This year, we introduce our annual salary survey with a discussion of
the gender gap for salaries in the quality field and perhaps some insight
as to why it exists in a field that focuses as much on human relations and
team spirit as it does on statistics. To validate our numbers, we have pulled
in salary statistics from the American Society for Quality Control and from
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The problem
It's no secret-the glass ceiling is just as prevalent in the quality field
as it is for U.S. business as a whole. The numbers from this year's salary
survey show that the average salary for women executives and managers in
the quality field lags 6 percent to 19 percent behind their male
counterparts with the same amount of experience. In general, women in quality
earn $45,472, which is 19 percent less than the men's average salary of
$56,292. That percentage corresponds to the 1995 BLS statistics that show
an 11-percent to 16-percent gap for women working as inspectors and compliance
officers or as personnel, training and labor relations specialists-BLS categories
we felt most closely fit our respondents. The 1994 ASQC salary survey shows
a 17-percent gap for women in quality.
Why does this gap exist? The knee-jerk answer is discrimination. While 20
or 30 years ago that answer may have been obvious and accurate, the magnitude
of gender discrimination in today's workplace is hard to nail down, according
to the U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. Rather, the bureau quotes
statistical studies which suggest that some of the gender gap can be explained
on the basis of education or job experience. For instance, there is a correlation
between the rapid increase in women's salaries in the 1980s and an increase
in both education and experience for women during that same time period,
says the bureau.
But education and experience don't tell the whole story. In our survey and
those conducted by the ASQC, even if you examine salary survey data as a
function of years' experience, you still see a gapp;6 percent to 19
percent in our survey. Additionally, looking at the salary gap as a function
of education, we still see anywhere from an 8-percent gap at the masters'
level to a 31-percent gap at the vocational/technical level. The gaps for
other levels are 13 percent for a two-year degree, 20 percent for a four-year
degree and 19 percent for a doctoral degree.
If the gap is not caused by education, years' experience or outright discrimination,
then what? In a recent interview with Quality Digest, ASQC President Deborah
Hopen gave us her perspective.
Hopen suggests that the gender gap in quality, at least at the executive
level, may be linked to the quality industry's shift from a strictly statistical
approach to quality to one that includes human resource elements. Women
who entered the quality field 20 years ago often came armed with skills
from human resource-related fields. As quality made the shift from numbers
to people and organizational skills, these newly valued talents may have
pushed them up the corporate ladder faster than their salary levels would
accommodate.
"Part of the problem was timing," says Hopen. "Women got
into the profession later, but with the capabilities that they brought in,
frequently from other disciplines and with the sense of organization that's
important to get diverse points of view, they moved up the ladder a little
faster. But they didn't have the years of building salaries that comes with
years of time at the same level. There is a limit to what companies will
give you [in a salary increase] at the time of a promotion."
In the same vein, Hopen points out that the salary gap is much more pronounced
in older women than in younger. She theorizes that since older women started
work at a time when women were deliberately paid less, they were at a disadvantage
when promotions and salary increases started to equalize-that since they
started lower, they stayed lower.
The surveys tend to bear this out. Our survey shows only a 7-percent gap
for men and women less than 30 years old, increasing to 12 percent for the
30- to 39-year-old bracket, 10 percent for the 40- to 49-year-old bracket
and topping out at a 25-percent gap for 50- to 60-year-olds. Although the
age categories are different, a similar study by the ASQC shows a range
of 6 percent to 22 percent. In fact, that survey shows that women under
25 years old earned 9 percent more than their male counterparts.
"My sense is that in the old days, when these women started work, there
intentionally was a gap," says Hopen. "And they never caught up.
They started low and then never gained on it. We do know from our survey
that now women are starting the same as men. It would be interesting to
talk about this 10 years from now and see if it levels out."
On a hopeful note, the disparity in the quality profession is less than
in most other industries. The BLS reports that the average U.S. woman's
salary is 25 percent less than a man's. The reason could be that the quality
field, probably more than most, emphasizes such human relations essentials
as teamwork, positive feedback, group dynamics, employee involvement and
organizational learning.
Hopen agrees.
"I feel strongly that quality is not just an engineering science,"
she says. "It's a science of human resources, performance management
and organizational involvement. Therefore, [this smaller gap] is a sign
that we're practicing what we preach."
As with most problems, the root cause for gender disparities in salary is
complex. Education, experience, industry changes, traditional salary level
structures and outright discrimination all play a part. Some of these issues
(education, for instance) must be addressed by the individual, but most
must be tackled by employers. Hopefully, armed with the facts, employers
will make inequality a quality issue and spend as much time addressing gender
disparities as they do product conformity.
Other data and trends
More women are joining the executive ranks, according to our survey. The
ratio of men holding executive positions (director, vice president, president/CEO)
compared to women in the same position was 5-to-1 this year. In 1993, the
ratio was 10-to-1, decreasing to 7-to-1 in 1995. Interestingly, the
ratio for all management positions (manager and higher) has remained the
same in all three surveys- 6-to-1. The male/female ratio for all respondents
this year was 5-to-1.
As we have seen in the past, employees in the Western and Northeastern sections
of the country have higher average salaries-$56,000 and $56,500 respectively-than
those in other parts of the country. The average salary for the North Central
quality employee was $51,404 compared to $54,270 for those in the South.
Looking at salary data as a function of education provides no surprises-the
higher the education, the higher the salary. Initially we were concerned
that these figures might be reflecting increased experience as well as education;
many people pursue degrees while working. However, when we stratified the
data according to years' experience and recalculated the salary averages
by educational level, we saw the same upward trend. Overall, those employees
with master's degrees earned 28 percent more than those with no high school
diploma and 20 percent more than those holding a vocational/technical degree.
We found that nearly 75 percent of managers and executives have at least
a four-year degree.
Methodology
The Quality Digest 1996 salary survey questionnaire appeared in our April
1996 issue. To speed data entry, respondents were asked to supply their
answers on a computer-scanned form. This allowed us to enter the data directly
into our spreadsheet for data analysis.
We asked readers to supply data on their current salary, job description,
job location, age, sex and the number of years' employment and experience.
Respondents returned the questionnaires by postage-paid mail.
Of the more than 1,300 questionnaires we received, 120 came in too late
to be included in the results and about 100 contained invalid responses
and were excluded. Seventy percent of all respondents were quality professionals.
Breakdown by job title:
Managers 42%
Executives 22%
Technical 18%
Supervisors 7%
Breakdown by industry:
Manufacturing 75%
Service/consulting 11%
Government 8%
Health care 4%
Education 2%