Salary Survey June 2004

8/3/2019 Salary Survey June 2004

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/salary-survey-june-2004 1/16



For one thing, the demand for accounting services has

increased, especially for those who do internal auditwork. As we will discuss later, average salary and average

total compensation for internal auditors increased 27%

and almost 35%, respectively, in 2004 from the amounts

reported in 2003 (see the discussion about Table 12).

While the average compensation for public accounting is

almost unchanged in 2004, it’s still great enough for this

segment of the profession to rank first or second in aver-

age salary and average total compensation if it were a sep-arate category in the Standard Industry Code (SIC) areas

examined (see discussion about Table 9). IMA members

who have the job title of “auditor” (see Table 13) saw

their compensation increase in 2004 over 2003 levels.

There also appears to be a renewed interest in written

codes of ethics because 90% of this year’s respondents

reported that they were familiar with IMA’s Standards of

Ethical Conduct for Management Accountants and 71% of

the respondents reported that their employer has a code

of ethics. Of those who knew when their company’s codehad been adopted, 33% of the codes had been imple-

mented since 2002—and the earliest implementation was

in 1907! More than 80% of the employers in four SIC

areas (mining; transportation, communications, utility

services; manufacturing; finance, insurance, real estate)

have codes of ethics, and over 70% in two more areas

have codes (all services and government). Members who

work for publicly traded corporations reported that 92%

of their organizations have a code of ethics while 79% of

the partnerships and 74% of the privately held corpora-

tions have codes. More than 80% of the organizations

June 2005 I STRATEGIC F INANCE 29

The accounting profession has received a great deal of

negative press since 2002 when the frauds at Enron and

WorldCom became public. As a consequence of theseand similar events, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed

requiring companies to examine their internal control

procedures more closely. So what does this have to do

with IMA’s 16th Annual Salary Survey?

I L L

U S T R A T I O N : D A N I E L P E L A V I N / P E L A V I N . C

O M

B Y D A V I D L . S C H R O E D E R A N D K A R L E . R E I C H A R D T , C M A

HOW THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED The salary survey was mailed during December 2004 to a random

sample of 4,921 IMA members selected to represent the U.S. mem-bership of IMA geographically. The questionnaire packet included a

return envelope and a separate postcard to indicate return of the sur-

vey. A follow-up survey was sent in January 2005 to those who had not

returned the postcard from the first mailing. The sample size was

selected to allow for a 95% confidence level of estimating the popula-

tion mean within plus or minus 3% based on expected return rates.

A total of 1,494 questionnaires was returned, yielding an overall

response rate of 30%. Of this number, there were 1,401 usable ques-

tionnaires representing 28% of the people surveyed. This response

rate allows for a 95% confidence level for all data on the survey

because those persons responding to the survey represented the IMA

membership proportionately for those demographics IMA maintains.



with 500 or more employees have codes of

ethics, and 98% of the largest organizations

that members work for (5,000 or more

employees) have such a code.

As has been done in past IMA salary sur-

veys, the compensation of IMA members

will be presented in total and then exam-ined by such factors as gender, certification,

management level, degree attainment, mari-

tal status, and support of children. When

appropriate, comparisons between this

year’s results and those of the prior 15 years

will be made to provide insight, identify

changes, and track trends regarding the

compensation and demographics of the

IMA membership.1

In terms of compensation, 74% of the members

reported receiving a salary increase in 2004 (up from

69% in both 2002 and 2003). The median salary incre-

ment was $3,500, and the average increase was $5,426.

The univariate statistics for the current year are com-

pared to the immediate four salary surveys in Table 1

(2000-2004). The amounts for mean, median, 20th, and

80th percentiles are again the greatest that they have ever

been for both average salary and average total compensa-

tion. The percentage increases for the mean and median

for average salary are also the smallest over this five-year

span, and the percentage increases for the mean and

median for average total compensation is the smallest

since 2002. The average salary for 2004 shown in Table 1

increased 4.5%, and average total compensation increased

5.3%, both of which are the smallest increases since 2002,

but they are statistically significant for 2004, the

same as they were in 2003.

While there haven’t been great changes in the

demographics for the “average” IMA member(Table 2) over the last five years, the median age,

the number of women in the sample, the years of

experience represented by years in current position

and years with current employer, and the percent-

age with any kind of certification is less in 2004

than in 2003. Yet none of these changes in demo-

graphics from 2003 is considered significant.

NATURE OF COMPENSAT ION MEASURES

Salary and total compensation are compensationterms we use often in this study. While salary doesn’t

need any explanation, total compensation may not

be as clear. It’s the member’s salary plus any addi-

tional compensation a person might earn, but not

all members will have additional compensation.

Another compensation measure is household

income, which represents the sum of the member’s

salary, additional compensation, and spouse’s

income, if any. For those members who are single,

divorced, widowed, or married with a spouse not

employed outside the home, household income

30 STRATEGIC F INANCE I June 2005

2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Median age 45 46 44 42 42

Female 28% 33% 31% 32% 32%

Male 72% 67% 69% 68% 68%

Degrees

Baccalaureate 99% 98% 98% 98% 99%

Advanced 48% 49% 43% 43% 43%

Years of experience

Current position 5 6 5 4 4

Current employer 9 10 9 8 8

In field 19 19 18 15.5 15

Family status

Married 83% 81% 83% 80% 78%

Spouse employed outside home 66% 67% 67% 67% 68%

Percent with children 66% 62% 63% 58% 57%

Average number of children 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2

Certification percentages

Any certification 65% 69% 66% 63% 62%

CMA 42% 48% 41% 40% 37%

CPA 36% 39% 40% 37% 38%

CFM 5% 6% 6% 6% 4%

Tabl e 2 : “AVERAGE” IMA MEMBER

20th 80th Years Range Mean Median percentile percentile

Average Salary

2004 $ 9,600 to $415,000 $91,054 $83,000 $62,250 $114,000

2003 $23,000 to $560,000 $87,108 $79,900 $58,900 $107,000

2002 $19,000 to $555,000 $83,235 $75,000 $55,000 $103,225

2001 $12,000 to $500,000 $79,019 $71,606 $52,000 $100,000

2000 $18,750 to $760,000 $74,405 $67,000 $48,000 $ 92,000

Average Total Compensation

2004 $22,000 to $570,000 $104,944 $90,000 $65,000 $134,250

2003 $16,600 to $603,000 $ 99,620 $86,000 $61,275 $124,000

2002 $19,200 to $600,000 $ 94,165 $80,000 $58,000 $117,000

2001 $20,000 to $670,000 $ 90,145 $77,930 $55,000 $113,000

2000 $18,750 to $760,000 $ 84,580 $72,000 $50,400 $106,000

Tabl e 1 : COMPARISON O F UN IVARIATE STAT IST ICS FOR 200 0-2004



would be the same as total compensation (salary plus

additional compensation, but no spousal income).

Table 3, which presents the sources of additional com-

pensation, indicates that 70% of the respondents had

additional compensation in 2004, which is up slightly this

year from last (69%). As in the prior two years, bonuses

and profit sharing are the most common forms of addi-

tional compensation for members, and the percentages

are almost identical for these two (bonus the same at

63% and profit sharing at 19% compared to 20% in

2003). The average additional compensation amounted to

$20,041 and ranged from $100 to $402,000.

More men than women received additional compensa-

tion (71% vs. 66%), and the average additional compen-

sation is greater for men than for women ($20,761 vs.$14,090). Both of these differences—the proportion of

men and women receiving additional compensation and

the difference in additional compensation by gender—are

statistically significant. Yet the sources of additional com-

pensation do not differ by gender.

MALE/FEMALE COMPENSAT ION

In an attempt to figure out why women earn less than

men, we highlight differences in demographics that exist

between male and female IMA members. For instance:x Female members are younger than male members

(43 vs. 46).

xWhile the number of members with advanced

degrees is at 48%, women are less likely to have advanced

degrees than men are (42% vs. 51%).

x The proportion of women without professional cer-

tification of any kind (42%) is greater than that of men

without certification(32%).

x In terms of experience, women have been in the

field a shorter time than men (17 vs. 20 years), have been

with their employer slightly less time (8.5 vs. 9.0 years),

and have had a little less time in their current position

(5.0 vs. 5.5 years).

xWhile the proportion of women and men in senior

management and middle management combined is

almost the same (55% for women vs. 56% for men), there

are more women in lower-/entry-level positions (25% vs.

12%, 16% overall) and fewer women in top-level posi-


Sources Number Percentage

Bonus 617 63%

Profit sharing 185 19%

Other 52 5%

Stock options 41 4%

Automobile allowance 25 3%

Summer school teaching 21 2%Overtime 15 2%

401(K)/pension contribution 14 1%

Education allowance 12 1%

982 100%

Tabl e 3 : SOURCES OF ADD IT IONAL COMPE NSAT ION

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

WomenMen

100+80 to 10060 to 8040 to 6020 to 40

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000Men's Compensation

Men’s Salary

Women's Compensation

Women's Salary

20002001200220032004

Figure 2: AVERAGE SALARY AND TOTAL COMPENSATION BY GENDER

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Men's TotalMen's SalaryWomen's TotalWomen's Salary

60 +50-5940-4930-3919-29

F igure 3 : AVERAGE SALARY AND TOTAL COMPEN SAT ION BY

A G E A N D G E N D E R

Figure 1: PERCENTAGE OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SALARY RANGES



tions (14% vs. 25%, 22% overall).

x The proportion of married women is

less than the proportion of married men

(72% vs. 87%, 83% overall).

xWomen support fewer children (.94

vs. 1.56) than men do.

The percent of men and women that fallinto five equal salary ranges from $20,000-

$40,000 through $100,000+ are presented

in Figure 1. As was the case last year, the

proportion of women in the three lower

ranges exceeds that of the men, while the

proportion of men is greater in the two

higher ranges. The disproportionate num-

ber of women in the lower ranges and the

lack of women in the higher ranges seem to support the

fact that there is a gender gap in compensation between

women and men.

A comparison of average salary and average total com-

pensation by gender is presented in Figure 2 for the period

2000-2004. The average salary of women ($78,531) is less

than that of men ($95,992) by $17,461, and the difference

in average total compensation is $23,084 ($88,401 for

women vs. $111,485 for men). The compensation figures

for men have been greater than those for women in all 16

years of this study. As in the past, these differences in com-

pensation by gender are statistically significant in 2004.

But the differences in compensation between womenand men are the smallest that they have been in the last

five years. Furthermore, women’s average salary stated as a

percentage of men’s is 81.8%, which is greater than in the

prior five years. In fact, this is the first time this percentage

has exceeded 80%. While the same percentage for average

total compensation is less at 79.3%, it’s the highest percent-

age (by 3.4%) since this statistic was first tracked in 2000.

Part of the explanation for the smaller differences this year

can be traced to the larger increases in average salary and

average total compensation in 2004 over 2003 for womenas compared to increases for men—7.9% vs. 1.8% for aver-

age salary and 9.0% vs. 2.4% for average total compensa-

tion. These increases in compensation are the highest since

2001 when the women’s increases last exceeded those of

men on both compensation measures. These average com-

pensation increases for women are statistically significant

in 2004, but those for men aren’t.

We also compare men’s and women’s compensation in

five age categories, and these are shown in Figure 3. The

average salary and average total compensation for men

exceeds that of women for all of the age categories except

19-29, and this is the first time that both average compen-

sation figures for women has exceeded those for men for

one age category (the only case where women earned more

than men prior to this year was in 2002 for average total

compensation in the 60+ age category).

Thus, for 2004, women’s compensation as a percent of

men’s exceeds 100% for the first time in the 16 years of the

study. This finding has to be tempered, however, because it

occurs in the 19-29 age category, which represents the age

category with the fewest number of respondents—4.0% of

the women and only 1.7% of the men. On the bright side,

this would seem to indicate that the starting salaries for

women may be ahead of those for men because this age cat-egory would represent those who are beginning their

careers in the accounting/financial management field. Yet

women’s average salary stated as a percent of men’s decreas-

es for each age category beginning with a high of 115.9%

for the 19-29 age category and going to a low of 76.1% for

the 60+ age category. Thus, the gender gap between men’s

and women’s salary tends to increase with age.

The pattern isn’t the same for average total compensa-

tion. For instance, the percentages for the 40-49 and 50-59

age categories (80.5% and 82.7%, respectively), which rep-resent 66% of the women and 70% of the men in the pop-

ulation, are greater than for the 30-39 age category at 79%

(28% of the women’s population vs. 23% of the men’s).

Furthermore, the percentage for average total compensa-

tion for the 50-59 age category (82.7%) is greater than the

percentage for average salary (81.8%), but this is the only

instance where women’s average total compensation as a

percentage of men’s exceeds the same percentages for aver-

age salary. In reflecting on the data in Figures 2 and 3,

while the gender gap is greater for total compensation than

average salary, this gap did narrow overall in 2004.


Women asa percent

Women Men All of men

Average Salary

1 to 5 $ 57,652 [25] $ 98,263 [60] $ 86,319 58.7%

6 to 10 $ 65,501 [59] $ 82,850 [105] $ 76,609 79.1%

11 to 15 $ 74,797 [75] $ 87,248 [174] $ 83,497 85.7%

16 to 20 $ 86,115 [102] $ 97,626 [187] $ 93,563 88.2%

More than 20 $ 84,527 [133] $101,175 [477] $ 97,545 83.5%

Average Total Compensation

1 to 5 $ 63,957 [25] $115,024 [60] $100,004 55.6%

6 to 10 $ 70,512 [59] $ 93,896 [105] $ 85,483 75.1%

11 to 15 $ 80,986 [75] $ 99,631 [174] $ 94,015 81.3%

16 to 20 $100,879 [102] $114,037 [187] $109,393 88.5%

More than 20 $ 95,544 [133] $118,282 [477] $113,325 80.8%

Tabl e 4 : COMPENSAT ION COMPAR ISONS BY YEARS IN THE F I ELD



Average salary and average total compensation by years

in the field are shown in Table 4. Average compensation

tends to increase by the number of years in the field for

both men and women except for one instance in each

case. The women who have been in the field 16-20 years

earn more than the women who have been in the field

more than 20 years. The more interesting compensation

statistic is that men who have been in the field 1-5 years

earn more than those in all of the other categories exceptfor those in the field for more than 20 years. There must

be a large number of men who have changed career

directions or entered the field after earning advanced

degrees to cause this very unusual statistic.

Notice that the last column of Table 4 presents

women’s compensation as a percent of men’s. This year

the lowest percentage is the 1-5 years-in-field category

because of the unusual result discussed above. Six of the

years-in-field categories are above

80%, and women are closest to

men in the 16-20 years-in-field cat-

egory. Notice, though, that except

for the 16-20 years-in-field catego-

ry, the percentage is smaller for

average total compensation thanfor average salary. This again points

out that women lag behind men

when additional compensation is

considered.

The average age increases for

each years-in-field category except

for the 1-5 category, in which the

average age of 42 is greater than in

the next two categories. The age of

women increases with each years-

in-field category, while the age of

men increases except for the 1-5

category—here the average age of 43 is greater than in the

next two age categories. This lends further proof that

there must be a larger number of older men who have

changed career directions or entered new fields after

earning advanced degrees. In all years-in-field categories,

women are younger than men, and this difference is sta-

tistically significant.

Part of the gender gap may also be due to certification

(see Table 5). Interestingly, women’s salary as a percent of men’s for members with certification and members with

no certification are identical at 83.2%. Women’s average

total compensation as a percent of men’s is 82.6% for

those with no certification and 80.2% with certification,

which would seem to indicate that certification by gender

isn’t much of a factor. Yet only 58% of the women have a

certification as compared to 68% of the men, so propor-

tionately there are more men than women who are able

to reap the benefits of professional certification.

Figure 4 presents the proportion of the respondentsin each of the management levels plus academic and

other—the two smallest categories—which are very close

in proportion. There are slightly more men than women

in the senior level (22.1% vs. 17.6%) and slightly more

women than men in middle management (37.4% vs.

33.8%), but the big differences are in the top- and entry-

level management categories. There are approximately

11% more men in top management and 13% more

women in entry-level positions.

Both average salary and total compensation increase as

the management level increases from lower/entry level to


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

MenAllWomen

AcademicOtherEntryMiddleSenior Top

F ig ur e 4 : M A N A G E M E N T L E V E L B Y G E N D E R

AVERAGE SALARY

No CMA Both CMA

Age Range All or CPA CMA CPA and CPA

19-29 [29] $ 59,309 $56,917 **** $ 61,968 ****

30-39 [304] $ 84,129 $74,185 $ 89,923 $ 82,274 $ 96,087

40-49 [546] $ 96,512 $84,021 $101,241 $ 95,027 $110,691

50-59 [306] $ 93,766 $81,955 $ 99,371 $101,945 $105,59060 and over [56] $ 91,704 $82,891 $101,090 $ 96,784 $108,800

All [1,241] $107,744 $79,763 $ 97,908 $ 93,104 $105,155

AVERAGE TOTAL COMPENSATION

19-29 [29] $ 65,321 $ 62,307 **** $ 68,058 ****

30-39 [304] $ 94,077 $ 81,455 $106,115 $ 89,904 $110,628

40-49 [546] $112,779 $ 94,852 $117,689 $112,341 $133,462

50-59 [306] $108,801 $ 91,917 $116,431 $121,339 $124,020

60 and over [56] $102,366 $ 93,176 $122,270 $104,081 $114,400

All [1,241] $107,744 $ 89,178 $114,504 $107,744 $124,351

Number of responses shown in brackets. *Data not reported to protect confidentiality.

Tabl e 5 : COMPENSAT ION BY AG E AND CERT I F IC AT ION



top management. Figure 5 presents this same data by

gender. Notice that the average compensation increases

by management level for both men and women but that

the compensation for women is less than for men in each

of the four management levels. These differences in com-

pensation for women and men by management level are

statistically significant.Stated as a percent of men’s, women’s average salary is

closest to men’s in the lower/entry (90.3%) and senior

(93.3%) levels of management. For average total compen-

sation, the percentage of women’s to men’s drops for

women in middle and senior management but increases

for lower/entry and top-management levels. Thus, the

women in these two latter categories appear to have just

as good as or slightly better opportunities than men for

additional compensation. The percentages for women in

the lower- /entry-level management positions appear

consistent with data in Figure 3 where women’s compen-

sation as a percent of men’s was over 100% for the 19-29

age category because people in the 19-29 age category are

probably in lower- /entry-level positions. While the num-

ber of people omitted from Figure 5 because they are in

the “academic” and “other” categories (see Table 13) is

small compared to the four management levels, women’s

compensation as a percent of men’s is less than 80% for

these categories.

When we examine the average age of the respondents

in each of these four management levels, women are younger than men by anywhere from just over one year

to slightly more than two years. When the average num-

ber of years in the field is calculated for the respondents

in each of the four management levels, the average years

in the field is almost the same in middle management

(men, 19.5 vs. women, 19.3 years), but women have been

in the field an average of approximately two years less

than men in the other three management levels.

We also asked respondents to indicate the level of super-

visory responsibility of their current position. Table 6 pre-

sents this information in light of average salary and

average total compensation. Average compensation is the

greatest for those individuals who head a major depart-

ment but don’t report directly to the CEO or Board of

Directors, and this is true for both men and women. The

smallest average compensation for women is for those

who have little or no supervisory responsibility and report

directly to the CEO or Board of Directors, while the

smallest average compensation for men is for those with

no supervisory responsibility. The most interesting aspect

of this table, however, is that the average compensation for

women is less than that for men at every responsibility level for both compensation measures, and these differ-

ences are statistically significant. This gives more credence

to the fact that there is a gender gap.

When women’s compensation is calculated as a percent

of men’s, women are closest to men in the “head a major

department but don’t report directly to the CEO or

Board of Directors” and the “little or no supervisory


$0

$30,000

$60,000

$90,000

$120,000

$150,000

Men's Compensation

Men's Salary

Women's Compensation

Women's Salary

TopSeniorMiddleLower/Entry

F igure 5 : COMPENSAT ION BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL AND GENDER

WOMEN MEN ALL Average Total Average Total Average Total

Salar y Compensation Salar y Compensation Salar y Compensation

No supervisory responsibility $66,704 $ 71,488 [95] $ 75,769 $ 83,811 [138] $ 72,073 $ 78,787 [233]

Some super visor y responsibility $72,432 $ 79,221 [125] $ 88,593 $101,186 [296] $ 83,795 $ 94,664 [421]

but not head of a major department

Head a major department but do $98,163 $115,985 [80] $109,037 $130,043 [238] $106,301 $126,506 [318]

not report directly to CEO/Board

Head a major department and $84,634 $ 98,213 [79] $104,365 $122,731 [277] $ 99,986 $117,290 [356]

report directly to CEO/Board

Little or no super visor y responsibility $62,698 $ 69,936 [12] $ 83,843 $ 95,556 [44] $ 79,312 $ 90,066 [56]

and report directly to CEO/Board

Number of responses shown in brackets.

Tabl e 6 : COMPENSAT ION AND SUPER V ISORY RESPONS I B IL I TY



responsibility” categories for average salary (90% and

88%, respectively). They are furthest away in the “those

who have little or no supervisory responsibility and

report directly to the CEO or Board of Directors” catego-

ry (75%). The percentages of women’s compensation as a

percent of men’s for average total compensation are

smaller than those for average salary, which seems toindicate again that women appear to have less opportuni-

ty for additional compensation. There don’t appear to be

any differences as a consequence of age because the aver-

age age of the men vs. women in each one of these

responsibility categories is almost identical. Also, there

are no differences in certification within these categories

of supervisory responsibility.

COMPENSAT ION AND CERT IF ICAT ION

As has been true in the past, certification pays off! Indi-

viduals who hold any kind of accounting certification

earn more than those with no certification (average

salary, $97,220 vs. $79,292; average total compensation,

$113,561 vs. $89,132), and this difference in compensa-

tion by certification is statistically significant.

Let’s further examine compensation by certification

and age in Table 5. Notice that those with a CMA, CPA,

or both CMA and CPA (there weren’t enough respon-

dents to provide comparisons for those who hold the

CFM) have higher average salary and average total com-

pensation figures for all age categories than those with nocertification. In some years, there has been an age range

where those with no certification earned more than those

with a certification, but not in 2004.

Overall, average salary and average total compensation

are higher for members who hold the CMA than for

those who hold the CPA, but respondents who hold both

the CMA and CPA have greater average compensation

figures than those with either one of the certifications.

But this doesn’t hold true for all age categories; for

instance, the average compensation for CPAs in the 50-59age category is greater than for CMAs. As in past years,

the differences in average compensation by individual

certification (CMA vs. CPA vs. both CMA/CPA) isn’t sta-

tistically significant.

This difference in compensation by certification or no

certification also holds true when gender is considered.

The differences in average salary and average total com-

pensation for women who have certification vs. those

women with no certification as well as men who have

certification vs. those women with no certification are

statistically significant. The average salary ($84,420) and

average total compensation ($95,786) of women with cer-

tification exceed that of women with no certification by

approximately $14,000 and $17,500, respectively. The

average salary and average total compensation for men

with certification are $101,468 and $119,469, which is

approximately $17,800 and $24,700 greater than those of

men with no certification.

COMPENSAT ION AND DEGREES

As shown in Table 7, average compensation tends to

increase with degree attainment, except this year the aver-

age compensation figures for those with doctorates are

lower than for those with master’s degrees. The compen-

sation for those with doctorates has been less than for

those with master’s degrees in only three years—1991 and

2000 for both compensation figures and 2003 for average

total compensation only. This would seem to indicate

that the individuals with doctorates, who are usually

employed in academia, lag behind those with master’s

degrees who work in industry. Yet those with doctorates

represent a small percentage of the sample (3.1%), and

salary increases in academia have been small at some

institutions of higher learning in recent years. The differ-

ences by degree are statistically significant, but there is no

interaction with other variables.

The average salary and average total compensation for

respondents with baccalaureate degrees (51%) increased

4.1% and 4.9%, respectively, in 2004 over the amountsreported in 2003. For those with master’s degrees (45% of

the respondents), they increased 5.7% and 6.8%, respec-

tively, in 2004, but the average salary and average total

compensation for those with doctorates decreased (8.9%

and 8.3%, respectively). These increases and decreases are

statistically significant from last year.

COMPENSAT ION BY ORGANIZAT ION STRUCTURE

Average salary is shown by two size factors in Table 8—

number of employees at one location (referred to as “loca-

tion”) and number of people employed by the entire orga-


Average Average TotalHighest Degree Salary Compensation

Less than baccalaureate $79,625 $ 81,413 [8]

Baccalaureate $84,334 $ 97,506 [716]

Master's $98,524 $113,647 [633]

Doctorate $95,032 $105,075 [44]


Tabl e 7 : COMPENSAT ION BY H IG HEST DEGREE O BTA INED



nization (referred to as “organization”). Although

average salary tends to increase with both location and

organization size, exceptions are for the 1-9 and 5,000+

categories for location and 1-9 and 1,000-2,499 for

organization size.

When compared to 2003, salary decreased in 2004

in two size categories: 10-24 and 25-99. Otherwise, there

were increases ranging from 1.2% to 17.9%. The largest

average salary increase in 2004 over 2003 was 17.1% in

the 1,000-2,499 category for location size and a 17.9%

increase in the 1-9 category of organization size.

Table 9 presents the average compensation by SIC area.

The agriculture, forestry, and fisheries area has the largest

average salary and average total compensation for 2004,

and it also ranked first in 1999 and 2000. Public account-

ing is part of the services area, but if it had been in a cate-gory of its own it would have ranked first in average

salary. Interestingly, public accounting had one of the

smallest increases in average salary in 2004, and average

total compensation actually decreased in 2004 from 2003

for the public accounting area. The largest increases were

found in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries area (22%

and 33%), while the largest decreases were in the contract

construction area (8.0% and 9.8%).

This year we asked the respondents to select the busi-

ness structure that best describes their employer. Theaverage salary and average total compensation by the six

choices are presented in Table 10. The greatest proportion

of the respondents (43.4%) work for publicly traded cor-

porations, but this doesn’t mean that the highest averages

result from this type of business structure. The average

salary of those who work in partnerships, most likely

public accounting, are the greatest, while the average

salary of those who work in family-owned corporations

are the smallest. The order according to average total

compensation is the same except privately held corpora-

tions and proprietorships change positions.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

The average household income for all members in 2004,

regardless of marital status, is $129,569; this represents a

5.2% increase over 2003, and it is statistically significant.

The average household income for all men increased

3.2% in 2004 to $132,347, while that of women increased

8.7% to $122,747. The women’s increase is statistically significant, but the men’s isn’t. This is opposite of last

year’s results.

Note that 83% of the responding members are mar-

ried, 66% are employed outside the home, and 66% have

children (see Table 2). Yet a greater number of male

members are married (87% vs. 72%), a greater propor-

tion of female members have spouses employed outside

the home (81% vs. 61%), and a greater proportion of

male members support kids (72% vs. 52%). All of these

differences between male and female members are statis-

tically significant. Consistent with prior years, the spouses


Employed at Employed in

Location Entire Organization

Average Average

Number of People Salary Salary

1 to 9 $ 86,932 [99] $85,292 [66]

10 to 24 $ 88,411 [98] $74,985 [63]

25 to 99 $ 84,833 [273] $81,934 [168]

100 to 499 $ 89,118 [460] $88,219 [258]500 to 999 $ 92,598 [156] $88,959 [94]

1,000 to 2,499 $101,651 [139] $87,848 [122]

2,500 to 4,999 $104,000 [59] $92,938 [135]

5,000 plus $102,202 [104] $99,509 [488]


Tabl e 8 : SALARY BY LOC AT ION AND ORGAN I ZAT ION S I Z E

Average Average TotSIC Salary Compensation

Agriculture, Forestry, F isheries $103,636 [14] $ 123,064

Mining $ 84,525 [10] $ 96,505

Contract Construction $ 77,092 [35] $ 90,084

Manufacturing $ 92,220 [529] $106,456

Transportation, Communications,

and Utility Services $ 88,370 [88] $104,331

Wholesale and Retail Trade $ 90,139 [94] $105,242

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $ 92,093 [136] $114,120

Services (all) $ 92,146 [380] $102,932

Medical/Health Ser vices $ 91,485 [57] $ 98,779

Educational Services $ 80,430 [88] $ 87,635

Public Accounting $104,523 [78] $116,996

Other Service SIC codes $ 92,739 [157] $106,044

Government $ 81,425 [61] $ 85,385

Nonclassifiable $ 91,920 [44] $110,837


Tabl e 9 : COMPENSAT ION B Y S IC AR EA

ALL Average

Average TotalSalary Compensation

Proprietorship $ 92,050 $ 98,963 [32]

Partnership $115,703 $135,519 [79]

Subchapter S Corporation $ 80,422 $ 93,625 [160]

Family-Owned Corporation $ 77,118 $ 87,217 [95]

Privately Held Corporation $ 90,956 $102,484 [349]

Publicly Traded Corporation $ 95,452 $113,408 [549]


Tabl e 10: COMPENSAT ION AND BU S INESS STRUCT URE



of male members earn less than the spouses of female

members ($44,705 vs. $68,001), a difference that is also

statistically significant. A greater number of male mem-

bers have children (72% vs. 52%) as well as support more

children (1.56 vs. .94), and both of these differences are

statistically significant.

The average household income of married members is$137,540, representing a 3.6% increase in 2004 from

2003, but this increase isn’t statistically significant. As has

been true in prior years, the household income of mar-

ried men members ($138,074) is greater than that of

married women members ($135,911), and this amount

isn’t statistically significant either. The family income of

married women members increased 6.9% in 2004, while

that of married men members increased only 2.3%; the

increase for women in 2004 is statistically significant, but

the increase for men isn’t. This is opposite of what was

reported last year.

The average household income of married members by

gender, by single and dual income, and by children and

no children is presented in Figure 6. As has been true in

prior years, the single income of married women in total,

with kids, and without kids is considerably lower than the

same respective amounts for married men, and these dif-

ferences in household income are statistically significant

again in 2004. The difference in average salary between

single-income married members with respect to gender

and kids/no kids is about $25,600 with kids and justunder $48,000 with no kids (women lower than men in

both cases). Although this is a large amount, the differ-

ence between men and women with kids is the smallest it

has been since 2001 when we were last able to report a

possible “shrinking” gender gap. The difference between

married men and women with no kids, however, is even

greater than last year’s difference.

Further examining Figure 6, the income of dual-

income married members is exactly opposite that of

single-income married members. The average household

income of dual-income married women members in

total, with kids, and without kids is greater than that of

their married men counterparts; this is the first time that

the average household income for dual-income marriedwomen members has exceeded that of dual-income mar-

ried men members for all three measures. Part of the rea-

son for women earning more than men in this situation

is that the spouses of women members are probably earn-

ing more than the spouses of men members. The differ-

ences in average household income for dual-income

married male and female members are statistically signif-

icant for the kids category but not for DINKS (dual

income, no kids) or in total.

The household income of married members (men and

women combined) with kids ($138,130) is greater than

that of married members without kids ($136,032), but

this difference isn’t statistically significant. When separat-

ed by single and dual income, the household income of

single-income married members with no kids exceeds

that of single-income married members with kids

($129,383 vs. $127,668), and this is consistent with 2003

and 2002. The difference in household income for this

measure isn’t statistically significant in 2004, but it was in

2003.

The opposite occurs for the household income of dual-income married members; i.e., the household income of

those with kids is greater than that of DINKS by about

$5,900 ($144,252 vs. $138,388), and this is consistent with

2001-2003. In addition, this difference is statistically sig-

nificant in 2004 (whereas it wasn’t in 2003). Interestingly,

the single-income and dual-income members with kids

are about the same age (about 43), but those single- and


$0 $30,000 $60,000 $90,000 $120,000 $150,000

MenWomen

Single Income With Kids

Single Income, No Kids

Single Income

Dual Income With Kids

Dual Income, No Kids

Dual Income

F ig ur e 6 : A V E R A G E H O U S E H O L D I N C O M E O F M A R R I E D M E M B E R S



dual-income members with no kids have average ages of

53 and 48. These age differences for married members in

these classifications are statistically significant. The

increased age would indicate that some of these members

may now be “empty nesters” so may no longer support

any children. These same single- and dual-income mem-

bers without children have also been in the field longer

than those with kids, and these differences by years in the

field are also statistically significant in 2004.

COMPENSAT ION BY REG ION , RESPONSIB IL ITY ,

AND POSIT IONThe 50 states and Washington, D.C., are arranged into

seven regions as shown in Table 11. The average salary for

each state (when there are enough observations) and for

the seven regions is presented in the table (along with the

standard deviation). The top two regions in 2004 are the

Mid-Atlantic and the West Coast—the same as 2003

although they switched positions in 2004. The Northeast

is third this year after being ranked fifth last year, and it

switches places with the Mountain region.

As was the case last year, the changes for the sevenregions in 2004 showed some volatility. Three regions

showed increases ranging from 7.0% to 10.2% (Midwest,

Northeast, Mid-Atlantic), while two showed very small

gains (West Coast, 1.1%, and Plains, 2.2%), and two saw

average salary decrease slightly (-0.4% for the South and

-0.3% for the Mountain region). The increases for salary

in 2004 from 2003 are statistically significant for the Mid-

west, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions.

Average compensation by responsibility area is shown

in decreasing order by average salary in Table 12, and the

order is almost the same by average total compensation.


Average StandardSalary Deviation

Northeast Region $ 92,136 $28,996 [82]

Connecticut $ 87,003 $28,666 [30]

Maine *** *** [3]

Massachusetts $ 98,097 $ 7,587 [35]

New Hampshire $ 69,280 $24,184 [5]

Rhode Island $107,014 $26,566 [7]

Vermont *** *** [2]

Mid-Atlantic Region $ 99,102 $41,995 [255]

Delaware $ 81,863 $22,684 [8]

Maryland $ 86,236 $23,357 [16]

New Jersey $111,349 $43,556 [43]

New York $109,969 $50,828 [64]

Pennsylvania $ 83,866 $30,178 [76]

Virginia $109,650 $42,659 [37]

Washington, D.C. $ 98,169 $32,032 [8]

West Virginia *** *** [3]

South Region $ 86,310 $33,544 [288]

Alabama $ 81,763 $17,509 [35]

Arkansas $ 64,733 $ 9,579 [6]

Florida $ 95,311 $38,885 [47]

Georgia $ 91,206 $40,511 [35]

Kentucky $ 75,603 $21,278 [20]

Louisiana $ 81,157 $45,850 [7]

Mississippi $ 87,264 $26,274 [9]

North Carolina $ 90,336 $36,380 [66]

South Carolina $ 79,044 $30,106 [25]

Tennessee $ 82,413 $28,401 [38]

Midwest Region $ 89,080 $42,284 [388]

Illinois $ 92,641 $35,871 [37]

Indiana $ 75,571 $22,451 [37]

Iowa $ 76,862 $49,857 [18]

Michigan $ 89,333 $31,175 [69]

Minnesota $ 91,233 $32,240 [72]

Missouri $ 83,404 $35,258 [33]

Ohio $104,734 $67,183 [71]

Wisconsin $ 79,105 $29,887 [51]

Plains Region $ 85,245 $34,651 [103]

Kansas $ 81,171 $24,906 [18]

Nebraska $ 77,433 $29,057 [9]

North Dakota *** *** [2]

Oklahoma $ 71,244 $18,280 [10]

South Dakota ***

***

[3] Texas $ 91,696 $38,938 [61]

Mountain Region $ 86,646 $27,901 [79]

Arizona $ 80,667 $24,486 [21]

Colorado $ 84,035 $24,702 [33]

Idaho $ 88,295 $16,889 [10]

Montana *** *** [2]

Nevada $ 97,750 $37,085 [6]

New Mexico *** *** [2]

Utah $131,200 $24,236 [5]

Wyoming [0]

West Coast Region $ 95,074 $40,009 [181]

Alaska $ 80,500 $34,798 [6]

California $107,294 $41,958 [118]

Hawaii *** *** [3]

Oregon $ 74,495 $18,527 [19]

Washington $ 70,808 $20,787 [35]

* Data not reported to protect confidentiali ty.


Tab le 11 : AVERAGE SALARY BY STATE


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/salary-survey-june-2004 12/16June 2005 I STRATEGIC F INANCE 39

This year the finance and general management responsi-

bility areas have regained the top positions—finance for

average salary and general management for average total

compensation. Like last year, there are some interesting

results this year. Public accounting, which ranked first last

year, dropped to sixth in 2004, and the average salary and

average total compensation dropped 10.4% and 11.2%,

respectively, from the amounts reported in 2003. The

average compensation for public accountants shown in

this table is very consistent with the values reported in

Table 9 (SIC area). At the same time, internal audit ranks

third in 2004 as a consequence of 27.0% and 34.7%

increases in average salary and average total compensa-tion from 2003 amounts. With the reporting require-

ments of Sarbanes-Oxley taking effect in 2004, internal

auditors have been very much in demand, and their

salary increases seem to reflect that. Outside public

accounting, taxation, and information systems, compen-

sation for the other responsibility areas increased in 2004

over the amounts reported in 2003, ranging from a low of

1.7% to the highs reported for internal auditing.

Also, 40 job titles (one is “other”) are classified into

four management levels—top-level, senior, middle, and

lower/entry—along with academia in Table 13. The aver-

Average Average TotalSalary Compensation

Top-Level Management $106,498 $127,386 [308]

Owner $ 85,873 $100,743 [46]

Chief Executive Officer $ 96,633 $128,467 [6]

President $117,867 $138,100 [15]

Corporate Secretary $ 70,580 $ 76,478 [8]Corporate Treasurer $ 95,274 $103,184 [10]

Chief Financial Officer $106,699 $128,570 [194]

Executive Vice President $ 93,800 $119,729 [7]

Senior Vice President $153,575 $200,081 [8]

Principal $111,625 $155,165 [4]

Partner $195,480 $211,280 [10]

Senior Management $ 97,834 $114,978 [290]

Group President *** *** [1]

Vice President $121,622 $152,892 [79]

Assistant Vice President $ 82,150 $ 90,917 [6]

Group Vice President $130,800 $161,200 [5]

Divisional Vice President $111,455 $145,618 [11]

Corporate Controller $ 84,256 $ 95,031 [161]

Consultant $ 99,100 $105,322 [27]


Middle Management $ 90,281 $102,761 [488]

Asst. Corporate Controller $ 78,863 $ 92,213 [16]

Divisional Controller $ 98,665 $115,801 [77]

Plant Controller $ 81,919 $ 90,787 [80]

Director $114,440 $138,686 [93]General Manager $ 81,649 $ 88,779 [17]

Manager $ 85,591 $ 93,678 [157]

General Supervisor $ 66,378 $ 71,806 [7]

Supervisor $ 62,774 $ 66,754 [25]

Chief Accountant $ 71,384 $ 75,387 [16]

Lower Mgmt./Entry Level $ 65,864 $ 70,689 [223]

Staff Accountant $ 48,831 $ 50,298 [24]

Senior Accountant $ 61,672 $ 65,423 [80]

Financial Analyst $ 71,027 $ 77,314 [91]

Systems Analyst $ 75,566 $ 80,858 [10]

Programmer *** *** [1]

Auditor $ 76,835 $ 83,629 [17]

Academic Positions $ 81,076 $ 89,957 [60]

Administrator *** *** [3]

Dean *** *** [3]

Department Chair $100,400 $120,900 [6]

Professor $ 90,007 $ 95,970 [19]

Associate Professor $ 72,980 $ 88,153 [15]

Assistant Professor $ 56,369 $ 61,138 [13]

Instructor *** *** [1]

Other $ 87,091 $ 98,873 [28]

* Data not reported to protect confidentiality.


Tabl e 13: COMPENSAT ION BY POS I T ION


Finance $104,962 $124,288 [217]

General Management $104,876 $128,278 [223]Internal Auditing $102,385 $121,727 [34]

Taxation $ 99,941 $103,404 [18]

Risk Management $ 97,192 $101,564 [12]

Public Accounting $ 96,209 $110,465 [54]

Information Systems $ 94,128 $102,213 [33]

Budgeting and Planning $ 90,087 $101,185 [87]

Corporate Accounting $ 88,262 $100,918 [341]

Personnel Accounting $ 84,517 $ 90,767 [6]

Education $ 79,439 $ 89,184 [65]

Cost Accounting $ 77,504 $ 86,457 [107]

Government Accounting $ 76,240 $ 83,809 [40]

General Accounting $ 70,895 $ 76,831 [161]

* Number of responses shown in brackets.

Tabl e 12: COMPENSAT ION B Y RESPON S IB IL I TY A REA



age compensation for the four management levels

increases with rank, which is consistent with prior years.

Last year, only top management had a large increase in

average compensation (8% or more), but this year, top

management is the only category that showed a decrease

from 2003 figures—7.9% for average salary and 9.6% for

average total compensation. The average salary and aver-age total compensation for senior management increased

11.4% and 13.2%, respectively, while the figures for mid-

dle management were 7.6% and 10.1%, respectively, and

5.6% and 6.3%, respectively, for lower- /entry-level

management. Consistent with the values reported in

Table 9 (SIC area), the average compensation for academ-

ic positions also showed increases in 2004—9.5% and

14.4%, respectively, for average salary and average total

compensation. These differences in average compensation

by management classification are statistically significant

in 2004 from 2003.

ALTERNATIVE CAREER PATHS

We have also examined several variations desired or expe-

rienced in career paths over the years:

x A reduction in hours worked with a proportional

reduction in compensation.

x A career path allowing more flexible (rigid) com-

mitments, resulting in slower (faster) career advance-

ment, if appropriate.

x The number and length of any career interruptions.These have been examined from the standpoint of all

respondents, by gender, and by other variables as appropriate.

The proportion of all respondents who would be inter-

ested in reducing the hours they worked and taking a

commensurate reduction in compensation are presented

in Figure 7. This figure also shows the average reduction

in hours/compensation that each—all, women, men—

would be willing to take. The percentage interested in this

option increased 1% from the last two years, but this

number is within the range experienced since 1996(35% - 45%). The most common reductions in hours/

compensation are 5% by 12% of the respondents, 10% by

35% of the respondents, and 20% by 30% of the respon-

dents. The 16% mean reduction in hours/compensation

for all respondents is within the range experienced since

1996 (15.7% to 17.3%).

As Figure 7 shows, more women than men would be

willing to take a reduction in hours/compensation, which

is consistent with prior years. The proportion of women

(49.7%) and men (31.7%) is also within the ranges experi-

enced since 1996 (women: 45% - 60% vs. men: 30% -

44%). The mean reduction in hours/compensation this

year (women, 18.2% vs. men, 14.6%) is within the ranges

experienced during 1996-2003 (women: 17.8% - 19.5% vs.

men: 14.0% - 15.6%) and comes after two years when the

mean reduction had actually been at its highest levels.

The proportion of married and single members (single

is defined as single and divorced for this demographic

comparison) interested in a reduction in hours/compen-

sation is almost the same at 36% and 39%, respectively,and the average reduction is the same at 16%. While the

reduction in hours/compensation tends to increase with

age (mean reduction of 14% for the 19-29 age category to

19.5% for over 60), there is no statistically significant dif-

ference by age. Though DINKS want the largest reduction

in hours/compensation, there really is no statistical differ-

ence in age among the married members in terms of

income and children. Furthermore, there is no statistical

difference in the average reduction in hours/compensation

by management level.

Interest in the second career path option—a career path


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Average percentage reduction

Yes, reduce hours/compensation

MenWomenAll

F igure 7 : REDUCE HOURS AND COMP ENSAT ION

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% MenWomenAll

Flexible Career PathRelevant Consideration

F igure 8 : F LEX IBLE VS . R IG I D CARE ER PATH



allowing more flexible (rigid) commitments that result in

slower (faster) career advancement is presented in Figure 8.

Of all respondents, 60% thought that this career path

option was relevant. This number is not only lower than

last year (62%), but it’s the lowest percentage experienced

since this question was first tracked in 1996 (range of

62% - 65%). This flexible vs. rigid career path option ismore relevant to women than men (67% vs. 58%). The

second set of columns shows the interest in the flexible/

slower career path for those who thought that this was a

relevant feature. Again, as in the past, more women than

men want the more flexible/slower career path (87% vs.

79%), the overall percentage is 81% (83% last year), and

the figures for women and men are in the ranges reported

in prior years (women: 81% -89% vs. men: 72% - 79%).

The difference between women and men on this option is

statistically significant this year.

Other observations in 2004 regarding this career path

option are that people who have been in the field longer

and who are at a higher management level prefer a more

flexible/slower career path. Those with one income show

less preference for the flexible/slower career path, but this

isn’t statistically significant. Those supporting children

tend to prefer the flexible/slower career path, but, again,

this isn’t statistically significant.

Career interruptions of at least six months or more

(criterion for an interruption in this study) were reported

by 25% of the respondents—the greatest ever reportedsince this variable was first tracked in 1998 (19%-23% in

prior years). Women report a greater proportion of inter-

ruptions than men do (26% vs. 24%), but this difference

isn’t statistically significant in 2004 (there was a statistical

difference the past two years). The most frequent inter-

ruption for women was maternity leave followed by

downsizing and pursuit of an advanced degree, while

men identified the most frequent interruption as down-

sizing followed by loss of position due to merger and

pursuit of an advanced degree.Other statistics regarding members who have experi-

enced interruptions are that they are older (49 vs. 44,

same as last year) and that they have been in the field

approximately three years longer than those who haven’t

had an interruption (two years last year). Both of these

differences are statistically significant this year.

Most of the career interruptions can be considered

“negative,” meaning that an individual may have little or

no control over the interruption and doesn’t request it

(e.g., downsizing, family leave, loss of job from merger).

The only “positive” interruption might be pursuit of an

advanced degree because an individual might change

positions or careers as a result of obtaining the new

degree. Even with this, the average salary and average

total compensation of those with interruptions vs. those

without any interruption is less by approximately $9,800

and $16,200, respectively. These differences are very sim-

ilar to the ones reported last year, and they are statistical-ly significant in 2004. The differences between men with

and without interruptions is about $10,000, but it is only

$8,400 for women; the average total compensation dif-

ferences for those with and without interruptions is

$17,700 for men and $11,300 for women. These differ-

ences in compensation are statistically significant, and

the overriding factor in these statistics is the interrup-

tion, not gender.

AVERAGE SALARY PROF ILE

Table 14 reflects average salary by four of the common

characteristics that influence compensation in this study—

management level, degree, certification, and gender. Here

you may make casual comparisons of your salary with

those who responded to the survey based on the same or

similar characteristics, but you must remember that these

data are based on subsets from the population, so all possi-

ble attributes are not represented. An example of a com-

parison that could be made would be those in middle

management with a baccalaureate degree and both a CMA

and CPA: the 11 women had an average salary of $89,815as compared to the 31 men with an average salary of

$90,584.

This table has 10 categories of degree (“no degree” isn’t

included because the data weren’t reported or there were too

few responses) and certification combinations in four man-

agement levels for both genders, making a total of 40 possi-

ble comparisons. Some comparisons can’t be made because

some cells have too few responses to maintain confidentiali-

ty. Table 14 indicates that there is a gender gap because, of

the 34 possible cell comparisons, the average salary for menis greater than women in 31 instances. Only the women who

are in senior management and have a master’s degree and a

CMA, middle management with a master’s and both a CMA

and CPA, and entry-level management with a baccalaureate

degree and a CPA earn more than their male counterparts.

Generally, those with a master’s degree earn more than

those with only a baccalaureate degree, and this holds

true in most situations. The only place where this doesn’t

hold true is for men in top management who have both a

CMA and a CPA and women in entry-level management

with a CPA. In both of these situations, respondents with




a baccalaureate and these characteristics have average

salaries greater than those with a master’s and these

characteristics.

As previously discussed, those with professional certifi-

cation can expect to earn more than those without certi-

fication. This holds true in Table 14 except in three

instances—men in top management with only a bac-

calaureate degree and a CMA as well as men and women

in middle management with a master’s degree and a CPA.In these three cases, their average salary is less than the

salary of those with the same characteristics but with no

certification. At least in the latter case, the master’s degree

for middle managers may be more important than the

CPA certificate.

SOME OBSERVAT IONS

One of the things that authors like to see is some kind of

confirmation of their findings.SmartPros conducted a salary

survey between September and December 2004 that

was reported on in February 2005 (http://accounting.

smartpros.com/x46852.xml, 2/08/05, 11:27 a.m.). Their

findings coincided with some of the findings in our

salary survey. For instance, SmartPros found that accoun-

tants with a CPA—a certification—earned approximately

$20,000 more than those without a CPA, an amount

very comparable to the difference in our study. Also,

SmartPros found that a person with a CPA/MBA earned

more than someone without an advanced degree or

certification—same as we have reported. SmartPros alsoreported that those individuals with a CMA earned more

than those without a certification, which is also consistent

with our findings.

We know we have devoted a great deal of space to dif-

ferences in compensation by gender and the fact that there

is a compensation gender gap. But we couldn’t ignore

these findings. Our purpose, however, is not to promote or

perpetuate this gap—just make people aware of it. In the

2001 salary survey there were signs that the gender gap in

compensation was narrowing. Unfortunately, for the next

two years that gap became wider again. But this year pro-


Tabl e 14: AVERAGE SALAR Y BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL , CE RT I F ICAT ION , EDUC AT ION , AND GENDER

TOP MANAGEMENT SENIOR MANAGEMENT

Women Men Women Men

No Degree ** * [1] ** * [1] [0] ** * [1]

Baccalaureate $ 80,902 [29] $107,362 [129] $ 86,971 [41] $ 91,516 [110]

No CMA or CPA $ 78,087 [12] $ 98,400 [42] $ 69,653 [19] $ 80,451 [48]

CMA ** * [4] $ 95,752 [22] $ 80,563 [6] $ 98,018 [24]

CPA $ 81,751 [8] $106,355 [39] $118,040 [11] $ 97,110 [24]

Both CMA and CPA $ 95,024 [5] $133,173 [26] $ 92,120 [5] $108,714 [14]

Master's $105,601 [19] $118,040 [107] $105,760 [24] $109,664 [93]

No CMA or CPA $101,503 [5] $100,157 [23] $ 84,982 [7] $ 93,229 [28]

CMA $112,343 [7] $125,340 [41] $115,634 [11] $113,119 [27]

CPA ** * [4] $119,580 [18] ** * [2] $114,944 [9]

Both CMA and CPA ** * [3] $121,413 [25] ** * [4] $120,678 [29]

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT ENTRY-LEVEL MANAGEMENT

Women Men Women Men

No Degree [0] ** * [1] [0] ** * [2]

Baccalaureate $ 74,589 [84] $ 84,787 [156] $58,679 [52] $65,710 [64]

No CMA or CPA $ 67,021 [37] $ 77,691 [55] $54,373 [30] $60,192 [31]

CMA $ 75,234 [18] $ 90,910 [37] $59,333 [8] $73,487 [19]

CPA $ 80,194 [18] $ 84,302 [33] $64,564 [10] $60,792 [6]

Both CMA and CPA $ 89,815 [11] $ 90,584 [31] ** * [4] $72,313 [8]

Master’s $ 89,021 [57] $103,651 [163] $69,648 [37] $72,446 [57]

No CMA or CPA $ 83,508 [32] $ 99,370 [44] $60,079 [14] $69,650 [25]

CMA $ 92,938 [8] $106,206 [57] $74,964 [11] $79,740 [12]

CPA $ 80,889 [9] $ 92,116 [19] $62,700 [5] $69,298 [9]

Both CMA and CPA $116,307 [8] $109,743 [43] $85,395 [7] $73,418 [11]

* Data not reported to protect confidential ity.




vides some evidence that maybe the gap between men and

women has narrowed once more. For instance, the

increases in average salary and average total compensation

for women this year were statistically significant while the

men’s increases weren’t. The differences between men’s

and women’s compensation are the smallest in five years,

and, when women’s average salary is stated as a percent of

men’s, the resulting percentage is the greatest that it has

been over the past five years. While the additional com-

pensation of women still lags behind that of men, thereare indications that this gap may be getting smaller. One

of the brightest observations was that the women in the

youngest age category (19-29) actually had a larger aver-

age salary and average total compensation than the men

in this same category. There was some thought that the

gender gap might be due to interruptions, but while inter-

ruptions do impact compensation, the impact is due to

the interruption and not gender.

The safest thing to say is that there is still a gender gap

in compensation, but, with this year’s results, it appears

to be smaller. Yet before we start saying that the gender

gap is beginning to disappear, maybe we should wait to

get at least two years in a row with similar results. s

David L. Schroeder is an associate professor of information

and decision sciences in the College of Business Administra-

tion at Valparaiso University. He holds a Ph.D. in manage-

ment information systems from Oklahoma State University.

Karl E. Reichardt, CMA, is the Associate Dean and an asso-

ciate professor of accounting in the College of Business Administration at Valparaiso University. He holds a Ph.D.

in accountancy from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Institute of Management Accountants for their support in conducting

this research.

1 Results of the IMA’s annual salary survey were first reported in

the May 1990 issue of Management Accounting and then in the

June issue from 1991 through 1998. From 1999 through 2004,

they have been reported in the June issue of Strategic Finance .

Authors are Karl E. Reichardt and David L. Schroeder.

Tabl e 15: EST IMAT ING A SALAR Y LEVEL FO R IMA MEMBER S

CALCULAT ING AN AVERAGE SALARY

Since 1989, we have provided data that permits a way

for members to calculate an estimated average salary

employing some of the significant demographic vari-

ables discussed in this article; for the fourth year,

there are separate regressions for men and women. The factors for this year’s regressions are presented in

Table 15. While both regressions include the same

factors—management level, number of years in the

field, degree, certification, and career interruption—the

values of the factors are slightly different. The regres-

sions predict up to 20% of the variability for men

(slightly down from last year’s 23%) and 20% for

women (same as 2003). Please remember that these

regressions reflect what members have reported and

that the data relating to gender differences should not

be used to justify or continue paying lower salaries to

women. These statistics are results of a salary

survey —they are not a guide as to what to pay.

To calculate your own “personal salary,” start with

the appropriate base salary for your gender, then add/subtract the factors that apply to you personally. First you would add (or do nothing or

subtract) the factor for your management level, then add the product of the number of years you have been in the field times the per-year

increment, add an amount for an advanced degree (or subtract an amount for no degree), add the factor for having a CMA and/or CPA, if any,

and then subtract an amount if you have had a career interruption of six months or more. This should provide you an estimate of your “own”

personal salary based on this year’s salary survey data.

Your Men Women Calculation

Start with this base figure $74,779 $62,848

If you are TOP-level management ADD 15,893 - - - - -

OR

If you are SENIOR-level management ADD 6,369 - - - - -

OR

If you are ENTRY-level management SUBTRACT 21,861 20,131

Number of years in the field _____ TIMES 355 716

If you have an advanced degree ADD 13,861 12,797

OR

If you have no degree SUBTRACT 19,289 - - - - -

If you hold the CMA ADD 13,619 10,079

If you hold the CPA ADD 6,832 12,440

IF you have had one or more career SUBTRACT 13,367 11,548interruptions

Your Estimated Salary Level

Salary Survey June 2004

Documents

Transcript of Salary Survey June 2004