Why we’re doing this

Canada has no shortage of data on how people get jobs; recruitment pipelines are studied, hiring bias is analyzed, interview processes are optimized. Entire industries exist to refine these stages.

But once someone actually gets the job, the data becomes noticeably thinner.

This is not because what happens next is simple, but rather, because it is harder to measure, less standardized, and often treated as internal to organizations rather than as something worth studying at scale. National datasets, including those produced by Statistics Canada, are strong on labour market participation, wages, and industry distribution. They are far less equipped to describe how workplace systems function once people are inside them.

That sweet spot is where many of the most consequential questions about work actually live.

Workplaces are structured through policies, processes, and informal norms that shape who progresses, who stalls, who is supported, and who leaves. Promotion pathways, performance reviews, access to opportunity, compensation adjustments, and workplace protections all operate as systems - these systems are often assumed to be neutral or merit-based, but they are rarely examined in a consistent or comparable way across organizations.

Existing research reinforces the importance of these dynamics. Work from the OECD on career mobility and from McKinsey on workplace advancement and retention has shown that progression, not just entry, plays a significant role in shaping long-term economic outcomes. Representation at hiring does not determine equity on its own, what happens after hiring matters just as much.

This survey is designed to focus on that space.

What we’re asking about

The structure of this survey is deliberate. It is built around the parts of work that most directly shape whether getting a job turns into stability, mobility, influence, and long-term opportunity (or whether it turns into stagnation, exclusion, and exit). That is why the survey does not stop at broad questions about whether someone likes their workplace. It asks about the systems that produce outcomes: what kind of work people do, whether their role is unionized, whether their credentials are recognized, whether pay and promotion criteria are visible, whether performance reviews happen, whether leave is truly usable, whether accommodations are granted, and whether people have had to leave jobs because support was missing. These are not peripheral details, we think of them as the mechanics of workplace life.

The demographic and employment-context questions are there because workplace systems do not land evenly. The survey asks about race, Indigenous identity, newcomer experience, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, province, sector, job type, skilled trades, unionization, and education because without that context, it becomes impossible to distinguish between a general workplace pattern and one that is concentrated among particular groups or forms of work. This is especially important in a Canadian context, where our most commonly cited labour datasets are strong on employment, unemployment, hours, wages, and industry, but much thinner on how advancement, benefits, recognition, and workplace treatment vary once people are inside organizations. Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey, for example, is designed to produce core labour market indicators such as employment status, hours, industry, occupation, and wages, while SEPH provides payroll jobs, earnings, and hours by industry. Those are important measures, but they are not designed to tell us who understands the promotion criteria in their workplace, who avoided taking a sick day out of fear, or whose credentials were quietly discounted after arrival.

The questions on pay, transparency, and promotion are central because advancement is one of the clearest ways workplace inequality compounds over time. The survey asks whether respondents know what similar roles are paid, whether the criteria for raises and promotions were ever explained, whether they have been promoted, how long it took, what that promotion actually included, whether they were passed over, and whether any explanation was given. That cluster matters because research from outside Canada has shown, repeatedly, that entry into a workplace is only one part of the story. The OECD has documented how gender gaps in pay and advancement persist across labour markets and has argued that pay transparency tools matter precisely because workers often do not have enough information to identify or challenge inequities. McKinsey’s 2024 Women in the Workplace report found that the “broken rung” at the first step up to management remains a defining problem: for every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women were promoted. When promotion criteria are vague, compensation systems are opaque, and explanations are inconsistent, inequity does not need to be explicitly stated to become structurally durable.

The questions on credentials, training, and immigrant experience are included for a similar reason. The survey asks not only what education or training someone has completed, but whether those credentials led to advancement, whether past work experience from outside Canada was recognized, and whether a respondent had to take a lower-level role than their qualifications warranted when they first entered the Canadian workforce. Those questions are essential because under-recognition of skills is one of the most persistent features of immigrant labour market inequality in Canada and across many high-income countries. Statistics Canada has found that immigrants are more likely than non-immigrants to experience persistent overqualification, and that immigrants who studied outside Canada face especially elevated risk. The federal government’s 2025 evaluation of the Foreign Credential Recognition Program also acknowledges that foreign credential recognition remains complex and fragmented, especially outside regulated occupations. In other words, this is not just about whether people arrive with qualifications. It is about whether workplaces and labour market institutions treat those qualifications as real once someone is here.

Performance evaluation is included because formal feedback systems often operate as gateways to compensation, stretch work, promotion, and retention, even when organizations describe them as routine administrative processes. The survey asks whether a formal review happened in the past year, how often reviews occur, and what they actually included: written feedback, ratings, verbal feedback, goal setting, and compensation discussion. That level of specificity matters. A workplace can claim to have a performance system while still offering a process that is irregular, impressionistic, or disconnected from actual advancement. Research on pay and performance from the CIPD and the OECD’s broader work on gender equality and work both point to the same underlying issue: where standards are unclear and decisions are highly discretionary, pay and progression outcomes become harder to scrutinize and easier to reproduce inequitably. We are asking these questions because it is not enough to know that a review exists on paper. We need to know how it functions in practice, and whether it is connected to real opportunities.

The sections on paid time off, sick leave, benefits, parental leave, and accommodations are there because what is offered and what is usable are often not the same thing. The survey distinguishes between entitlement and uptake for vacation and sick days, asks why people did not take the leave they were owed, asks whether vacation had to be used to observe non-Christian religious or cultural holidays, asks what benefits were available versus actually used, and asks about parental leave top-ups, length of leave, return-to-role outcomes, and accommodations requested and granted. This distinction is methodologically important. A benefits handbook can suggest support exists while day-to-day conditions make it inaccessible. International research is clear that leave and accommodation policies shape labour market attachment, health, and equity. The OECD notes that paid parental leave is a core family policy tool across member countries and that these policies affect household finances, wellbeing, and the division of unpaid care. OECD work on disability, work, and inclusion also shows that disabled workers continue to face large employment and income gaps, which is precisely why accommodations cannot be treated as a side issue. On sick leave, the ILO has long warned that fear of dismissal, retaliation, financial pressure, and workplace norms drive presenteeism, with consequences not only for individual workers but for workplaces and public health more broadly. We are asking about these issues in detail because benefits only matter to the extent that workers can actually use them without penalty.

The retention and exit questions are included because departure is often treated as an individual choice when it is, in fact, a workplace outcome. Asking whether someone left a job in the past five years due to lack of advancement, benefits, or support helps connect earlier parts of the survey to their eventual consequence. If someone reports opaque pay, weak feedback systems, inaccessible leave, denied accommodations, or stalled mobility, and then also reports leaving, that matters analytically. It helps move the conversation away from abstract claims about culture and toward concrete links between policy design and organizational loss. That is also why the final open-ended questions ask respondents to identify the single rule, policy, or decision that most shaped their experience. They create space for context without abandoning the survey’s systems focus.

The AI questions may look narrower than the rest of the instrument, but they belong here for the same reason. The survey asks whether workers use AI tools, whether employers provide guidance, and whether people have used those tools without disclosing it. That is not a trend question for its own sake, we think of it as a workplace governance question. The OECD’s recent work on algorithmic management and AI in the workplace points out that digital tools are increasingly shaping how work is assigned, monitored, and evaluated, and that governance often lags behind adoption. If AI is already being used informally inside workplaces without clear policy, that has implications for accountability, performance expectations, confidentiality, and fairness. Including this section allows the survey to capture an emerging layer of workplace practice before it hardens into another unexamined default.

Taken together, these questions are trying to do something that many workplace datasets do not. They are not simply measuring who is employed, or whether respondents feel positively or negatively in the abstract. They are measuring the interaction between workers and workplace systems: the rules, processes, and discretionary practices that shape what happens after hiring. That is the value of this design. It makes it possible to study work not just as a labour market status, but as a lived structure. And that, ultimately, is the gap this survey is trying to fill.

What we know is missing

There is currently no widely available, Canada-wide dataset that captures how workplace systems operate after hiring at a detailed, cross-sector level.

Labour market data tends to focus on employment status, wages, and job transitions. Organizational data, where it exists, is typically internal, inconsistent across organizations, and not publicly accessible. Academic research often focuses on specific sectors, populations, or interventions, rather than building a broad, comparable dataset of workplace experience. This creates a gap between what is measurable and what is materially shaping outcomes.

Questions such as who receives promotions, how performance is evaluated, or how access to opportunity is distributed are often discussed, but not systematically measured across contexts. As a result, decision-making in this area frequently relies on partial data, anecdotal evidence, or assumptions. This survey is an attempt to address that gap by collecting structured, comparable data directly from workers across Canada.

Without data on what happens inside workplaces, it is difficult to understand how outcomes are produced. Focusing only on hiring provides an incomplete picture in that it captures entry, but not progression. It identifies representation, but not distribution of opportunity. It tells us who is present, but not how systems are functioning around them.

By collecting data on workplace processes and experiences, it becomes possible to examine patterns in career mobility, identify points where systems are producing unequal outcomes, and better understand how policies and practices translate into real-world effects. This type of data has practical value. It can inform organizational decision-making, support policy development, and provide a more grounded basis for conversations about workplace equity and effectiveness.

What we’re aiming for

The target for this survey is a minimum of 1,000 responses from workers across Canada. At this threshold, the dataset begins to support more stable pattern detection and more meaningful comparison across variables such as role type, employment status, and demographic characteristics. While larger sample sizes would increase statistical power, 1,000 responses provides a credible foundation for exploratory analysis and insight generation at a national level, particularly given the current absence of comparable datasets. Every additional response strengthens the reliability and usefulness of the findings.

Who can take part?

Anyone who has worked in Canada in the last 2 years in any role, sector, or province. We want to hear from full-time, part-time, freelance, contract, and gig workers.

It takes 5–7 minutes, is completely anonymous, and is open to anyone who consents to share their experience.

What this is and isn’t + limitations

This survey is designed to generate useful, system-level insight, but it is not without limitations.

This is not an academic study and is not affiliated with any institution. It won’t be reviewed by an ethics board. It’s a community-driven data project led by QuakeLab, a workplace equity firm focused on building systems-level insights.

As an independently led project without external funding or institutional backing, the survey is distributed digitally and in English only. We are not currently offering paper copies or translated versions. This limits accessibility and means that some workers, particularly those with limited internet access or for whom English is not a primary working language, may be underrepresented in the dataset. These constraints are a function of resources, not design intent.

The survey also does not use a randomized or stratified sampling framework. Participation is voluntary and driven through networks, partnerships, and public sharing. As a result, the dataset will not be statistically representative of the Canadian workforce in a strict academic sense.

That said, the goal of this project is not to produce a perfectly representative national estimate. It is to generate structured, comparable data on workplace systems that can surface patterns, highlight areas for further investigation, and support more informed decision-making. These limitations will be clearly acknowledged in any analysis and reporting.

The findings will be shared publicly to support better policies and more equitable employment practices across Canada.

How this compares to existing datasets

Most widely used labour datasets in Canada are designed to answer different questions. National surveys such as Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Employment, Payroll and Hours provide strong data on employment status, wages, hours worked, and industry distribution. They are essential for understanding the labour market at a macro level. However, they are not designed to capture how workplace systems operate once people are employed.

Administrative and organizational data can offer insight into promotions, performance, and compensation, but this data is typically internal, inconsistent across organizations, and not publicly accessible. Where research does exist on workplace experience, it is often sector-specific, population-specific, or focused on particular interventions rather than providing a broad, cross-sector view. This survey is designed to sit alongside, not replace, these datasets. Its contribution is in capturing a layer of data that is largely missing at a national level: how policies, processes, and informal practices shape what happens after hiring. By focusing on comparable questions across roles, sectors, and worker groups, it creates a dataset that can be used to examine patterns in advancement, access to opportunity, and workplace functioning in a way that existing datasets do not currently allow.

What happens next

Once data collection is complete, responses will be analyzed and shared in aggregate. The goal is to produce a dataset that supports deeper analysis of workplace systems in Canada and enables more informed conversations about how those systems operate in practice. This is a first step, the longer-term value of this work depends on the quality, diversity, and scale of the data collected.