By creating a network of non-profit peer groups organized by affinities including regional location and professional interest areas, we will be able to provide right-size strategies that reflect the diversity of practice within our profession. By increasing the number of voices in the movement, we will engage with a multiplicity of viewpoints, engendering richer dialogue which will challenge us to think more broadly with an innovative spirit, thereby disrupting the status quo and increasing our impact.

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

The initial goal of the EQxD Alliance is to expand the accessibility of knowledge and resources to promote equitable practice originating from The Missing 32% Project and Equity by Design Symposium. Additionally, through partnerships with the AIA Diversity Council, WIA groups and other allied non-profit organizations in the AEC community who support equitable practice, these partnerships will be beneficial in the following ways:

KNOWLEDGE

The concept of the EQxD Alliance came about from the need to create stronger connections between architecture design professionals and non-profit organizations dedicated to the movement for equity.

BACKGROUND

ALIGN

SUMMARY

throughout the profession as a much-needed resource.

47

INITIATIVES FOR 2015-2016


The AIA Convention delegates will be asked to vote on the Equity in Architecture Resolution 15-1 which was coauthored by Rosa Sheng, AIA, Julia Donoho, AIA and Francis Pitts, AIA and cosponsored by AIA San Francisco and AIA California Council.

2 American Institute of Architects, “Resolution 15-1” in 2015 Delegate Information Book, http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf

EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND

The Equity in Architecture Resolution 15-12 is a call to action for both women and men to realize the goal of equitable practice in order to retain talent, advance the architecture profession, and communicate the value of design to society. The Institute has long identified diversity and inclusion as a strategic goal for the profession. However, the rate of impact has not been significant enough to advance the ratio of underrepresented populations within the profession, with the greatest disparity being evident in leadership and ownership positions. The Institute encourages our global society to “Look Up,” elevating the value of architecture and the services that architects provide. Concurrently, there needs to be a reflective look at valuing our human capital within the profession. Equity is everyone’s issue and achieving equitable practice has a direct impact on the relevance, economic health and future of the Institute and our profession. To move the profession forward the Institute is asked to develop an ongoing program to assess data, set a plan of action, track progress, and report on results. Now more than ever is the time for action both from grassroots and Institute leadership.

SUMMARY

ADVOCATE

48

INITIATIVES FOR 2015-2016


NEXT STEPS 1

2

The findings of the 2014 Equity in Architecture Survey are a starting point, calling women and men alike to reimagine their careers, firms, and larger design community to foster equity and improve the conditions of practice for all designers Together with the AIA, allied organizations, and the dedication of passionate individuals, Equity by Design will continue its grassroots efforts to collect and share data to catalyze these changes


EQUITY BY DESIGN

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND

Rooted in data, it is imperative for each of us to join the movement by taking action. Studies alone cannot affect change. We can learn from recent studies about Gender Intelligence that correlate the effectiveness of diverse teams for increasing the bottom line (Annis & Merron 2014) and establish the business case for equitable practice in Architecture (Kalar, 2014). And according to recent studies discussed in When Talking About Bias Backfires (Grant & Sandberg, 2014), awareness of implicit gender bias alone is not enough to curb biased tendencies on hiring, promotion, pay raises, etc.. A strong message to promote gender bias correction must come from firm leadership and professional organizations. As such, The American Institute of Architects should adopt a parallel resolution as Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Equity in

Architecture Policy (AIA, 2014) and Parlour Guides to Equitable Practice (Clark, 2014) to provide best practice resources for equitable work policies and environments; promoting the greater good and sustainability of the profession.

SUMMARY

The Equity in Architecture survey generated a rich data set with over 600 variables (Evenhouse, et al., 2014). The initial analysis of that data set raises many questions, and suggests many topics for further study. Our data set does, however, present a large sample in which women are not advancing as quickly as men in their careers in architecture, are not earning as much as their male counterparts, and do not share their male peersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; job satisfaction. The survey also points to key career pinch points that could be targeted for further study and reform to alleviate these gender-based disparities over time. Our hope is that, by pointing to these areas, we can begin a conversation within the national and global architectural community, and encourage further research into best practices for overcoming each of these career pinch points to ensure that in the future, all practitioners, men and women alike, are able to pursue fulfilling careers in architecture.

50

NEXT STEPS


herman coliver locus

TM

CONCLUSION ACTION DISCUSSION

The body of work that is represented in this report reflects a collaborative partnership between AIA San Francisco, The Equity by Design Research Team (Rosa Sheng, Annelise Pitts, Helen Wong, Lilian Asperin-Clyman, and Saskia Dennis-van Dijl) and our Mills College Research Team (Eirik Evenhouse, PHD., Ruohnan Hu and Jesseca Reddell). Ming Thompson of Atelier Cho Thompson provided final Infographics. We are also deeply grateful for the generous support of AIA San Francisco, social media and equity allies and our many generous sponsors, who are listed on the right. An abridged draft of this report was presented at the Second International Conference on Architecture and Gender at the Universidade Lusofona, and is part of a forthcoming publication of the conferenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proceedings. Finally, we would like to thank the 2289 individuals who participated in the Equity in Architecture Survey.

KNOWLEDGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

OUR SPONSORS: 2014 AND 2015

The Missing 32% Project is a call to action for both women and men to help realize the goal of equitable practice to EQUITY advance architecture, sustain the profession and communicate the value of design to society. BY DESIGN

51

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

THE BEST WAY TO BUY DESIGN SOFTWARE


REFERENCES

2. American Institute of Architects. AIA Foresight Report 2014. Washington, DC, 2014. 3. American Institute of Architects. “Facts, Figures, and the Profession.” Accessed May 1, 2015, http://www.aia.org/press/AIAS077761. 4. American Institute of Architects. “Fellowship.” Accessed May 1, 2015, http://www.aia.org/ practicing/awards/AIAS075320. 5. AIA and NCARB, 2012 AIA/NCARB Internship and Career Survey. Washington, D.C., 2012 6. Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, ACSA Atlas 2015, http://www.acsa-arch.org/ resources/data-resources/acsa-atlas-project 7. Australian Institute of Architects. Equity in Architecture Policy. 2014, http://www.architecture. com.au/docs/default-source/about-us/gender-equitypolicy.pdf?sfvrsn=0 8. Chicako Chang, Lian. “Where are the Women?” http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/ women 9. Design Intelligence. “US Architecture Firm Statistics.” Accessed May 1, 2015, http://www. di.net/almanac/stats/firm-statistics-architecture/ 10. Evenhouse, Eirick, Ruohnan Hu and Jessica Reddell. Summary of Early Findings from the 2014 Equity in Architecture Survey. 11. Holland & Knight LLP, Demographic Diversity Audit Final Report. October 18, 2005. EQUITY BY DESIGN

12. Lange, Alexandra. “Architecture’s Lean In Moment” in Metropolis Magazine July-August 2013. http:// www.metropolismag.com/July-August-2013/ Architectures-Lean-In-Moment/ 13. National Architecture Accrediting Board. 2014 Report of the National Architectural Accrediting Board. 14. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES Digest 2013. Accessed December 15, 2013. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ 15. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. NCARB by the Numbers 2014. 16. Royal Institute of British Architects, Why do Women Leave Architecture?, by Ann de GraftJohnson, Sandra Manley, and Clara Greed. Bristol, England: 2003. 17. Stead, Naomi. “Equity and Diversity in the Australian Architecture Profession”, 2009. http:// atch.architecture.uq.edu.au/equity-and-diversityaustralian-architecture-profession-women-workand-leadership. 18. The Missing 32 Percent Project. “Mission Statement.” Accessed May 1, 2015, http://themissing32percent.com/origins/ 19. US Census Bureau. “Quick Facts.” Accessed May 1, 2015. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/00000.html 20. Young Architects Forum. Connection 1302. http://issu.com/youngarchitectsforum/ docs/1302_-_00_-_equity_x_design_-_full_/1

52

1. American Institute of Architects. Firm Survey Report 2014, by Kermit Baker, James Chu, and Jennifer Riskus. Washington, DC, 2014.


EQUITY BY DESIGN

Page 5

Infographic by Atelier Cho Thompson

Page 6

Photography by Daniel Wang

Page 10

Infographic by Atelier Cho Thompson

Page 13

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

Pages 19-38

Infographics by Atelier Cho Thompson

Page 40

Photography by Daniel Wang,

Page 40

Photo and Watercolor Sketch by Jenny Guan

Page 41

Photography by Daniel Wang,

Page 42

Photography by Daniel Wang,

Page 43

Photography by Daniel Wang,

Page 45

Photography by Heather McKinstry(top)

Page 45

Photography by Emily Grandstaff-Rice (bottom)

Page 46

Photography by Rosa Sheng

Page 47

Photography by Daniel Wang (top)

Page 47

Photography by Univ. Lusofona (bottom)

Page 48

Photography by Jaime Wong

53

PHOTO CREDITS

EQxD - Equity in Architecture Survey Final Report 2014  

While women comprise nearly half of graduates from architecture programs in the United States, they make up only about 22% of licensed archi...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you