$

2020 QP SALARY SURVEY

12 QP December 2020 ❘ [Link]

 Striking the right balance to reach your

A career goals | by Max Christian Hansen

FORMULA
THAT

[Link] ❘ December 2020 QP 13

2020 QP SALARY SURVEY

In 2020, the world was shocked by the

emergence of the COVID-19 virus. Of course,
quality professionals were not immune to the
far-reaching effects of this ongoing crisis.
REGULAR EMPLOYEE RESULTS
Many were forced to switch jobs. Others
Section 1: Salary by Job Title ................................................................20
needed to shift responsibilities within
Section 2: Salary by Certifications ......................................................32
existing roles. Some had to look for entirely
Section 3: Salary by Six Sigma Training ............................................ 40
new employers. And nearly everyone had
Section 4: Salary by Years of Experience in Quality .................... 44
to adjust to tremendous change within the
workplace and go virtual—making their
The following sections can be found on QP’s website at
homes temporary workplaces. Even in some
[Link]/quality-progress/salary-survey.
manufacturing sectors in which workers
Section 5: Salary by Highest Level of Education
interact with machines in a fixed plant,
Section 6: Salary by Industry
many jobs that could be switched to work-
Section 7: Salary by Education and Years in Quality
from-home mode did so. In addition, entire
Section 8: Salary by Geographic Location—U.S. and Canada
industry sectors turned upside down, many
Section 9: Salary by Gender and Age
reporting massive layoffs.
Indeed, disruption has been deep and
Section 10: Appendixes
widespread, and it continues to be felt
Appendix A: Statistical Terms
throughout the profession.
Appendix B: Job Titles
For 34 years now, the annual QP Salary
Appendix C: Industry Descriptions
Survey has been used to examine the
state of the quality profession, gauging any
changes in terms of salary and other work-
place factors. This year, the historic COVID-19
crisis abruptly became an overriding factor
that could not be overlooked, giving QP the
opportunity to explore some of the impli-
cations the coronavirus is having on quality
professionals’ jobs and careers.
For instance, a higher percentage of
respondents to this year’s questionnaire
reported having been laid off within the
past six months than at any time since 2009,
Figure 1 shows.
There’s at least one strong vital sign worth
noting, however. For U.S. respondents, the
average salary grew a hefty 8.06% from 2019 to
2020. More on that surprisingly large increase
in section one of this year’s salary report.
For now, though, that seemingly positive
development can’t mask the dimmer views of
the state of the quality profession and ongo-
ing troubles in the workplace that the annual
salary survey revealed.

14 QP December 2020 ❘ [Link]

 FIGURE 1

Historical percentage of respondents

reporting laid off within past six months
Percentage recently laid off

3.5
3
2.5
Percentage

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
06 007 008 009 010 201 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Year

% recently laid off

Figure 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees,

x Canadian employees

Recent layoffs reported by In hopes that the COVID-19 disruption might be

respondents short-lived, some organizations resorted to fur-
The timeline in Figure 1 shows the percentage of loughs, the common term for a layoff expected to
respondents each year who reported having been be temporary. Sixteen of our respondents reported
laid off within the six months prior to taking the that they had been laid off, but had at the same
survey. The percentage was low during the boom time been given a tentative return-to-work date.
years before 2008. The following year—2009— Table 1 (p. 16) shows this, as well as three respon-
marks the point at which survey respondents felt dents reporting their workplace closed by a county
the effects of the recession. In that year, 3.3% of order, two by a federal order, and five by order of a
respondents said they had been laid off recently. U.S. state.
Although the recovery from the 2008 recession
was gradual, the percentage of respondents report- Changes in jobs, workplaces
ing layoffs never again rose to more than 2% until The survey asked respondents whether they
this year. Now, it stands at 2.5%. Remember that believed their workplaces would be changed
the COVID-19 crisis has had less time to make itself permanently by the COVID-19 crisis, and more than
felt than the recession had by the summer of 2009, 1,200 respondents answered in the affirmative.
when that year’s survey questionnaire was released. Table 2 (p. 16) breaks down the coding conducted
In that light, it must be acknowledged that this on a sample of about one-tenth of those responses.
crisis probably outdoes the 2008 recession. The responses broke down into the categories

[Link] ❘ December 2020 QP 15

2020 QP SALARY SURVEY

TA B L E 1

Furloughs and workplace

closures—U.S. and Canadian
shown in the table, with the emergence of remote
work taking a commanding lead as the No. 1 work-
place change.

respondents The table also shows that 14.5% of respondents

said their job position had changed, which, in some
cases, meant that a promotion or a job change was
Number of respondents furloughed 16 postponed. It also may have meant that job duties
(temporary layoff)
Workplace closed by county order 3 changed—even if the title remained the same.
Workplace closed by federal order 2 Others reported that, whether they visited their
Workplace closed by state order 5 employer’s physical workplace—be it a manufacturing
or office setting—on a regular basis or only occasion-
ally, changes were evident there.
Others reported altered working conditions as
TA B L E 2 a result of new HR management issues. Increased

Job changes from

workloads were noted by 1.5%, which of course may
overlap with the changed position category further
up the table.

coded responses Table 3 offers another view of changes in the

workplace. Of those respondents who answered the
COVID-19-related questions, 11.6% said they began
Percentage of Number of
responses responses a new job search as soon as they knew the pandemic
Remote work 52.7% 69 had started, anticipating the disruption the virus
Position changed or promotion/ might bring to their work lives.
14.5 19
job change postponed A majority of respondents (66.5%) said they believe
In-plant/in-office conditions 12.2 15 that the workplace will be permanently changed, and
HR management 8.4 11 this group formed the basis of those who answered
Learning required 6.1 8 the questions in Table 2. As Table 3 shows, more than
Unknown or ambiguous answer 4.6 6 2,000 respondents began to work remotely, and
Workload increased 1.5 2 this may well be in addition to some who already
had begun remote work for reasons not related to
COVID-19.
TA B L E 3 Indeed, only 1,755 reported that their remote
work started because of restrictions and lockdowns
Workplace changes—U.S. and precipitated by COVID-19. Of these, 1,201 (57.9%) said
their organization—when the crisis began—had the

Canadian respondents technology in place to enable remote work. This is a

reasonably good state of readiness considering how
the virus took the world by surprise.
Percentage of Number of
responses responses
Started a job search due to COVID 11.6% 395 Productivity affected
Believe workplace will be changed The QP Salary Survey asked those who had begun
66.5 2,268
permanently working from home or other remote locations how
Started working remotely 63.1 2,085 they thought the new settings affected their own pro-
Remote work began due to COVID 84.7 1,755 ductivity, as well as their organization’s productivity.
Organization had technology in The results were coded into the five categories shown
57.9 1,201
place for remote work in Table 4.

16 QP December 2020 ❘ [Link]

 TA B L E 4

There was no majority opinion, but nearly one-

third of those who answered this question said that How has productivity been
productivity had been negatively affected. More
than 25% said the effect was neutral, and 23.7%
said productivity had been positively affected.
affected by remote work?
Some gave unclear or ambiguous answers, and Percentage of Number of
responses responses
others gave mixed ones. An answer was deemed
Negatively 33.2% 63
mixed, for example, if it was one in which a specific
Neutral 25.8 49
aspect of work was identified as being positively
affected while noting one or more other aspects Positively 23.7 45
as being harmed by remote work. Unclear or ambiguous answer 8.9 17
Respondents to this question could not help Mixed 8.4 16
mixing up appraisals of productivity with their
subjective feelings about working from home. In
addition, productivity for the individual depended TA B L E 5
very much on the home environment.
For instance, the presence of children at home—
given that schools and daycare centers were widely Sample of comments about
closed due to the pandemic—was a major factor for
a large number of respondents. Some were glad to
be able to be closer to their children and felt that
changed product/service offerings
their overall satisfaction with work was improved Percentage of Number of
by the situation. Others pointed out that attempt- responses responses
ing to focus on work and the needs of children Added product or service 37.3% 47
simultaneously not only proved stressful, but also Unclear or ambiguous answer 22.2 28
a detriment to each of these activities. Changed delivery method (services) 14.3 18
Eliminated products or services 9.5 12
Industry disruption Changed mix of products or services, 8.7 11
but no additions or subtractions
It seems intuitively obvious that not all industries
Not relevant to offerings 7.9 10
would be affected by the COVID-19 crisis in the
same way. This is demonstrated by changes to the
products and services that industries offered, and
also to their employee headcounts. One of the remotely. Several service industry organizations did
survey questions asked respondents whether his extensive retooling.
or her organization was changing its product or Meanwhile, as Table 5 shows, 9.5% of respon-
service offerings. The verbatim text answers were dents said that their organizations had subtracted
coded into the six categories shown in Table 5. or dropped one or more products or services. The
Among those who answered this question, more next row in the table shows the percentage who
than one-third (37.3%) said the organization had responded that their organization changed its mix
added one or more products or services. of products or services without any additions or
There also were several unclear or ambiguous subtractions. For example, an organization may have
answers, and many more that made clear that dedicated more shifts or plant space to an existing
while their organization did not alter product or product line, while at the same time scaled back
service offerings, delivery methods were changed. production of other items.
This was primarily in areas where services that Large numbers of respondents reported their
had been provided in person had to be handled organizations had decreased headcount through

[Link] ❘ December 2020 QP 17

 2020 QP SALARY SURVEY

TA B L E 6

Organizations decreasing or increasing

headcount due to COVID-19—by industry
Decreased headcount Increased headcount
Percentage Number Percentage Number
reporting reporting reporting reporting
All manufacturing industries 27% 669 6.9% 170
Aerospace vehicles 38.2 87 1.8 4
More than 1,200 Chemicals and related products 7 22 8.9 28
Computers and electronic products 25.4 34 3.7 5
respondents said Defense 13.1 14 5.6 6
Electrical products 33.8 24 7 5
they believed the Fabricated metal products 40.5 34 6 5
Food and related products 11.1 14 19 24
crisis would bring Machinery 35.5 44 5.6 7
about permanent Medical instruments and supplies 22.2 109 10 49
Other product 34.5 86 3.2 8
changes in their Paper and related products 25 10 10 4
Primary metals 35.7 15 — —
workplaces. Rubber and plastic products 27.5 38 5.8 8
Toys, sporting goods, pens, jewelry 38.5 5 7.7 1
and miscellaneous products
Transportation vehicles (not aerospace) 50.8 96 4.2 8
All service industries 19% 178 6.5% 61
Construction services 31.4 11 8.6 3
Consulting and other professional, 14.3 32 5.4 12
scientific, and technical services
Educational services 30 12 — —
Financial and insurance services 8.6 6 7.1 5
Government and public administration 7.4 8 1.9 2
services
Healthcare services 23.9 42 13.1 23
Information services 18.4 7 7.9 3
Oil and gas extraction and refining 44.8 13 — —
Other service 19.7 12 1.6 1
Transportation services 38.2 13 5.9 2
Utilities 20 4 5 1
Wholesale services 35.7 5 14.3 2

18 QP December 2020 ❘ [Link]

layoffs or other means, as shown in Table 6. The There also are plans to explore the lessons
table was divided into manufacturing and ser- organizations are learning while they add to their
vices. The manufacturing sector hardest hit by the product or service offerings. Quality professionals
pandemic was transportation vehicles, the last row often push the boundaries of what’s possible. How
of the manufacturing section shows. In the service fast can we make quality happen? Is the answer
sector, the oil and gas extraction and refining sec- different in manufacturing versus service?
tor was hit hard, too. That sector, of course, Even before the United States entered World
is closely related to transportation vehicles. War II, the nation assisted its allies in the war effort
There are several industries in which some by turning the automotive industry, centered in
organizations laid off workers, while others Detroit, into what became known as the “Arsenal of
increased headcount as a result of the pandemic, Democracy.” Carmakers massively retooled to turn
Table 6 shows. The row for food and related out aircraft bombers, tanks, artillery, bombsites,
products shows a volatile sector: 11.1% of respon- and a host of other types of war materiel.
dents said their organizations lost headcount due The historic crisis facing the world today is the
to the virus, while another 19% said their organi- closest thing any of us is likely to see in our life-
zations added staff to meet new demand spurred times that compares to that tremendous industrial
by COVID-19. effort of the 1940s. QP has always acted as a broker
Similarly, wholesale services, at the bottom of the and medium for the sharing of best practices so
table, shows 35.7% of respondents reporting reduced quality professionals can learn from each other how
headcount from the virus, while 14.3% of respondents best to excel in their industries. We look forward
said their organizations increased headcount. to playing that same role as our readers continue
to share what they’re learning in overcoming the
A wealth of data, and tremendous challenge of COVID-19. Look for that
more insight to come in-depth article in March.
Respondents to the 2020 QP Salary Survey were
EDITOR’S NOTE
generous in sharing insight about how they and Each figure and table that accompanies this article is data
their organizations were handling the COVID-19 from respondents in the United States and Canada. The data
crisis. Not only did they take a somewhat extended also include responses that could not be used in the various
analyses that make up the rest of this year’s report.
survey this year, but nearly two-thirds of U.S. and
Canadian respondents also granted QP permission
to follow up with additional inquiries.
QP plans to take the insight gleaned from the
survey data and formulate deeper questions and Max Christian Hansen is a management
follow up with those respondents to gain even consultant based in Sacramento, CA.
He has helped auto parts manufacturers
more insight into how the quality profession is with their first implementations
coping with this extraordinary challenge. This of statistical process control and
could include, for instance, further examination on has lectured on data quality at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
telecommuting, remote sales and remote teaching, (MIT) in Cambridge. Hansen has an MBA
and what works and what doesn’t. from MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

[Link] ❘ December 2020 QP 19