IMA 2013 Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist - Strategic Finance · 2016. 6. 29. · IMA 2013 Salary...

Once again we look to the annual

salary survey to see how IMA members

are faring in these complex times. With

a notable contraction in both average

salary and average total compensation,

the gains of 2012 have been offset—

and in some cases exceeded—in 2013.

Many participants reported decreases

in both average salary and average total

compensation. The average salary of

members responding to the 2013 sur-

vey was $108,455, a decrease of $4,170

from the 2012 average of $112,625.

Average total compensation decreased

from $135,654 in 2012 to $125,734 this

year, a difference of $9,920. For the

first time in six years, both changes are

statistically significant.1

Univariate statistics for the five most

recent salary surveys (2009-2013) are

shown in Table 1. Changes from 2012

to 2013 in both average salary and

June 2014 I S T R AT E G IC F I N A N C E 23

How Did We Conduct the Survey?

In 2013, the IMA salary survey was conducted online for the first time. Approximately

one week prior to the start of the survey, all IMA members received an e-mail informing

them that the 2013 salary survey would be online and encouraging them to watch their

e-mail for an invitation to participate. Requests to participate were e-mailed to a ran-

dom sample of 5,158 IMA members in early December 2013. Reminder e-mails were

sent one week and two weeks after the initial invitation. The sample was designed to

represent the IMA membership in the United States geographically. The sample size was

selected to allow for a 95% confidence level of estimating the population mean within

plus or minus 3% based on expected return rates.

A total of 1,695 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall response rate of

33%. Of this number, there were 1,489 usable questionnaires representing 28.9% of

persons 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 mem-

bership proportionately for those demographics maintained by IMA.

The response rate for the 2013 survey increased 10% from 2012 and is slightly

higher than the rates of 2010 and 2009, which were 32% and 30%, respectively. His-

torically, response rates have fallen from 41%/38% total/usable responses in 1999 to

last year’s low of 23%/22%.

IMA 2013 Salary SurveyIMA 2013 Salary Survey

Rainy Days PersistBy Lee Schiffel, CGFM, and Coleen Wilder

COVER STORY

Like a steadily falling rain, the results from the 25th annual IMA® Salary Survey may

dampen your outlook on the future. Economists tell us the Great Recession ended in

2009, but a general malaise continued to envelope Main Street, if not Wall Street.

While IMA members weathered those years on stable footing, respondents to this

year’s survey paint a dreary picture of the 2013 salary landscape for accountants and

finance professionals. In last year’s survey, we wondered if “the winds of change have

completely shifted toward a positive direction or whether the future will continue to

feel like rough seas.” We now have our answer: Batten down the hatches before wad-

ing into the 2013 details, but keep an eye open for the occasional ray of sunlight.

average total compensation are negative

for all levels (mean, median, 20th per-

centile, and 80th percentile), and all are

statistically significant at the 95% confi-

dence level. The 2013 average salary

amounts are also below those reported

in 2010, eliminating gains made in both

2012 and 2011. The losses weren’t dis-

tributed equally across all income levels.

The largest decrease (6.8%) occurred at

the 80th percentile, where average salary

decreased by $10,000. The 20th per-

centile experienced the smallest decrease

(2.9% or $2,100). Decreases in the mean

and median were 3.7% and 4%, respec-

tively. The U.S. gross domestic product

(GDP) grew by 1.9% during 2013, a

much better result than the contraction

that occurred in accounting salaries.

Demographic information, providing

insight into the characteristics of the “average” IMA

member in 2013, is shown in Table 2. We rely on these

demographics to make comparisons between this year’s

compensation figures and those of the prior 24 years and

to identify changes, track trends, and provide insight

regarding the compensation of the IMA membership.2

While the profile this year is very similar to the past five

years, here are a few highlights for 2013:

◆ The median age dropped from 49 to

47 years old. The all-time high of 50 was

reached in 2010. There had been a gradual

increase from 2005 to 2010. Since then the

average IMA member has gotten a bit

younger.

◆ In 2013, we received 64% of our

responses from men and 36% from

women, a proportion that has remained

relatively consistent for the last five years

(ranging from 64%-68% male).

◆ Virtually all (99%) participants have

earned a baccalaureate degree, a percent-

age that has remained constant across the

last five years. And 52% of the 2013 par-

ticipants have an advanced degree, a 2%

decrease from last year. The average num-

ber of years in the field decreased by one

year to 20, while the number of years with

current employer stayed at 10. The years

in current position dropped to six.

◆ The percentage of respondents who

are married decreased 3%, dropping to

79% from the 2012 all-time high of 82%.

Spouses employed outside the home

24 S T R AT E G IC F I N A N C E I June 2014

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Median age 47 49 48 50 48

Female 36% 33% 34% 32% 34%

Male 64% 67% 66% 68% 66%

Degrees

Baccalaureate 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

Advanced 52% 54% 53% 54% 53%

Years of experience

Current position 6 7 7 6 6

Current employer 10 10 10 10 10

In field 20 21 20 21 20

Family status

Married 79% 82% 81% 82% 81%

Spouse employed outside home 66% 64% 63% 66% 64%

Percent with children 57% 58% 58% 66% 65%

Average number of children 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3

Certification percentages

Any certification 70% 72% 71% 72% 70%

CMA 53% 55% 54% 56% 54%

CPA 27% 34% 34% 35% 36%

CFM 7% 9% 8% 9% 9%

Table 2: “AVERAGE” IMA MEMBER

20th 80thYears Range Mean Median percentile percentile

Average Salary

2013 $23,000 to $1,000,000 $108,455 $ 96,000 $69,900 $136,000

2012 $ 6,000 to $ 650,000 $112,625 $100,000 $72,000 $146,000

2011 $20,000 to $ 600,000 $109,001 $ 98,026 $71,000 $138,000

2010 $28,000 to $ 900,000 $109,265 $ 98,000 $72,000 $139,000

2009 $21,000 to $ 465,000 $105,850 $ 94,900 $70,000 $135,500

Average Total Compensation

2013 $23,000 to $1,800,000 $125,734 $105,500 $73,140 $160,500

2012 $ 6,000 to $1,030,000 $135,654 $110,000 $75,000 $176,000

2011 $30,000 to $ 900,000 $129,591 $106,965 $75,000 $165,000

2010 $28,000 to $1,000,000 $128,486 $105,000 $74,500 $160,000

2009 $21,000 to $ 900,000 $123,357 $100,700 $72,500 $154,600

Table 1: COMPARISON OF UNIVARIATE STATISTICS FOR 2009–2013

COVER STORY

increased 2% from last year, returning to the all-time

high of 66% from 2010.

◆ The percent of participants with children dropped

to 57%, a decrease of 1%. This percentage is consistent

with the results from 2005. The only exception was a

spike to 65%-66% in 2009 and 2010.

◆ 70% of participants have at least one professional

certification. This is a 2% decrease.

◆ The percentage of participants with the CMA® cer-

tification dropped 2% to a total of 53%. Participants who

have earned the CPA dropped from 34% to 27%, and

CFM® holders dropped from 9% to 7%.

Nature of Compensation MeasuresConsistent with prior surveys, the definitions for the

compensation terms are:

Average salary—the mean of all responding mem-

bers’ annual salary.

Average total compensation—the mean of all

responding members’ salary plus any additional compen-

sation (bonuses, profit sharing, etc.).

Average household income—mean of all mem-

bers’ salary plus additional compensation plus spouse’s

base salary.

The proportion of IMA members who received addi-

tional compensation was 75%, up from 73% last year.

Since 2000, the proportion has varied between 67%-76%.

The only exception is 2001, when 90% of participants

reported some form of additional compensation. The

sources of the additional compensation are presented in

Table 3. Consistent with prior years, bonuses and profit

sharing account for a majority of the additional compen-

sation. The proportion of participants receiving either a

bonus or profit sharing dropped from 77% in 2012 to

71% in 2013. While the percentage of individuals report-

ing bonuses did increase—from 56% in 2012 to 58% this

year—it’s still below the 67% reported in 2010. Profit

sharing also fell to 13% this year vs. 21% in 2012.

Both the median and mean amounts of additional

compensation dropped in 2013, ending a three-year run

of increases. The median amount was $10,500 (a decrease

of $2,500 from last year), and the mean amount was

$24,786 ($7,736 drop from last year). The percentage of

women receiving additional compensation rose from 66%

to 68%, while the percentage of men receiving it dropped

from 77% to 71%. Women’s average additional compensa-

tion for 2013 improved to 61% of men’s ($14,462 vs.

$28,725), an increase from 57% in 2012 and 43% in 2011.

Male/Female CompensationThe discrepancy in compensation between men and

women provided the impetus to begin this survey in 1989

and continues to be one of the primary issues we exam-

ine. Our measure of the salary gap is the percent of

women’s salary in proportion to men’s salary. For exam-

ple, if women earn $80,000 and men earn $100,000, the

salary gap is 80%. This year the gap is 78.9% in salary

and 75.8% in total compensation. These represent tiny

improvements from last year, but neither of the differ-

ences from 2012—when the salary gap was 78% and the

total compensation gap was 73%—is statistically signifi-

cant. Historically, the smallest gap in salary was 80% in

2006, and the smallest gap in total compensation was

76% in 2005.

Figure 1 provides a comparison of the average com-

pensation of men vs. women for the past five years.

Again, the discrepancies between men and women are

statistically significant, a trend that persists across all 25

years of the survey. In 2010, a trend of small improve-

ments in the salary gap (0.3% to 0.8% each year) began

to emerge, providing a slight suggestion that the gap

would eventually close. In addition, the gap for total

compensation improved 2.7% over last year, building on

last year’s improvement of 1.7%. The total compensation

gap in 2013 is wider than that of 2007, so gains from the

time period have been reversed. In dollar terms, the

salary gap decreased slightly from $26,470 last year to

$24,735 this year. The dollar difference in total compen-

sation fell slightly for the third straight year from $39,994

in 2012 to $33,298 in 2013.

Further evidence of the salary gap is reflected in

Figure 2, where 19% of the men have salaries of $150,000

or more while only 6% of the women have salaries


Sources Number Percentage

Bonus 864 58%

Profit sharing 187 13%

Stock options 47 3%

Overload/Summer school teaching/ 54 4%Research

Other 189 13%

Auto or auto allowance 18 1%

Overtime 31 2%

Tuition reimbursement 10 1%

75% of respondents reported additional income

Table 3: NATURE OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION

greater than $150,000. The proportion of women exceeds

the proportion of men in all categories below $90,000.

The median salary for men is $102,550, while the

median salary for women is $85,000, a difference of

$17,550. The median for women dropped $3,000 from

last year, and the median for men dropped $7,450. This

difference between men and women is statistically signifi-

cant, but the changes from 2012 are not.

Figure 3 compares average compensation by gender

and age. Consistent with prior years, the average salary

and average total compensation for women are less than

those of their male counterparts for every age category.

The only time women’s compensation exceeded men’s

was in 2004 for the 19-29 age group. Not only is women’s

average salary less than that of the men in every age

group, but the average total compensation for women in

every age category is less than the average salary of men

(i.e., without adding the men’s additional compensation).

Different impacts across the age categories have been

present over the last few years, with most age groups hav-

ing some increases one year with small changes or

decreases the next year. This year the changes from 2012

are primarily decreases. Last year, both genders in their

20s and 30s were flat or down. This year, both genders in

their 20s and 30s experienced decreases in the range of

$1,000 to $3,000, except for men in their 30s, who suf-

fered large decreases—$12,368 in salary and $16,614 in

total compensations. Both genders in the 60+ group

reported decreases of approximately $10,000 or more in

total compensation.

In 2013, women in their 50s had a negligible change in

salary, and men that age received an increase of $2,034;

both genders reported decreases in additional compensa-

tion. Individuals in the 60+ group experienced the same

change pattern. In contrast, both genders in their 60s or

older reported increases over $10,000 in salary last year.

Historically, the salary gap is smallest in the younger

age categories and widens with each older range. In 2012,

the women in their 40s became an exception to that trend

by having a salary gap (84%) that was closer than that of

women in their 30s (78%). This year sees a return to the

typical pattern. The salary gap of the women in their 30s

improved to 87%, but the gap for women in their 40s is

82%. Consistent with early career salaries being fairly

comparable between the genders, the salary gap this year

for women in their 20s was 90% (women earned $0.90

for each $1 a man earned). As employees age, the salary

gap becomes more pronounced, with women in their 50s

and older earning only $0.76 for each $1 earned by men

in the same age range (76% salary gap). The same trend

applies to the total compensation gap, but women in

their 20s start with an 87% compensation gap, and, by

the time they are 60 or older, the gap has increased to

70%. Across the recent years of our study, the compensa-

tion gap tends to be larger than the salary gap at the same

age level. Why the difference is exacerbated for average

total compensation is open for conjecture.

As stated previously, female participants are younger

than their male counterparts. This is borne out by a com-

parison of the proportion of women and men in each of

the age categories. The proportion of women in the three

younger categories (19 through 49) exceeds that of the

men (57% vs. 45%). The 2013 and 2012 percentages are

almost identical. In 2010, the difference was only 3%

(57% vs. 54%) in the three younger categories.

The impact of gender on compensation can also be

seen in Table 4, which presents compensation by gender


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% WomenMen

Over 150130 to 150110 to 13090 to 11070 to 9050 to 70Under 50

(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

Figure 2: PERCENTAGE OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SALARY RANGES

COVER STORY

$10,000

$30,000

$50,000

$70,000

$90,000

$110,000

$130,000

$150,000Men's CompensationMen's Salary

Women's CompensationWomen's Salary

20092010201120122013

Figure 1: AVERAGE SALARY AND TOTAL COMPENSATION BY GENDER

in five groupings of “years in the field.” Last year, women

participants earned more total compensation than men

did in two of the five categories, ending a long run of

men always earning more than women. The last column

of the table displays women’s salary and compensation as

a percentage of men’s, making it easy to spot any

instances of women earning more than men.

This year, the closest women come to matching men’s

total salary is the 1-5 years grouping, where their salary is

88.2% of men’s salary. The lowest category is the partici-

pants with 20 or more years in the field, where women earn

76.1% of the salary of men in that group. While this year

has three groups exceeding 83%, an improvement from last

year, these numbers still show a decline from 2012, when

women in the 1-5 years group had an average salary of

104.5% and the 6-10 years group was second at 92.5%.

In terms of total compensation, this year sees a return

to men earning more than women in every category. Last

year, the women in the 1-5 and 6-10 years categories had

higher average total compensation than their male coun-

terparts (108.2% and 105.5%, respectively). This year, the

percentages are 83.9% and 77%, respectively. The good

news is that the other three categories improved. Last year,

the closest of those three groups was women in the field

for more than 20 years. They earned 70.5% compared to

the men. All three groups exceed that percentage this year,

with women in the 16-20 group earning more than 83%

of men’s compensation.

The three-year average for total compensation shows

greater divergence over time than the pattern for average

salary. Based on this year’s results, the rolling three-year

average (each year the oldest year is dropped and the current

year added) in total compensation for women has improved

from 88% to 92% in the 1-5 years of service category. It

stayed at 86% for the 6-10 years group, while the 8%

increase in 2013 for women in the 11-15 years

group improved that group’s three-year aver-

age from 67% to 69%. The 16-20 and more

than 20 categories both had a three-year aver-

age of 72% last year. Their reported increases

this year improved those amounts to 76% and

73%, respectively. A trend analysis indicates

that men with more than 10 years in the field

establish a pattern of higher average salary and

total compensation than women. It will be

interesting to watch these measures to judge

the resiliency of this trend across a longer time

period and also to see if this cohort will con-

tinue to earn comparable amounts as they

increase their years of service.

Figure 4 compares the proportion of

women and men in various management

$0

$40,000

$80,000

$120,000

$160,000

Men's TotalMen's Salary

Women's TotalWomen's Salary

>6050-5940-4930-3920-29

Figure 3: AVERAGE SALARY AND TOTAL COMPENSATION BY AGE AND GENDER


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%Men

All

Women

AcademicEntryMiddleSeniorTop

Figure 4: MANAGEMENT LEVEL BY GENDER

Women asa percent

Women Men All of men

Average Salary

1 to 5 $ 64,299 [45] $ 72,912 [102] $ 70,276 88.2%

6 to 10 $ 77,596 [88] $ 92,473 [147] $ 86,902 83.9%

11 to 15 $ 86,311 [82] $109,919 [118] $100,240 78.5%

16 to 20 $ 97,853 [79] $117,451 [117] $109,552 83.3%

More than 20 $104,137 [241] $136,833 [460] $125,592 76.1%

Average Total Compensation

1 to 5 $ 68,069 [45] $ 81,170 [102] $ 77,160 83.9%

6 to 10 $ 83,442 [88] $108,364 [147] $ 99,031 77.0%

11 to 15 $ 97,234 [82] $127,303 [118] $114,975 76.4%

16 to 20 $111,714 [79] $134,372 [117] $125,240 83.1%

More than 20 $119,339 [241] $163,111 [460] $148,063 73.2%

Number of responses shown in brackets.

Table 4: COMPENSATION COMPARISONS BY YEARS IN THE FIELD

levels. We continue to have higher proportions of men in

the top level and higher proportions of women in the

entry level and from academia. In 2013 and 2012, we had

more men at the senior level and more women at the

middle level. The proportions in these two groups tend to

fluctuate across time, however, so it’s premature to label

these two-year similarities as trends. There were more

men in the middle level and more women in the senior

level in 2011, while proportions were even in 2010.

Middle management has had the most fluctuations in

terms of the number of both men and women in the cat-

egory. This year the percentage of men was 33.9%, an

increase from 2012’s 31.2%. Male percentages in 2011

and 2010 were 37.4% and 35.7%, respectively. In the

other management categories, men increased 2% or less

each year from 2010 to 2012. The changes in men’s pro-

portions this year are larger in the top category (dropped

9.4%) and the senior category (increased 6.7%). The pro-

portion of women this year increased in three categories:

4.5% in senior management, 3.7% in middle manage-

ment, and 1.1% in academia. Women’s proportions

decreased 3.3% in entry level, 3.2% in top level, and 2.8%

in other.

Figure 5 presents the average salary and average total

compensation by gender for each of the four manage-

ment levels. The one constant takeaway from this figure is

that men continue to receive more in average salary and

in average total compensation than women at each level

of management. We find tiny indications that women are

gaining ground (or dollars) here and there, but those

small advances are usually short-lived. The average salary

for top- and senior-level men increased from 2012, as did

that for senior-level women. Only senior-level men had a

higher increase in average total compensation.

In the entry/lower level, women’s average salary

declined $927 vs. a $15 decrease in 2012, and average

total compensation decreased by $1,430 vs. a $981

decrease in 2012. Rising prices combined with decreasing

salary and total compensation lead to the financial stress

we hear so many of our countrymen and women trying

to resolve. Although entry-/lower-level men still receive

higher average salaries and average total compensation

than women in that group, they experienced larger

decreases than the women did: Their average salary

decreased $4,149, and average total compensation

dropped $5,516. The salary gap for this level of manage-

ment improved to 97% from 93% last year, while the

compensation gap improved to 96% from 91% last year.

In terms of dollars, lower-/entry-level women earned

only $1,858 less than men in average salary and $3,226

less in average total compensation.

Both men and women in middle management reported

decreases in average salary and total compensation, with

men sustaining greater losses than women. Women

earned $7,679 less salary and $4,629 less in total compen-

sation. The average salary for men decreased by $13,557

(almost double what women lost), and average total com-

pensation decreased by $20,287. Even though men in this

group saw much bigger decreases from last year than

women did, their average salary and total compensation

before this year were so much higher than those of their

female counterparts that the salary gap only improved to

85% (from 82% in 2012), and the gap in average total

compensation, at 86%, didn’t change. These gaps mean

that women earned $15,292 less than men in average

salary and $17,328 less in average total compensation.

For the third consecutive year, the senior level reported

increases in average salary for both men and women and

in total compensation for men. Salary was up almost

$2,576 for women and $6,870 for men. Total compensa-

tion for men went up $5,142, but women reported a

decline of $6,821. Both the salary gap and compensation

gap widened this year, from 81% to 79% for salary and

from 81% to 74% for total compensation. In dollar terms,

this means women earned $27,985 less in average salary

and $42,884 less in total compensation than men did.

Top-level women experienced a substantial loss in

average salary and an even larger loss in average total

compensation. Top-level men reported an average salary

increase comparable to the loss for women ($8,867

COVER STORY

$0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

$175,000

$200,000Men's CompensationMen's Salary

Women's CompensationWomen's Salary

TopSeniorMiddleLower/Entry

F

Figure 5: COMPENSATION BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL AND GENDER


increase vs. $8,688 decrease, respectively). The top-level

women’s salary decrease of $8,688 was compounded by a

$25,408 decrease in total compensation, preserving about

$7,000 of the 2012 increase in total compensation. Offset-

ting the $8,867 average salary increase for men, average

total compensation dropped by $5,270, leaving them

$3,497 better off for the year. These changes elevate men

to an average salary of $159,922 vs. $117,118 for women

and an average total compensation of $190,192 vs.

$130,397 for women.

The salary gap for top-level women widened from 83%

in 2012 to 73% this year, while the total compensation

gap expanded from 80% to 69%. These gaps mean

women received $42,804 less salary, on average, than men

and $59,785 less total compensation.

Table 5 presents compensation for women and men

according to participants’ perceived level of supervisory

responsibility. Women reported decreases for both aver-

age salary and average total compensation in three of the

five categories this year. The two categories showing

increases were individuals with no supervisory responsi-

bility (increase of $2,553 in salary and $1,181 in total

compensation) and head of a major department but do

not report directly to the CEO/Board ($5,011 in salary

and $12,840 in total compensation). Declines in the other

categories range from $112 to $8,862 for average salary

and from $2,886 to $18,330 for average total compensa-

tion. Men reported declines of average salary in four of

the five categories (only Head of a major department and

report directly to CEO/Board reported an increase, $973),

and average total compensation decreased in all five cate-

gories. Their drops in average salary range from $468 to

$8,751, while those in average total compensation range

from $348 to $31,283.The highest average salary and total

compensation for women this year is in supervisory cate-

gory 3 (Head of a major department but do not report

directly to CEO/Board). This year men report the highest

average salaries and average total compensation in super-

visory category 4 (Head of a major department and

report directly to CEO/Board).

Category 5 (Little or no supervisory responsibility and

report directly to CEO/Board) typically has a small num-

ber of participants: 29 men and 10 women for the last

two years. The average salary gap narrowed to 66% this

year from 61% in 2012. The average total compensation

gap remained constant at 62%. Given the small number

of participants in the category, these figures may be due

more to sample size than economic factors.

For all five categories, the compensation of women

participants is less than that of men participants.

Women’s compensation is closest to men’s in categories 1

and 2 with average salaries of 93% and 87%, respectively.

The percentage is 89% in total compensation for both

categories. Category 3 (Head of a major department but

no direct report to CEO/Board) gaps are 79% for average

salary and 75% for average total compensation. After

showing a reduced salary gap in the prior two years, the

gap for category 4 (Head of a major department and

report directly to CEO/Board) widened from 79% last

year to 72% this year. The total compensation gap

widened from 74% last year to 68% this year.

A majority of the participants have supervisory

responsibility (categories 2, 3, and 4), and there are pro-

portionately more men than women (73% of men vs.

68% of women) in these positions, which is a reduction

of 5% each from last year. The difference in supervisory


WOMEN MEN ALLAverage Total Average Total Average Total

Category Salary Compensation Salary Compensation Salary Compensation

1. No supervisory responsibility $ 79,562 $ 85,008 [152] $ 85,590 $ 95,063 [222] $ 83,140 $ 90,976 [374]

2. Some supervisory responsibility but not head of a major department $ 90,503 $104,154 [167] $104,520 $117,631 [257] $ 98,999 $112,323 [424]

3. Head of a major department but do not report directly to CEO/Board $108,816 $127,756 [96] $138,296 $171,255 [203] $128,831 $157,289 [299]

4. Head of a major department and report directly to CEO/Board $103,752 $116,838 [104] $143,130 $171,420 [234] $131,014 $154,626 [338]

5. Little or no supervisory responsibilityand report directly to CEO/Board $ 73,168 $ 76,229 [17] $111,164 $122,179 [29] $ 97,122 $105,197 [46]


Table 5: COMPENSATION BY SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY

roles across genders rose from last year’s 4%, a historical

low for the survey, to 5% this year.

To summarize, we have examined a number of differ-

ences between the compensation of women and men:

◆ Compensation by age category (Figure 3).

◆ Compensation by “years in field” categories (Table 4).

◆ Compensation by management level (Figure 5).

◆ Compensation by supervisory responsibility (Table 5).

Virtually across the board, women’s compensation is less

than men’s, and these differences are statistically significant.

As is found throughout industries in the U.S., the “salary

gap” between women and men remains a fact of life.

Compensation and CertificationParticipants holding a professional certification—including

the CMA (Certified Management Accountant), CPA

(Certified Public Accountant), and CFM (Certified

Financial Manager)—represent 70% of the sample. The

differences in average salary and average total compensa-

tion between participants who hold some form of certifi-

cation and those without one increased again this year.

Individuals with the CMA, CPA, or both earned an aver-

age salary of $120,306 in 2013, a decline of 0.7% from the

$121,165 earned in 2012. In comparison, participants

with neither of those certifications (38% of respondents)

earned an average salary of $88,196, a 4.7% decline from

the $92,570 earned in 2012. The salary gap among those

with and without the certifications has increased from

31% in 2012 to 36.4% this year. In dollar terms, the aver-

age noncertified individual earned $32,110 less salary

than certified individuals, $3,515 more than 2012 when

the difference was $28,595.

The average total compensation also differs between

those with and without the certifications. The average total

compensation for those with a certification this year is

$141,092, which is 42.2% ($41,853) more than for those

without certification ($99,239). That 42.2% total compen-

sation gap is similar to last year’s 41%. Average total com-

pensation decreased 4.9% ($7,220) for certified

participants (CMA, CPA, or both) and 5.9% ($6,258) for

noncertified participants.

The impact of certification on the average salary and

average total compensation is illustrated in Table 6. Certi-

fied participants generally report higher earnings. As indi-

cated in the table, this holds true for all participants and

for each of the five age categories presented there.

For the seventh straight year, the average compensation

increases for each age category through the 40-49 group.

Before last year, the 60 and over groups had been trailing

behind the respective 50-59 groups in both average salary

and average total compensation. In 2012, however, there

were several areas where the 60 and over groups had

higher averages. This year suggests a return to the past,

with two 60 and over groups (No CMA or CPA and the


COVER STORY

AVERAGE SALARY

No CMA Both CMAAge Range All or CPA CMA CPA and CPA

19–29 [97] $ 62,549 [59] $ 56,097 [28] $ 69,284 [3] $ 64,684 [7] $ 89,071

30–39 [290] $ 84,924 [149] $ 75,143 [86] $ 95,295 [24] $ 95,310 [31] $ 95,122

40–49 [417] $113,539 [149] $ 91,780 [160] $115,196 [28] $130,550 [80] $144,795

50–59 [447] $122,706 [127] $104,031 [168] $130,668 [50] $128,959 [102] $129,779

60 and over [185] $120,395 [64] $108,408 [59] $128,353 [24] $130,105 [38] $122,094

All [1,436] $108,053 [548] $ 88,196 [501] $115,952 [129] $121,762 [258] $128,035

AVERAGE TOTAL COMPENSATION

19–29 [97] $ 67,937 [59] $ 60,397 [28] $ 76,935 [3] $ 68,263 [7] $ 95,357

30–39 [290] $ 95,773 [149] $ 81,891 [86] $112,916 [24] $102,443 [31] $109,772

40–49 [417] $133,036 [149] $102,058 [160] $132,615 [28] $150,680 [80] $185,399

50–59 [447] $143,292 [127] $119,891 [168] $152,009 [50] $152,256 [102] $153,676

60 and over [185] $139,362 [64] $127,895 [59] $154,087 [24] $141,726 [38] $134,322

All [1,436] $125,121 [548] $ 99,239 [501] $135,153 [129] $138,734 [258] $153,804


Table 6: COMPENSATION BY AGE AND CERTIFICATION

CMAs) having a higher average total compensation than

their respective group of 50- to 59-year-olds.

In all five age categories, the average salaries and total

compensation for those with no CMA or CPA are less

than for their certified counterparts. Thus, the differential

enjoyed as a result of obtaining professional certification

continues to follow individuals throughout their careers

and affects their earning power. The dollar amount of the

“certification bonus” appears at the very beginning of

participants’ careers and increases with age. In 2013, cer-

tified individuals ages 19-29 earned $16,470 more in

salary and $19,247 more in total compensation than their

noncertified peers. This year, the group that had the high-

est differential in average salary ($33,856) and average

total compensation ($48,201) is the 40-49 group.

Table 6 also allows us to rank the impact that certifica-

tion (CMA, CPA, or both) has on average salary and aver-

age total compensation. The “double bonus” of the

CMA/CPA dual certification continues to appear in the

data, and both certifications are still a positive influence

in the salary calculator at the end of this article. The dual

certification earns the largest average salary and total

compensation in the 19-29 and 40-49 age groups, and it

also earns the largest total compensation for those in the

50-59 age group. For the 60 and over group, the CPA

alone edges out the CMA ($130,105 vs. 128,353) for the

highest in average salary, but the CMA offers a distinct

advantage ($12,361 more than the CPA and $19,764

more than dual certification) in total compensation.

Three of the participants in the 19-29 group hold a

CPA, and seven hold both a CMA and a CPA. Last

year, both categories had only three participants each.

Those with just a CPA earned $64,684, while the dual-

certification participants had an average salary of

$89,071. Those possessing a CMA alone earned $69,284,

while those with neither certification had an average

salary of $56,097. Given that students in their last year of

an accounting undergraduate program can sit for the

CMA but not the CPA, the CMA offers a way for those

entering the profession to increase their value in the job

market and begin to reap the benefits that a certification

has on income that much sooner.

When comparing all respondents with only the CMA

or only the CPA, the overall average salary for those with

the CMA is about $5,800 less than the CPA. Yet the aver-

age salary of CMAs does exceed that of CPAs in two of

the five age ranges:

◆ In the 19-29 age category, the average salary of the

CMAs is $4,601 more than that of the CPAs.

◆ In the 50-59 age range, CMAs have an average salary

$1,709 higher than CPAs.

In the 30-39 and 40-49 age ranges, the CPAs garner

higher average salary than the CMAs by $15 and $15,353,

respectively. The CMAs report more total compensation

in the 19-29 age range ($8,672), the 30-39 age range

($10,472), and the 60+ range ($12,361). The average total

compensation of the CPAs exceeds that of the CMAs in

the 40-49 (by $18,065) and 50-59 (by $247) age ranges.

We advise the reader to be cautious in drawing conclu-

sions from this data. Across the eight years that we have

reported it, there has been a good amount of variability.

It’s critical to remember that the CMA and CPA represent

different skill sets and that in any given year the market

may demand more or less of that skill set. What is clear is

that both the CMA and the CPA continue to maintain

their value and that those values are quite comparable.

The dual-certification holder would presumably have a

wider range of skills, which may be particularly impor-

tant in the earlier years of someone’s career. The one

thing that has been very consistent is that each certifica-

tion appears to add around $10,000 or more in additional

compensation compared to noncertified individuals.

The pool of respondents who are CFMs remains small

(7% this year), and they fall in the 40-49 and older

ranges. Given the small sample size, including their

responses in Table 6 would potentially compromise par-

ticipants’ confidentiality.


Average Average TotalHighest Degree Salary Compensation

Less than baccalaureate $ 80,574 $ 96,351 [9]

Baccalaureate $ 98,095 $112,873 [702]

Master’s $117,090 $137,766 [707]

Doctorate $130,190 $138,790 [68]


Table 7: COMPENSATION BY HIGHEST DEGREE OBTAINED

The one thing that has been very consistent is that each certification appears to add around $10,000 or more in additional compensation

compared to noncertified individuals.

Compensation and DegreesTable 7 shows that IMA members are well educated. An

overwhelming majority of participants (99.4%) have at

least a bachelor’s degree. The average compensation for

2013 increases as education increases, a trend that has

been seen in most years.

Participants who have less than a bachelor’s degree

(0.6% of this year’s participants) reported an increase of

$11,140 in average salary and $25,492 in average total

compensation. This group reported decreases for the two

prior years—a rather large decrease in 2012 and a smaller

one in 2011. The number of participants in this educa-

tional category is very small, so these results should be

interpreted with caution.

Those with doctorates, representing 4.6% of partici-

pants, earned $130,190 in 2013. This is an increase of

2.6% ($3,306) from 2012 and is the highest average salary

among the four educational levels. On the downside,

those with doctorate degrees had an average total com-

pensation of $138,790 this year, a decline of 9.2%

($14,085) compared to last year.

The baccalaureate degree group’s average salary of

$98,095 represents a decrease of 16% ($9,066) from 2012.

Participants with a master’s degree received average salary

of $117,190, a decrease from 2012 of 0.1% ($171). Both

categories also reported decreases in average total com-

pensation: $5,466 for baccalaureates and $14,019 for

those with a master’s degree.

Compensation by OrganizationStructureTable 8 offers a comparison of average salary by two

size factors—number of employees at one location

(referred to as “location”) and number of employees

for the entire organization (referred to as “organiza-

tion”). From 2011 through 2013, the lowest average

salaries and total compensation have been at the

locations and organizations with 10-24 employees.

Otherwise, there hasn’t been a clear pattern over

time for average salary based on size factors by either

location or organization. Participants at a location or

organization with 5,000 or more employees had the

highest average salaries, reporting an average salary

of $138,400 by location and $114,005 by organiza-

tion. The only location size that had an increase in

average salary compared to 2012 was 5,000 or more

employees. For organization size, only the 2,500 to

4,999 group increased from 2012. The rest of the

groups, by location and organization, saw lower

average salaries compared to 2012.

The differences between the largest and smallest average

salary within location and within organization for 2013

are $48,760 and $22,314. The 2012 differences across the

size categories were approximately $25,000 by location

and $18,000 by organization. Percentage changes in 2013

average salaries within location ranged from a 16.3%

increase (the next highest change was a 2.2% decrease) to

a 12.6% decrease; within organization size, changes

ranged from 0.3% increase (the next highest organization-

wide change was 0.7% decrease) to a 12.3% decrease.

Table 9 displays average compensation by industry

using standard industry classification (SIC) codes. Since

COVER STORY

Employed at Employed in Location Entire OrganizationAverage Average

Number of People Salary Salary

1 to 9 $100,969 [79] $100,767 [44]

10 to 24 $ 89,640 [119] $ 91,691 [70]

25 to 99 $101,631 [309] $ 96,784 [145]

100 to 499 $110,377 [488] $111,016 [291]

500 to 999 $107,807 [166] $105,071 [104]

1,000 to 2,499 $115,797 [170] $104,692 [151]

2,500 to 4,999 $118,101 [90] $111,356 [129]

5,000 plus $138,400 [67] $114,005 [550]


Table 8: SALARY BY LOCATION AND ORGANIZATION SIZE


Average Average TotalSIC Salary Compensation

Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries $ 90,513 $ 97,897 [16]

Mining $103,775 $128,267 [16]

Contract Construction $ 95,128 $109,476 [41]

Manufacturing $110,264 $132,736 [497]

Transportation, Communications, and Utility Services $104,578 $122,780 [77]

Wholesale and Retail Trade $105,884 $123,322 [102]

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $109,226 $134,008 [139]

Services (all) $113,641 $126,382 [446]

Medical/Health services $109,906 $125,982 [108]

Educational services $103,885 $111,367 [121]

Public Accounting $141,685 $155,853 [42]

Other service SIC codes $115,962 $129,937 [175]

Government $ 91,961 $ 94,232 [60]

Nonclassifiable $ 88,355 $ 89,588 [18]


Table 9: COMPENSATION BY SIC AREA


2011, the three largest groups of survey participants rep-

resent the same three industries: manufacturing, services,

and finance, insurance, and real estate. Manufacturing

was represented by 27% of the participants, where the

average salary and average total compensation ranked

fourth and third, respectively—up from eighth and

seventh in 2012.

The second largest contingent works in the service

industry (24%), which ranks third in salary and sixth in

total compensation. This is an improvement in rankings

from last year when the services industry was ranked 10th

and 11th, respectively. Public accounting, a part of the

service industry, ranks first in both average salary and

total compensation for 2013. In 2012, it ranked third in

both measures.

The third-largest group is finance, insurance, and real

estate, represented by 7% of the participants (down from

9% in 2012). The averages for participants in that group

ranked sixth in salary (down from fourth) and second

(no change) in total compensation.

Government is the only SIC reporting increases from

2012 in both average salary and average total compensa-

tion. The increases were $2,172 (2.4%) and $1,359

(1.5%), respectively. Services reported a 1.6% increase in

average salary but a 1.8% decrease in average total com-

pensation. All other major SIC areas suffered declines in

both average salary and average total compensation. The

2013 salary decreases range from manufacturing’s 2.5%

($2,861) to nonclassifiable’s 40.5% ($60,977); total com-

pensation decreases range from service’s 1.8% ($2,310) to

nonclassifiable’s 40.5% ($60,997).

A closer examination of the subsectors within the ser-

vices SICs reveals decreases of 6.3% in average salary and

4.6% in average total compensation for those in medical

health services. The “other service SIC codes” group has

decreases of 1% and 4.9%, respectively. Average salary

increased by $18,556 (15.1%) in public accounting and

by $8,233 (8.6%) in educational services. Educational ser-

vices also reported an 8.9% increase in average total com-

pensation, while public accounting had a negligible

decrease of 0.5%.

Table 10 presents compensation by business structure.

Other than a 12% increase in the average salary and a 9%

increase in average total compensation for proprietor-

ships, all changes for 2013 were negative. Average salary

decreases ranged from 0.8% (partnership) to 9% (family-

owned). Decreases in average compensation ranged from

8% (publicly traded corporations) to 15% (family-

owned). Partnerships reported the highest average salary

($130,208); family-owned corporations had the lowest

($95,805). The difference in average total compensation

between the high of $146,188 (partnerships) and low of

$107,144 (family-owned) structure was more than 27%, a

narrower margin than the 2012 difference of 31%.

Consistent with prior years, the majority of partici-

pants work in either publicly traded (40%) or privately

held corporations (33%). Last year, it was 34% public and

36% private. The relative distribution of participants

among these six categories was stable from 2008 to 2011,

with changes of 2% or less in every category. This was

also true in 2012 with the exception of a 4% drop in par-

ticipants at publicly traded corporations. There is more

variation this year—a 4% drop for Subchapter S Corpo-

rations, a 3% drop for privately held corporations, and a

6% increase for publicly traded corporations.

Household IncomeFigure 6 shows the household income for the married

respondents. In 2013, the average is $174,232, a decrease

from 2012 of 2.3%. The household income of married

women continues to lag behind that of married men

($164,073 vs. $179,357). This difference is statistically

significant this year, as it has been since 2006. The house-

hold income for women decreased $4,893 (2.9%) from

2012; men’s household income decreased by 1.7%

($3,047). Both of these 2013 decreases are statistically

significant.

Analyses based on gender, single vs. dual income

households, and children vs. no children are conducted

on the household income for married members. The

2013 household income for dual-income married mem-

bers dropped from $184,552 in 2012 to $181,013 in 2013,

a decrease of $3,539 (2%) from 2012. Note that the sur-

vey data does not distinguish which member in the dual-

income households experienced a salary increase or

AverageAverage TotalSalary Compensation

Proprietorship $115,113 $119,905 [17]

Partnership $130,208 $146,188 [73]

Subchapter S Corporation $107,297 $125,873 [159]

Family-Owned Corporation $ 95,805 $107,144 [105]

Privately Held Corporation $104,980 $117,415 [439]

Publicly Traded Corporation $113,429 $138,356 [529]


Table 10: COMPENSATION BY BUSINESS STRUCTURE

decrease, rather, it simply looks at average household

income. Household income for single-income married

members decreased from $168,996 in 2012 to $160,790

this year, down $8,206 (5%) from 2012.

Examining household income by gender within single-

and dual-income categories yields additional insight.

The average household income of single-income men is

higher than that of single-income women ($173,054 vs.

$114,722), a difference of 33.7%. The 2013 average

household income for single-income men decreased

$4,105 (2.4%), and it declined $15,842 (12%) for single-

income women. In dual-income households, the male

participants again report average household income that

is 3.7% higher than that of the female participants

($183,532 and $177,212, respectively). Both dual-income

men and women sustained a 2% decrease in their 2013

average household income.

The effect of children in the household on average

household income can also be measured. This year’s

responses indicate that single-income married members

with children have an average household income of

$164,311; single-income married members with no chil-

dren have an income of $154,570. Compared to 2012

results, 2013 brought an increase of 3% for single-income

married members with no kids and a 9% decrease for

single-income married members with kids. The average

dual-income household with children reported 2013

household income of $189,505; those without children

reported an average income of $163,563, a16% difference.

Compensation by Region, Responsibility, and PositionTable 11 presents the average salaries and standard devia-

tion for the 50 states and Washington, D.C., grouped into

seven geographical regions. Despite

the salary decreases that were

reported for 2013, all seven regions

maintained average salaries of

more than $100,000. In 2007, there

were only four regions with aver-

age salaries above $100,000. By

2010, every region reported aver-

ages above that benchmark. The

Mountain region average salary

increased 8.3% ($9,254) to

$111,147, the only region to have

an increase in 2013. This moves

the Mountain region from lowest-

paying region in the country to the

third-highest. Despite a 3.5% decrease, the Mid-Atlantic

region had the highest average salary at $119,777. The

West Coast, which had the highest average salary in 2012,

has the second-highest this year: $113,765.

The region with the largest decline from 2012 is the

West Coast region, which fell 16.4%. This was driven, in

large part, by the decrease of $171,342 in Alaska. Please

note that caution should be used when analyzing data at

the state level. Due to small sample sizes, it may not be

representative of the state as a whole. Sample sizes at the

regional level are larger, allowing for more confidence in

the numbers. To protect participants’ confidentiality, we

do not report state results when there are only one or two

responses. This year, that includes Montana and South

Dakota. The unreported states’ data is included in the

regional calculations.

All regions had some combination of states reporting

increases and others reporting decreases in average salary.

In most regions, these increases and decreases even out to

moderate regional fluctuations; a single, large change

(such as Alaska) can have a significant impact. The

Northeast had three states decrease—Maine, Massachu-

setts, and Vermont. Among the Mid-Atlantic states, two

reported increases (Maryland and Virginia), and six had

decreases. Three states in the South had moderate

increases, and one (South Carolina) had a large increase.

These were offset by large decreases in Louisiana

($61,462, 77%), Arkansas ($29,578, 30%), and Kentucky

($11,126, 13%). The Midwest had increases in two states

offset by decreases in the remaining states, including a

$13,687 (111.6%) decrease in Illinois. In the Plains

region, only Oklahoma and Nebraska increased in aver-

age salary. Kansas and North Dakota reported large

decreases of 38.9% ($37,770) and 28.5% ($20,735),


COVER STORY

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000

MenWomen

Single Income With Kids

Single Income, No Kids

Single Income

Dual Income With Kids

Dual Income, No Kids

Dual Income

Figure 6: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF MARRIED MEMBERS

respectively; Texas reported a small 3% decrease. All

states except Idaho reported increases in the Mountain

region, including increases of $25,771 (21%) in New

Mexico and $16,316 (14.3%) in Utah.

Tables 12 and 13 present compensation data based on

the participants’ interpretation of where their specific job

title falls within the responsibility areas and management

levels in their organizations. Please remember that classify-

ing job titles is always difficult because the duties and

responsibilities—and where in the hierarchy of the organi-

zation they fall—vary from organization to organization,

so be cautious when drawing any conclusions from the

data.

Table 12 presents the compensation of participants

according to their classification of the responsibility

area in which they work. Seven out of the 14 areas had

decreases in average salary ranging from 2.7% to 29.5%.

The largest of those decreases were in risk management

(which had a small sample size) and cost accounting.

Average total compensation decreased in nine of the 14

responsibility areas, with risk management again show-

ing the largest decrease. Last year, the three largest

declines ranged between a little more than $4,700 and

just less than $6,500 (cost accounting, information sys-

tems and internal auditing). This year, public account-


Average StandardSalary Deviation

Northeast Region $109,224 $109,224 [70]

Connecticut 132,286 52,332 [17]

Maine 80,140 21,198 [12]

Massachusetts 109,916 51,175 [29]

New Hampshire 88,600 39,652 [5]

Rhode Island 131,150 63,572 [4]

Vermont 93,333 12,741 [3]

Mid-Atlantic Region $119,777 $119,777 [286]

Delaware 128,833 52,078 [6]

Maryland 113,231 33,303 [21]

New Jersey 144,643 147,673 [41]

New York 115,804 62,737 [83]

Pennsylvania 116,017 79,142 [92]

Virginia 119,039 44,818 [27]

Washington, D.C. 112,097 33,471 [8]

West Virginia 97,359 55,576 [8]

South Region $103,944 $103,944 [254]

Alabama 95,285 47,879 [24]

Arkansas 97,600 28,112 [5]

Florida 108,358 61,291 [57]

Georgia 108,313 50,885 [45]

Kentucky 85,383 38,072 [18]

Louisiana 79,955 36,090 [11]

Mississippi 86,613 22,767 [4]

North Carolina 108,980 58,222 [48]

South Carolina 112,732 44,914 [39]

Tennessee 99,284 36,254 [27]

Average StandardSalary Deviation

Midwest Region $102,947 $102,947 [413]

Illinois 118,102 71,457 [71]

Indiana 101,291 46,673 [71]

Iowa 95,682 29,609 [17]

Michigan 98,900 49,282 [75]

Minnesota 102,263 37,858 [41]

Missouri 96,990 57,696 [17]

Ohio 110,286 47,786 [63]

Wisconsin 88,042 62,305 [58]

Plains Region $102,012 $102,012 [101]

Kansas 96,970 25,879 [10]

Nebraska 91,721 52,237 [9]

North Dakota 72,845 27,005 [5]

Oklahoma 111,556 27,304 [9]

South Dakota * * *

Texas 105,268 43,604 [66]

Mountain Region $111,147 $111,147 [103]

Arizona 111,069 46,527 [28]

Colorado 107,244 39,244 [31]

Idaho 89,678 56,390 [9]

Montana * * *

Nevada 141,681 59,422 [10]

New Mexico 121,500 65,302 [6]

Utah 113,902 34,324 [14]

Wyoming 88,333 66,583 [3]

West Coast Region $113,765 $113,765 [162]

Alaska 96,158 21,134 [7]

California 132,966 63,142 [90]

Hawaii 80,333 29,535 [5]

Oregon 87,391 23,050 [25]

Washington 90,920 37,033 [37]

*Number of responses shown in brackets.

*Data not reported to protect confidentiality.

Table 11: AVERAGE SALARY BY STATE

ing had a decrease of $33,755 (19.9%) in average total

compensation, while general management, taxation,

finance, and cost accounting all showed decreases

between approximately $11,800 and $16,300 in total

compensation. On the positive side, accountants in

information systems reported average total compensa-

tion gains of $10,678 (7.9%) this year.

The three lowest-ranking responsibility areas were

government accounting, cost accounting, and general

accounting. This is consistent with the past 12 years.

Time will tell if these are temporary setbacks or more

permanent declines. Both internal auditing and infor-

mation systems have been in the middle of the responsi-

bility areas and remain there in spite of this year’s

decline.

Table 13 presents average salary and average total com-

pensation by job title, which is categorized into four

management levels and academia. Consistent with prior

years, compensation increases by rank for each of the

four management levels, and the differential between

average salary and average total compensation also

increases by rank from lower/entry level to top manage-

ment. Middle management reports a substantial salary

decrease of $12,007 (10.9%) and an even larger decrease

in total compensation of $15,305 (12%). Lower-/entry-

level employees’ salary decreased $2,336 (3.2%), and total

compensation decreased by $3,110 (4%). Those in top

management saw an increase of 3.5% in average salary

but a decline of 4.1% in their total compensation, leaving

them slightly worse off in 2013 than they were in 2012.

The only management level with increases in both salary

and total compensation was senior management. Their

average salary increased $5,173 (4.3%), and they had a

modest total compensation increase of $959 (0.6%). Aca-

demic positions reported gains of $1,179 in salary and

$3,205 in total compensation, which is 1.2% and 3% bet-

ter, respectively, than last year.

Average Salary ProfileTable 14 provides a composite view of average salary

across four variables: management level, gender, educa-

tion level, and certification. You can use this table to

make comparisons to others with whom you may share

these characteristics. If individuals share the same demo-

graphic characteristics, then you would expect them to

have the approximate “same average salary.” The table

doesn’t show other factors that may influence salary, such

as years of experience or size of the organization, so read-

ers or respondents with large variation on these items

may have different expectations.

Management Level and Gender

Through the years, the average salary for men tends to be

higher than that for women in comparable levels of man-

agement and with comparable credentials. This is true for

2013 in top-, senior-, and middle-management levels.

One notable exception is senior-management women

who hold the CPA and have a master’s degree. Their aver-

age salary is only $79 less than that of their male col-

leagues. Entry-level men with baccalaureate degrees

outearn women with bachelor’s degrees by at least $5,000

in salary. Yet entry-level women with a master’s degree

generally have higher salaries, ranging from approxi -

mately $2,500 to $11,000, than their male counterparts.

Only entry-level men with a master’s and the CPA have

a higher average salary than the comparable women.

Baccalaureate vs. Master’s Degree

Table 14 contains only two degrees, baccalaureate degree

and master’s degree. As you might expect, all else being

equal, those with a master’s degree generally have a

higher average salary than those with a baccalaureate

degree. There are five exceptions this year where bache-

lor’s degree holders had a higher salary or total compen-

sation than those with master’s degrees. Women in top,

senior, and middle management who have both the CMA


COVER STORY

Average Average TotalSalary Compensation

Budgeting and Planning $103,817 $123,552 [101]

Corporate Accounting $105,272 $125,003 [352]

Cost Accounting $ 80,945 $ 89,707 [137]

Education $103,421 $112,160 [92]

Finance $125,468 $148,627 [267]

General Accounting $ 90,451 $ 99,876 [207]

General Management $137,695 $167,324 [158]

Government Accounting $ 85,746 $ 89,217 [45]

Information Systems $131,482 $146,471 [40]

Internal Auditing $115,233 $129,336 [24]

Personnel Accounting $ 81,000 $138,375 [4]

Public Accounting $125,709 $136,269 [28]

Risk Management $ 93,850 $103,580 [10]

Taxation $110,644 $121,511 [20]

ALL $108,420 $125,721 [1,485]


Table 12: COMPENSATION BY RESPONSIBILITY AREA

and CPA earn more with a bachelor’s degree than with a

master’s degree. This is also true of men in entry-level

positions who have both the CMA and CPA. A word of

caution here—the sample sizes for these categories are

very small.

Rainy Day MusingsIn recent surveys, we have noted that the economic

recovery appeared to be incomplete and that we couldn’t

yet know the ultimate winners and losers. Perhaps our

participants, with their responses to the 2013 survey, have

added another piece to the puzzle. The responses we

received document many notable decreases in IMA mem-

bers’ salaries and total compensation. We hope this is a

one-time adjustment rather than the start of a multiyear

trend.



Top-Level Management $148,864 $174,737 [240]

Chief Executive Officer 150,240 172,906 [6]

Chief Financial Officer 151,855 174,708 [129]

Corporate Controller 136,635 183,631 [21]

Corporate Secretary 102,630 114,001 [3]

Corporate Treasurer 139,000 177,750 [4]

Director 107,813 132,613 [10]

Executive Vice President 176,400 218,400 [5]

General Manager 79,415 93,415 [3]

Owner 124,174 136,500 [23]

Partner 262,500 295,500 [4]

President 203,333 286,667 [3]

Senior Vice President 206,250 273,750 [4]

Vice President 146,987 170,356 [19]

Senior Management $126,089 $152,278 [362]

Assist. Corporate Controller 98,333 129,967 [6]

Chief Accountant 144,964 157,964 [5]

Chief Financial Officer 119,179 144,091 [58]

Consultant 125,000 125,000 [4]


Corporate Treasurer 93,995 94,325 [4]

Director 147,652 180,893 [60]

Divisional Controller 123,787 152,814 [25]


Manager 117,457 142,799 [13]

Other 92,517 98,183 [6]

Owner 96,667 121,667 [3]

Plant Controller 104,605 125,619 [25]

Senior Accountant 59,000 60,251 [4]

Vice President 174,996 233,797 [28]


Middle Management $97,994 $112,683 [538]

Administrator 91,875 92,750 [3]

Assist. Corporate Controller 89,261 98,818 [18]

Assistant Vice President 92,283 107,950 [6]

Auditor 78,488 81,928 [5]

Chief Accountant 65,705 67,149 [8]

Consultant 112,556 123,017 [9]


Director 131,259 156,547 [53]

Divisional Controller 112,511 139,027 [33]

Financial Analyst 83,249 90,498 [52]


General Supervisor 89,333 134,674 [3]

Manager 101,710 114,962 [131]

Other 91,361 104,370 [12]



Staff Accountant 52,744 53,560 [17]

Supervisor 79,643 92,065 [22]

Vice President 138,014 185,652 [13]

Lower Management/ $ 70,092 $ 75,210 [257]Entry Level

Auditor 57,073 57,073 [3]

Chief Accountant * * *

Consultant 76,321 88,371 [6]

Financial Analyst 75,291 80,292 [78]

Manager 94,771 107,184 [21]

Other 60,046 66,840 [14]



Staff Accountant 52,344 55,860 [54]

Supervisor 80,150 82,847 [9]

Systems Analyst 84,167 88,000 [3]

Academic Positions $101,432 $110,491 [87]

Assistant Professor 102,545 112,087 [12]

Associate Professor 98,720 108,281 [24]

Dean 131,667 137,400 [3]

Department Chair 111,248 123,104 [6]

Instructor 64,717 74,037 [11]

Professor 119,094 129,142 [25]



Table 13: COMPENSATION BY POSITION

A definite ray of sunshine this year is the value of the

CMA and CPA designations. Their strong and persistent

value provides an umbrella of protection for those

accountants who choose to acquire them. Being a mem-

ber of a profession where there is clear evidence that

earning a certification such as the CMA and/or CPA can

lead to a significant increase in salary and compensation

is comforting.

Women still earn less than men, but we continue to

find indications, especially in the early career stages,

that improvement is gradually spreading. Women con-

tinued to make progress in closing the total compensa-

tion gap. But in spite of the fact that men reported

larger decreases in average salary and average total

compensation, the average salary gap and the average

total compensation gap persist. We see many signs of

these unstable times helping some groups and failing to

help others, but, at least among IMA members, women

don’t appear to systematically be one of these winning

or losing groups. We also see some indication that

women gained ground in terms of additional compen-

sation and also in the early years in the profession. We

will keep a lookout for those gains to expand to average

salary and to mid-career years.

IMA members continue to receive salaries that are

higher than those of the average American, and those

salaries are well-correlated with measures of skill and

effort, such as advanced degrees, years of experience, and

certification. Demand for our services is forecast to

remain strong in the foreseeable future. Intelligent and

talented students continue to join our ranks, ensuring

advancement in the techniques and technology of our

trade.

We sincerely appreciate members’ willingness to share

their time and data with us. Their adaptation to the

change from a paper survey to one provided over the

Internet gave us a breadth and depth of data that exceeds

most online surveys. For that, we are truly grateful. SF


COVER STORY

TOP MANAGEMENT SENIOR MANAGEMENT

Women Men Women Men

Baccalaureate $110,014 [30] $142,834 [71] $100,648 [63] $127,995 [116]

No CMA or CPA 92,658 [16] 120,294 [25] 91,430 [30] 107,242 [37]

CMA 118,317 [6] 128,765 [17] 100,363 [17] 116,089 [36]

CPA * * 159,760 [13] 116,517 [6] 164,562 [11]

Both CMA and CPA 153,500 [6] 179,250 [16] 119,265 [10] 152,814 [32]

Master’s $126,363 [30] $170,919 [100] $112,866 [48] $140,373 [130]

No CMA or CPA 119,667 [9] 122,338 [28] 107,779 [18] 113,113 [43]

CMA 120,927 [11] 190,542 [44] 116,220 [17] 156,527 [45]

CPA 149,000 [5] 183,199 [7] 129,404 [5] 129,483 [12]

Both CMA and CPA 127,735 [5] 190,483 [21] 106,847 [8] 159,569 [30]

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT ENTRY-LEVEL MANAGEMENTWomen Men Women Men

Baccalaureate $ 82,557 [116] $ 95,616 [148] $ 63,106 [59] $ 68,238 [95]

No CMA or CPA 71,729 [54] 87,723 [66] 57,556 [34] 62,363 [55]

CMA 94,499 [30] 102,033 [56] 70,332 [16] 75,182 [31]

CPA 78,135 [16] 86,281 [9] 66,225 [4] * *

Both CMA and CPA 101,132 [16] 110,061 [17] 75,225 [5] 85,280 [7]

Master’s $ 95,787 [91] $111,662 [171] $ 77,848 [44] $ 75,208 [57]

No CMA or CPA 82,739 [38] 94,771 [40] 66,741 [22] 63,852 [24]

CMA 101,916 [29] 115,684 [91] 93,451 [14] 82,705 [23]

CPA 129,186 [10] 134,200 [5] 72,838 [4] 85,625 [4]

Both CMA and CPA 94,651 [14] 117,289 [35] 89,338 [4] 84,950 [6]



Table 14: AVERAGE SALARY BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL, CERTIFICATION, EDUCATION, AND GENDER

Lee Schiffel, CGFM, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of

accounting in the College of Business at Valparaiso Univer-

sity. She holds a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of

Missouri-Columbia. You can reach her at (219) 464-6788

or [email protected].

Coleen Wilder, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of manage-

ment in the College of Business at Valparaiso University.

She teaches statistics and management courses at the under-

graduate level and operations management in the MBA

program. Coleen holds a Ph.D. in operations management

from Illinois Institute of Technology.

The authors want to express their gratitude to IMA for its

support in conducting this research.1 Consistent with prior years, we use a 95% confidence interval to

determine if any changes are statistically significant. This is a com-

mon value in this type of survey; some surveys, however, will use a

lower rate like 90% or a higher rate like 99%.

2 Results of the IMA 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 today, they have been

reported in the June issue of Strategic Finance.


Table 15: ESTIMATING A SALARY LEVEL FOR IMA MEMBERS

Calculating an Average Salary

The authors of this survey in 1989

included a table that provided informa-

tion necessary to calculate your personal

average salary. Across time, the salary

calculator has been one of the reader-

ship’s favorite parts of the survey. This

feature employs some of the significant

demographic variables provided by our

survey participants. Although not

included in 1989, gender differences

were captured beginning in 1990 by

including a separate column for men

and women. For the seventh straight

year, we present one calculation regard-

less of gender. This year the calculator

explains 26% of the variability in salary,

slightly better than the 25% achieved in 2012, up from

21% in 2011, and getting closer to the 28% from 2009.

This percentage-of-variability explanation is within the

range that we have had in prior years. The regression

values presented here are derived from the values report-

ed by IMA members for 2013. The “average salary” calcu -

lated using this feature should not be used to justify a

salary—it’s simply an attempt to give a member a “pic-

ture” of what his or her salary might be using the data

collected from our survey.

The total of the starting base figure and the additional

values should provide you with an estimate of your per-

sonal “average salary” from the 2013 data. To calculate

your “personal average salary,” start with the base salary

in the table ($75,879), which is only $341 higher than our

starting point last year. Then you should add or subtract

each of the variables, which are fairly similar year after

year, to reflect your status. For instance, you would:

Add $48,471 for being in top management or $26,516

for senior management or subtract $22,137 if you are in

entry-level management.

Add the product of the number of your years in the

field times a factor of 7.

Add $14,662 for an advanced degree, $19,992 for a

CMA, and/or $15,837 for a CPA (this means you may add

none, one, two, or all three premiums).

Your Calculation

Start with this base figure $75,879

If you are TOP-level management ADD 48,471

OR

If you are SENIOR-level management ADD 26,516

OR

If you are ENTRY-level management SUBTRACT 22,137

Number of years in the field _____ TIMES 7

If you have an advanced degree ADD 14,662

If you hold the CMA ADD 19,992

If you hold the CPA ADD 15,837

Your Estimated Salary Level

IMA 2013 Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist - Strategic Finance · 2016. 6. 29. · IMA 2013 Salary...

Documents

Transcript of IMA 2013 Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist - Strategic Finance · 2016. 6. 29. · IMA 2013 Salary...