Work-Life Balance and Organizational Commitment of

Women in the U.S. Construction Industry

E. Kent Malone1 and Raja R. A. Issa, F.ASCE2

Abstract: This research focuses on job satisfaction, work-life balance, and organizational commitment among women employed in the
U.S. construction industry. Its aim is to identify the variables that affect women’s satisfaction with their job and employer, as well as their
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

overall intention to remain with their employer. The results indicated that there were differences in the respondents’ commitment over differ-
ent time intervals, as well as in their satisfaction with employer benefits based on whether or not they had children under 21 living at home.
Factors that led to the most job satisfaction were good working relationships with coworkers and peers; respect and fair treatment from
superiors; challenges on the job; feeling of accomplishment, and feeling valued as an employee. Factors that ranked the highest in affecting
organizational commitment were job-fit to their individual skills, flexibility and balance between work and personal time, feeling valued as an
asset to their company/employer, and availability of opportunities for advancement. Based on these results, employers will be better able to
select initiatives that will help them promote employee work-life balance. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000140. © 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Construction industry; Women; Employees; Personnel management; United States.
Author keywords: Construction; Women; Job satisfaction; Work-life balance; Organizational commitment.

Introduction effective. Previous studies on work-life balance consistently

The word balance in work-life balance (WLB) suggests there is a
formula, or a “right answer” to the puzzle of partitioning time,
effort, and attention and allocating the right proportion of each
to the different demands of life, resulting in equilibrium—such
as children often attempt to achieve on a playground teeter-totter.
But things are not that simple. Life is dynamic, characterized by the
inevitability of change and the challenge of adaptation to it. Merrill
and Merrill (2003) noted that “the challenge is not ‘balance,’ it is
balancing; creating the capacity to balance in the changing circum-
stances of life.” Life’s challenges include finding time to do those
things that one wants to do and those things that one must do.
Factors including work, family, intimate relationships, money mat-
ters, friendships, leisure time, and religious commitments play an
important role in one’s efforts to find synergy and balance in one’s
life. As such, WLB is not a one-size-fits-all formula. Perhaps it
would be more accurate to refer to it as work-life integration as
opposed to balance. Whatever one wants to call it, only individuals
can decide for themselves if their lives are in or out of balance.
Fortunately, there are some common factors that seem to increase
a person’s work-life balance that employers can control and, at the
same time, increase employee job satisfaction.
As more employers look to adopt work-life balance initiatives,
attention needs to be paid to those initiatives that are the most
1 as a way to introduce tens of thousands of high school and college
Lecturer, Warrington College of Business, Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-5703. E-mail: kmalone@ufl.edu
2
Holland Professor, M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-5703 (corresponding author).
E-mail: raymond-issa@ufl.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 8, 2012; approved on
September 18, 2012; published online on September 20, 2012. Discussion
period open until September 1, 2013; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Pro-
fessional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, Vol. 139, No. 2,
April 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1052-3928/2013/2-87-98/$25.00.
reported the same types of initiatives being promoted, such as
flex-time, job sharing, alternative career paths, working from home
(telecommuting), compressed work weeks, maternity/paternity
leave, time off for dependent care, and various levels of child and
elder care, including on-site or subsidized child or elder care. But
have they worked? Have some been more effective than others? Do
effective initiatives vary by industry or type of employment, or are
they universal? Furthermore, do these initiatives have any effect on
an employee’s organizational commitment and willingness to stay
with her employer? If so, are there observable differences between
short-term and long-term commitments?
A review of the WLB literature reveals that WLB initiatives
are not universally consistent in their effectiveness across the
workforce spectrum. Not surprisingly, perhaps, demands and WLB
issues differ among industries. For example, a nurse working shifts
in a hospital faces different pressures and challenges than an office
manager at a Fortune 500 company. The differences are in, for
example, the work environments, the nature of the work, and the
different job schedules.
So what about women in construction and construction-related
jobs? Significant amounts of money and effort go toward recruiting
people into the construction and related industries. Many state
school systems, major employers, construction associations, and
trade and professional organizations sponsor or participate in na-
tional events and expositions at venues around the country annually
students to a vibrant industry with a nearly insatiable demand for
new talent. This study goes beyond attraction initiatives that help
draw new female employees into the construction industry by
examining incentives and issues that affect their desire to stay with
an employer.
Organizational commitment can be described as an employee’s
involvement with and motivation for a particular employer. This
commitment is characterized by a strong belief in the goals and
values of the organization, a willingness to exert considerable effort

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 87

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain a
working relationship within the organization. Thus, a person’s level
of organizational commitment can be a predictor of employee turn-
over. Therefore, factors that impact organizational commitment
must be examined.
The aim of this study is to provide employers in the construction
industry with information designed to reduce the potential for turn-
over of female employees. To that end, the following research areas
were examined in this study:
• Are there identifiable factors that impact a woman’s satisfaction
with her job (e.g., good use of skills and talents, advancement
opportunities)?
• Are there identifiable factors that impact a woman’s satisfaction
with her employer (e.g., good relationships with coworkers,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
respect and fair treatment by superiors, feeling valued as an
employee)?
• Are there identifiable factors that increase or decrease a wo-
man’s level of organizational commitment and intention to stay
with her current employer (e.g., distance of job from home/
commute time, travel requirements, frequent overtime)?
• Are there nonwork factors that affect employee satisfaction
among women in the construction industry?
This study examined self-reported WLB issues and determined
their effects on a female employee’s overall job satisfaction, organi-
zational commitment, and desire to stay with a particular employer
within the construction industry. This study also identified WLB
factors outside the scope of employer initiatives that enhance or
hinder organizational commitment and turnover intent for women
in the U.S. construction industry.
Literature Review
Women account for nearly half of the U.S. labor force (Whitmarsh
et al. 2007), but even as far back as 1970, women made up a large
chunk of the working population at just over 43% (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services 2008). These numbers, however, do
not show the segmenting of jobs relative to “traditional” gender-
based jobs or gender-neutral jobs. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) (2008), women made up 9.4% of those em-
ployed in construction in 2007, rising by three-tenths of a percent to
peak at 9.7% in 2008 (BLS 2009), then tapering off to 9.5 and 8.9%
for 2009 and 2010, respectively (BLS 2010, 2011). The peak in
2008 and contraction of the number of women in construction
is likely due to a contemporaneous contraction in the construction
industry as a whole in response to the economic downturn and sub-
sequent recession. The fact that women consistently constitute less
than 10% of the work force in the construction industry exemplifies
the underrepresentation of women in this field. While this under-
representation continues to be investigated by other researchers, the
focus of this paper is an attempt to identify factors that enhance
women’s desire to stay with their employer, rather than an attempt
to identify reasons for their disproportionate representation in the
industry.
Much of the existing literature on WLB is in nondescript “busi-
ness” or “organization” fields or relates to WLB as a psychological
factor in working men and women without reference to a specific
field (e.g., Guest 2002; Guillaume and Pochic 2009; Emslie and
Hunt 2009). A number of studies illustrate the shift in the “tradi-
tional” family dynamic over the past few decades, wherein the lines
of demarcation between gender roles—those of breadwinner
and family care/nurturer—have become blurred to the extent of
overlap, causing less distinction between WLB issues for men
and women. One longitudinal study (Nomaguchi 2009) conducted
88 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.
in the United States between 1977 and 1997 represented the social,
demographic, and cultural changes occurring in the United States
as the family dynamic has undergone significant change on a num-
ber of levels, including single-parenthood and an increasing pro-
portion of women entering the workforce over the past few
decades. To further support this apparent shift in attitudes, a recent
Finnish study (Forma 2009) found few differences in the effects of
WLB conflicts between men and women and determined that the
factors that contributed to difficulties in reconciling work and fam-
ily were not gender-specific. This study found that “difficulties in
reconciling work and family” were directly linked to decisions to
seek employment elsewhere, either to accept a different job or work
in a different industry entirely or to withdraw from the workforce
altogether. These, like many other studies, are not industry- or
profession-specific.
An examination of specific professions or industries, especially
those traditionally male-dominated such as law, medicine, or
engineering/construction, reveals a shift in WLB issues (or at least
a shift in how these conflicts are handled), and they tend to be more
gender-specific. For example, women who achieved more career
advancement in engineering were usually single, childless, or
divorced, essentially sacrificing the traditional family in favor of
career advancement (Guillaume and Pochic 2009). A recent study
of graduate students at Syracuse University found that the chal-
lenges women encounter in academia and their professional careers
can often be mitigated by peer mentoring, which provides support,
encouragement, and a sense of empowerment in the face of barriers
to success (Bhatia and Amati 2010). Overt gender discrimination is
still problematic in some cultures, for example Singapore, causing
more pronounced barriers for women seeking advancement into
leadership roles in the industry (Toor and Ofori 2011). Nonetheless,
the consensus of the literature on WLB issues is that promotions,
whether of men or women, are in a large part connected to manage-
ment’s perception of a worker’s “commitment” to her job.
According to the existing literature on male/female employment
rates, the U.S. and U.K. construction industries are fairly consistent
with each other, even when categorized according to occupations
within the construction industry. One study in the United Kingdom
reported women making up 49.5% of the overall workforce but
representing only 13% of the workforce within the construction
industry (Fielden et al. 2000). Despite the substantial increases,
percentagewise, of women in various construction-related occupa-
tions, as well as a decrease in others from 1971 through 1991, the
overwhelming majority of women in construction tended to be in
the capacity of support staff (Fielden et al. 2000; Agapiou 2002).
Several studies in the United States and the United Kingdom have
attempted to identify or explain the cause or causes of the under-
representation of women in the construction industry in these coun-
tries (e.g., Fielden et al. 2001; Agapiou 2002; Caven 2006). One
explanation may be that women simply do not have a history of
employment in the male-dominated construction industry (Watts
2009). Still, research suggests that the most successful organiza-
tions are those that recognize that top talent comes in both genders
and acknowledge women as important contributors and work to
develop their skills and talents (Schwartz 1989; Hewlett and Luce
2005).
So, is the tide turning on these traditional gender-prescribed
work and family roles from the perspective of employers, manag-
ers, and employees? The literature review presented in this study
suggests that, yes, albeit at a slow and inconsistent pace across
industries and cultures. Over the past two decades, there has been
an increase in awareness and, as a result, an increase in studies re-
lated to WLB, organizational commitment, and employee turnover.
Earlier studies on WLB initiatives consistently reported the same
 employer initiatives such as flex-time, job sharing, alternative ca-
reer paths, working from home (telecommuting), compressed work
weeks, maternity/paternity leave, time off for dependent care, and
various levels of child and elder care (e.g., Smith and Gardner
2007; O’Neil et al. 2008). The construction industry as a whole
experiences high turnover. “The industry supersectors (according to
the North American Industry Classification System) with the high-
est annual turnover rates, on average between 2001 and 2004, were
arts, entertainment and recreation; accommodations and food
services; construction; and retail trade” (Stephens and Riley 2005).
In 2001, the construction industry experienced a non-seasonally
adjusted quit rate of 27.4% and only a slight reduction at 25.2%
in 2004 (Stephens and Riley 2005). A recent study of Australian
construction workers revealed that work-family conflict (WFC),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which is often associated with job dissatisfaction and turnover in-
tent, is relative to age group, type of compensation (wage versus
salary), job type (field or office), and gender (Lingard et al. 2010).
This study, like most, included both male and female respondents.
Differences between perceptions of equal treatment on the job,
relative to gender, continue to be an issue and may have an impact
on women’s long-term careers (Layne 2010), thereby affecting
turnover or turnover intent for women in particular. As such,
gender-specific studies on organizational commitment and em-
ployee turnover in the construction field should be conducted to
determine if there are WLB or WFC variables that are discrete
relative to gender.
Methodology
In late 2009, an Internet-based organizational climate survey was
opened to members of the National Association of Women in
Construction (NAWIC). The survey questionnaire used in this
study was adopted from a lengthy, validated survey developed
by a private U.S. consulting firm that is used to assess the satisfac-
tion of members of each branch of the U.S. military. Written per-
mission was obtained to use this proprietary survey and adapt it to
this specific study on the condition that the firm’s identity remain
confidential. After careful evaluation of each section and question,
the researchers eliminated certain questions and modified others
and arranged the order of each question section to fit the context
of the survey population. This process is further explained in the
“Analysis of Results” section.
Instead of simply asking respondents about their satisfaction
with their job, supervisor/manager, and employer, the survey in-
cluded other aspects of life (e.g., family, intimacy, residence) that
are likely to affect the respondent’s work and their life outside of
work. As such, the survey was purposefully candid and probative in
an effort to produce the most substantive and accurate results.
Survey Procedure
NAWIC is a professional organization of nearly 5,000 members
and comprised exclusively of women in construction and related
fields. Administrators at NAWIC announced the survey to their
members in two newsletters and at the organization’s annual
conference, just prior to the launch of the survey. Each NAWIC
member received a link to the Web-hosted survey site in an e-mail
sent out by NAWIC’s home office. The membership listserv was
not shared with any person or entity outside NAWIC. No person
or entity associated with this study received a list of the members’
names or individual e-mail addresses. No personally identifiable
information was requested of the survey participants, and computer
IP addresses of the respondents were not maintained. These efforts
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 89
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.
were to assure the complete anonymity and privacy of the survey
respondents.
The survey took approximately 25 min to complete, as evi-
denced by the survey site statistics reported at the close of the
survey availability period. Respondents were permitted to log off
the survey and return to complete it later; however, no previously
reported information could be accessed or changed. It was reported
by an NAWIC administrator that 4,185 e-mails with the link to the
survey had been sent to members requesting their participation. The
total number of respondents was 744, nearly 18% of the email
recipients; however, not all 744 respondents answered all questions.
Survey Questionnaire
The survey consisted of the following 11 major sections, broken
down into subsections, which asked for the following information:
• Section 1, Global Quality of Life, asked questions (Q1–Q6)
related to overall satisfaction with the respondent’s life and also
as an employee of her organization. Quality of life is influenced
by a number of factors, such as one’s job, how work and non-
work facets of life overlap, friendships, personal relationships,
and others.
• Section 2 (Q7), Organizational Commitment, asked several
questions about how much respondents agreed or disagreed with
statements concerning their feelings toward their employer.
• Section 3 (Q8), Life Domain Satisfaction, asked how satisfied or
dissatisfied respondents were with various aspects of their life,
such as their current job overall, work-life balance, personal
health, standard of living, relationships with friends and family,
and intimate relationships.
• Section 4, Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction, consisted of six
subsections: Job Satisfaction (Q9), Workplace Issues (Q10),
Personal Health (Q11A) and Health Care (Q11B), Leisure Time
(Q12), Marriage/Intimate Relationships (Q13) and Relation-
ships with Children (Q14).
• Section 5 (Q15), Life Domain Impact on Commitment, used the
same variables, response choices, and coding as Section 3, Life
Domain Satisfaction, but asked about how the various aspects
that impact the respondent’s life impact her desire to stay with or
leave her organization.
• Section 6 consisted of three subsections: Employer Benefits
Impact [with medical (Q16A), dental (Q16B) and retirement
(16C) benefits questions], Rating Fairness of Health Care Cost
Relative to Quality of Coverage (Q17), and an open-ended ques-
tion asking for the one benefit that is not currently offered that
would make the employee happy (Q18).
• Sections 7–9, Employment Information (Q19–Q27), Employee
Commitment (Q28–Q31), and Employer Attractiveness (Q32–
Q33), respectively, used single-answer, multiple-answer, and
dichotomous questions.
• Section 10, Your Thoughts (Q34–Q37), consisted of free-
response, short-answer questions. They included questions
asking respondents to state the main reason that maked them
want to stay with their employer and the main reason that would
make them want to leave. Respondents were asked to state one
work-related program or policy that their employer could imple-
ment to keep them in their current job. Respondents were also
asked to state one non-work-related program or policy the
employer could do or implement to keep them in their job.
• Section 11 concerned demographic information (Q38–Q43)
wherein respondents were asked to report their age, race, highest
level of education attained, marital status, spouse’s employment
status, and if children under the age of 21 lived in the home.
 Since the survey was distributed only to current members of
NAWIC, the sample population was made up exclusively of
women. The terms “employer,” “organization,” and “company”
were used interchangeably throughout the survey and are, likewise,
used interchangeably in this study. There were a total of 139 re-
sponse items using the Likert scale, semantic differential scale,
open-ended and closed-ended questions with both single and multi-
ple answers, and dichotomous-type questions.
Analysis of Results
Demographics and Employment Information
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Of the 744 total survey respondents, 522 responded to the question
of age. Those respondents ranged in age from 21 to 75 years old,
with 31% of the respondents being between 46 and 55 years old,
24% between 36 and 45 years old, 24% between 26 and 35 years
old, and 15% between 56 and 65 years old. The mean age was 44.5
years. Nearly 90% of the 513 who responded to the question of race
reported their race as white, whereas fewer than 4% were Hispanic/
Latino, and only 1.5% were African American. Nearly a third of the
518 respondents to the level of education question reported having
some college level education, and another third had bachelor’s
degrees. The third highest reported level of education (14%)
was an associate’s degree. Over 57% of the 517 respondents to
the question of marital status were married, 21% were single,
and the remainder reported being separated, divorced, or widowed.
A majority (51%) of the 514 respondents to this question reported
having a spouse that worked full-time, and 38% had no spouse
in the household. Over two-thirds (68%) of the 516 respondents
to this question reported having no children under the age of 21
residing at home.
Respondents were asked to report on their employment infor-
mation, both their field of work and their occupation. Over 21%
of the 534 respondents to this question reported working in the
construction/general contracting fields. Nearly 17% of the respond-
ents reported working in the construction management field, and
14% reported working in specialty contracting fields such as
HVAC, plumbing, and electrical. Almost 23% reported being
employed in office management or administrative support occupa-
tions, and 14% reported working in project management, project
coordinator, or project engineer positions. Nearly 7% owned their
own business, and 5% of those responding reported being a
tradeswoman.
Factor Analysis
The survey contained a large number of response items (139 in all)
within the 11 main sections, so it was necessary to conduct a factor
analysis to curtail the possibility of multicollinearity errors. There-
fore, similar response variables were condensed into a single
Table 1. Global Quality of Life: Respondents’ Satisfaction with Statement about Their Life as a Whole
ID Question
Q5-1 In most ways, my life is close to ideal
Q5-2 The conditions of my life are excellent
Q5-3 I am satisfied with my life
Q5-4 So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life
Q5-5a If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.
90 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.
variable as warranted by the results of the factor analysis. Each re-
sponse item was categorized according to its Pearson correlation
coefficient. The factor analysis helped identify questions and sub-
questions within question sets that could exhibit high correlations
either between main questions or within a particular question set.
Either questions with very high Pearson correlation coefficient
levels (≥0.80) were combined into a distinct new variable or one
of the questions was eliminated altogether. Subquestions within
question sets were also reviewed for Pearson correlation coefficient
levels of 0.80 or higher and were handled similarly. Subquestions
displaying decidedly low Pearson correlation coefficients (<0.10)
were examined for appropriateness and combined into a new
response variable (or variables) or eliminated as warranted to
eliminate multicollinearity through question redundancy. A factor
analysis was conducted on all questions and question sets from
Sections 1–6.
Along with the factor analyses, the response frequencies for
each question and all subquestions within a set were reviewed
for possible elimination. Factor analyses were not conducted on
the questions in Sections 7–11, although the response frequencies
were still examined for all questions and question sets. Some
individual questions were eliminated due to high correlations
with other questions or poor fit, whereas others were omitted
from the analysis because of a high frequency of “I don’t know”
responses.
The responses to the first survey question, Q1, asking how sat-
isfied the 719 respondents to this question were with their overall
life, had a low percentage (8%) of very dissatisfied/dissatisfied
respondents, and 92% were not dissatisfied (includes neutral re-
sponses). The responses to the second survey question, Q2, asking
how satisfied the 707 respondents to this question were with their
life as an employee of their organization, indicated that 13% were
very dissatisfied/dissatisfied, and the remaining respondents (87%)
were not dissatisfied (includes neutral responses). Table 1 lists the
responses to the sub-set of questions for Q5 (Global Quality of
Life) and shows the level to which the respondents’ agree with the
listed statements about their life as a whole. Subquestions within a
set that were eliminated for analysis purposes, based on the preced-
ing factor analysis results, are marked with table footnote. Table 2
shows the complete subset of questions for question Q7 (Employer/
Organization Satisfaction) about the respondents’ agreement with
the listed statements about their current employer/organization. The
responses to question Q8 (Employer/Organization Commitment)
about the respondents’ overall commitment in each of the listed
areas are shown in Table 3.
Table 4 lists the 15 subquestions for question set Q9 (Employer
Attractiveness) about the respondents’ satisfaction with the
attractiveness of the listed aspects of their job. Question set Q10
(Workplace Issues) about the respondents’ satisfaction with the
listed aspects of their job is shown in Table 5, along with all cor-
responding response data per subquestion. All seven subquestions
were retained.
Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
disagree (%) (%) nor disagree (%) (%) agree (%) n
2.5 16.1 25.3 46.4 9.8 684
1.9 19.1 27.3 40.7 11.0 685
0.7 11.0 15.1 58.3 14.9 683
1.5 11.1 16.9 52.1 18.5 682
6.0 36.4 18.4 29.2 10.1 685
 Table 2. Organizational Commitment: Respondents’ Satisfaction with Statements Regarding Their Current Employer/Organization
Strongly Neither agree Strongly
disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree agree
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q7-1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with 5.4 10.2 17.6 36.36 30.5 649
my current employer
Q7-2 I enjoy discussing my current employer with other people 2.5 7.4 17.7 45.9 26.5 649
Q7-3 I do not think that I could easily become as attached to 5.1 19.8 29.5 24.7 20.9 645
another organization as I am to my current employer
Q7-4 I feel like “part of the family” with my current employer 4.3 9.7 22.3 34.9 28.8 647
Q7-5 I feel “emotionally attached” to my current employer 4.3 14.0 27.2 33.6 20.8 648
Q7-6 Working for my current employer has a great deal of 3.1 10.2 24.8 38.9 23.1 646
personal meaning for me
Q7-7 I feel a strong sense of belonging with my current 4.5 11.0 21.0 39.0 24.6 647
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

employer

Table 3. Life Domain Satisfaction: Respondents’ Satisfaction with Statements Regarding Their Life
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q8-1 Your current job 2.3 8.4 11.4 37.9 38.5 1.6 642
Q8-2 Work-life balance 2.3 15.8 18.1 44.2 18.9 0.8 641
Q8-3 Spiritual well-being 1.2 10.6 21.5 39.5 25.5 1.7 643
Q8-4 Career development 0.8 12.8 24.4 41.8 18.9 1.4 641
Q8-5 Your personal health 1.7 19.2 19.5 40.0 19.5 0.2 642
Q8-6a Residence 2.0 7.9 12.3 35.1 42.4 0.3 642
Q8-7a Neighborhood 1.9 5.6 12.8 36.1 42.8 0.8 642
Q8-8 Leisure and recreation 2.2 16.0 18.8 44.5 18.5 0.0 643
Q8-9 Friends and friendships 1.1 8.7 14.0 36.2 39.8 0.2 643
Q8-10 Relationships with relatives 0.9 7.3 14.8 43.5 33.2 0.3 642
Q8-11 Marriage or Intimate relationship 4.5 10.4 11.5 23.3 38.0 12.3 643
Q8-12a Relationship with your children 0.6 4.2 4.4 19.6 36.6 34.6 639
Q8-13a Personal development 0.8 12.0 20.8 44.4 21.7 0.3 640
Q8-14 Standard of living/income 3.0 17.5 19.9 41.3 18.2 0.2 642
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

Table 4. Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction (Job Satisfaction): Respondents’ Satisfaction with the Listed Aspects of Their Job
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q9-1 Your coworkers and peers 1.4 5.9 18.0 50.1 21.5 3.1 623
Q9-2 Your pay 1.9 15.5 18.4 49.6 12.9 1.8 621
Q9-3 Your benefits 2.7 9.2 13.7 50.0 21.7 2.7 622
Q9-4 The amount of support and guidance 7.3 12.9 21.3 28.1 21.6 8.9 620
you receive from your supervisor
Q9-5 The amount of job security you have 4.7 12.2 20.1 36.8 23.4 2.9 623
Q9-6 The opportunity for personal growth 4.8 15.3 19.7 34.2 22.0 4.0 623
and development on your job
Q9-7 The degree of respect and fair treatment 4.2 9.7 16.2 33.4 29.4 7.1 622
you receive from your superiors
Q9-8 The amount of challenge in your job 2.7 8.5 14.5 45.1 26.5 2.7 623
Q9-9 The feeling of accomplishment you get 1.1 5.1 14.3 42.7 35.5 1.3 623
from doing your job
Q9-10a The leadership provided by your 6.9 13.8 21.7 30.2 18.8 8.7 623
superiors
Q9-11 Ability to work independently 0.5 1.1 4.7 34.5 57.7 1.6 621
Q9-12a A job free from problems (e.g., able to 3.4 12.4 20.2 39.8 22.0 2.3 623
concentrate, tolerance for mistakes)
Q9-13a The educational opportunities and 4.3 13.5 19.4 34.0 24.1 4.7 623
support available
Q9-14a The feedback you get from others 3.2 12.4 24.6 40.4 16.9 2.4 621
Q9-15 The amount of responsibility you have 1.8 8.5 14.0 43.7 30.2 1.8 622
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 91

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Table 5. Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction (Workplace Issues): Respondents’ Satisfaction with Listed Aspects of Workplace
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q10-1 Physical environment where your work takes place 1.5 4.93 15.0 45.8 31.1 1.8 608
Q10-2 Pace of your work 0.7 9.1 14.2 52.0 22.8 1.3 606
Q10-3 Number of people available to get work done 3.1 15.3 19.1 43.0 15.7 3.8 607
Q10-4 Number of quick-response tasks 0.5 9.4 23.5 47.0 16.1 3.5 604
Q10-5 Time available to do a good job 1.6 11.7 18.4 47.7 18.9 1.6 608
Q10-6 Availability of equipment and software 1.2 8.8 16.5 42.6 29.7 1.3 606
Q10-7 Age of equipment or software you use in 1.6 10.5 15.1 41.3 29.8 1.6 608
your work
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Question set Q11 inquired about the respondents’ satisfaction
with the listed aspects of their health (Table 6). Table 7 lists the
subset of questions and responses for question set Q13 about
how satisfied the respondents were with the listed aspects of their
marriage or intimate relationship. All of these questions were re-
tained. Table 8 lists the full set of subquestions for question set
Q14 about the respondents’ satisfaction with listed aspects of their
relationship with their children.
Question set Q15 asked the respondents to rate how certain fac-
tors in their personal life affected their decision to stay with their
employer. As identified in Table 9, seven variables related to this
question showed the least impact and were eliminated. Question
set Q16, which asked about the benefits the respondents’ employer
offered even if they had declined a particular coverage or benefit,
is shown in Table 10.
Cross Tabulations
Cross tabulations were run between question Q2 about the respond-
ents’ satisfaction with their life as an employee of their organization
and question sets Q9 and Q10 about how satisfied they were
with the listed aspects of their job (Job Satisfaction) and about
how satisfied they were with the listed aspects of their workplace
(Workplace Issues), respectively.
The response choices for each question were very dissatisfied,
dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, and very satisfied, scored 1 through 5,

Table 6. Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction (Personal Health and Health Care): Respondents’ Satisfaction with Listed Aspects of Their Health
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q11A-1 Your current weight 14.6 44.7 15.0 20.8 4.8 0.2 605
Q11A-2 Your level of energy 5.3 31.9 23.3 33.1 6.3 0.2 605
Q11A-3 How well you sleep 6.0 26.5 20.9 36.6 9.9 0.2 604
Q11A-4 The amount of sleep you get 5.6 27.8 18.5 39.1 8.8 0.2 604
Q11A-5 Your physical endurance 4.8 32.7 21.8 33.7 6.8 0.2 605
Q11A-6 Your physical fitness 9.5 39.3 20.4 25.2 5.5 0.2 603
Q11A-7 Amount of stress in your life 9.8 33.2 27.8 25.2 3.8 0.2 604
Q11B-8 Your medical care 1.7 8.9 14.9 57.2 16.5 0.8 605
Q11B-9 Your dental care 2.2 11.1 12.9 54.4 17.7 1.7 603
Q11B-10a Your dependents’ medical care 1.2 2.8 8.3 33.0 10.3 44.5 604
Q11B-11a Your dependents’ dental care 1.5 3.5 8.1 31.3 10.0 45.6 603
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

Table 7. Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction (Marriage/Intimate Relationship): Respondents’ Satisfaction with Listed Aspects of Their Marriage or Intimate
Relationship
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q13-1 Love and understanding you receive in your 3.7 7.3 9.3 26.6 31.9 21.3 593
relationship
Q13-2a Communication within relationship 4.9 8.8 12.3 27.1 25.8 21.2 594
Q13-3 The way conflicts are resolved with your partner 4.6 11.5 14.3 24.8 22.7 22.2 594
Q13-4 Your partner’s support of your career 1.7 2.7 8.8 23.2 41.9 21.7 594
Q13-5 Compatibility of interests between you and your 1.5 5.4 10.5 25.5 35.9 21.3 593
partner
Q13-6 Level of respect in relationship 2.7 5.7 8.5 21.6 40.0 21.5 592
Q13-7 Physical aspect of your relationship 5.1 8.6 12.7 24.7 27.8 21.2 591
Q13-8 Time away from home 3.7 10.3 20.4 28.0 12.0 25.5 592
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

92 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Table 8. Life Domain Aspect Satisfaction (Relationship with Children): Respondents’ Satisfaction with Listed Aspects of Their Relationship with Their
Children
Very Very Does not
dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied satisfied apply
ID Question (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) n
Q14-1 Amount of time you have with your children 1.7 18.6 8.9 22.3 6.3 42.3 587
Q14-2 Quality of time you spend with your children 1.4 8.0 6.8 27.3 14.3 42.2 586
Q14-3 Love and understanding between you and your children 1.0 2.7 4.3 24.5 26.9 40.6 587
Q14-4 Time away from home 2.4 9.7 12.4 18.1 6.1 51.3 587
Q14-5 Care and attention your children receive while you are 0.3 2.0 3.9 15.8 10.2 67.7 588
at work
Q14-6 Educational value of your children’s activities 0.3 2.4 4.1 19.1 10.9 63.2 587
Q14-7 Level of respect between you and your children 0.5 3.6 4.1 23.2 28.2 40.4 586
Q14-8 The way conflicts are resolved with your children 0.5 4.8 8.9 24.7 17.4 43.7 586
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 9. Life Domain Impact on Commitment: Impact of Listed Areas of Respondents’ Life on Their Desire to Stay with Their Employer
Greatly decreases Decreases my No effect Increase my Greatly increases Does not
my desire to desire to on my desire to my desire to apply
ID Question stay (%) stay (%) decision (%) stay (%) stay (%) (%) n
Q15-1 Your current job 3.4 8.6 20.5 33.0 28.5 6.1 561
Q15-2 Work-life balance 1.3 11.6 26.4 36.4 20.0 4.5 561
Q15-3a Your personal health 2.3 8.8 47.3 24.1 11.8 5.7 560
Q15-4a Marriage or intimate 1.4 6.1 45.5 13.4 10.2 23.4 560
relationship
Q15-5a Relationship with 1.1 4.6 36.5 10.9 7.0 39.9 561
your children
Q15-6 Personal 2.0 14.3 28.6 32.1 18.6 4.5 560
development
Q15-7 Standard of living/ 4.5 11.1 19.0 36.3 25.4 3.8 559
income
Q15-8a Spiritual well-being 1.1 5.7 49.3 22.0 12.5 9.5 560
Q15-9 Career development 3.2 15.0 22.7 32.0 21.6 5.5 560
Q15-10a Residence 1.6 5.9 44.6 24.4 17.5 6.1 561
Q15-11a Neighborhood 1.4 5.4 49.0 21.9 15.0 7.3 561
Q15-12 Leisure and 1.6 12.3 44.5 25.8 10.2 5.6 559
recreation
Q15-13 Friends and 1.4 5.5 47.5 28.4 10.9 6.3 560
friendships
Q15-14a Relationships with 0.9 4.8 63.1 15.1 7.5 8.6 558
relatives
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

Table 10. Employer Benefits Impact (Medical, Dental, and Retirement): Benefits Offered by Respondents’ Employers
ID Question Yes (%) No (%) n
Q16A-1 Preventive care for yourself (doctor visits) 89.4 10.6 549
Q16A-2a Preventive care for your family (doctor visits) 81.4 18.6 543
Q16A-3 Major medical (hospitalization) for yourself 91.4 8.6 549
Q16A-4a Major medical (hospitalization) for your family 83.2 16.8 542
Q16A-5 Prenatal/maternity care 83.5 16.5 533
Q16A-6a Chiropractic care 67.2 32.8 533
Q16A-7a Psychiatric/emotional care 77.4 22.6 531
Q16A-8 Prescription coverage 89.7 10.3 543
Q16B-9 Preventive dental for yourself (cleanings, x-rays, extractions) 78.7 21.3 545
Q16B-10a Preventive dental for your family (cleanings, x-rays, extractions) 72.7 27.3 543
Q16B-11a Orthodontics for yourself 49.6 50.4 536
Q16B-12a Orthodontics for your family 48.9 51.1 528
Q16B-13a Extended dental for yourself (oral and maxillofacial surgery) 54.6 45.4 533
Q16B-14a Extended dental for your family (oral and maxillofacial surgery) 51.0 49.0 527
Q16C-15 Pension (defined benefits retirement plan) 39.6 60.5 536
Q16C-16 401(k) (or similar investment retirement plan) 82.3 17.7 542
Q16C-17 Profit-sharing plan 38.1 61.9 533
a
Indicates question was omitted from analyses.

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 93

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 respectively. To create two-by-two contingency tables, the cross Table 12. Contingency Tables for Respondents’ Satisfaction with Their
tabulations were run after combining the responses into binary sets Life as an Employee (Q2) and Workplace Issues (Q10)
labeled “dissatisfied” and “satisfied.” Neutral responses and “does Q2: Respondents’ satisfaction
not apply” responses were omitted in the cross tabulations. Ques- with their life as an employee
tion set Q9 dealt with the employee’s job satisfaction with the Work place issues Response Dissatisfied (%) Satisfied (%)
following factors, which were used in the cross tabulation with
Q2: coworkers and peers; pay; benefits; amount of guidance and Q10-1: Physical Dissatisfied 3.47 3.70
work environment Satisfied 8.80 84.03
support received from supervisor; amount of job security; oppor-
(n ¼ 432)
tunity for personal growth and development; degree of respect and Q10-2: Pace of work Dissatisfied 4.24 6.25
fair treatment received from superiors; amount of job challenge; (n ¼ 448) Satisfied 7.81 81.70
feeling of job accomplishment; leadership by superiors; ability Q10-4: Number of Dissatisfied 5.13 6.92
to work independently; job free from problems (e.g., ability to con- quick-response tasks Satisfied 7.44 80.51
centrate, tolerance for mistakes); educational opportunities and (n ¼ 390)
support; feedback from others; and amount of job responsibility. Q10-6: Availability Dissatisfied 4.23 5.87
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The results of the cross tabulations were examined; the two-by- of equipment/ Satisfied 7.98 81.92
two contingency tables with the five highest percentages in any of software (n ¼ 426)
Q10-7: Age of Dissatisfied 4.82 8.72
the four quadrants are listed in Table 11. There are actually six con-
equipment/software Satisfied 8.94 77.52
tingency analyses listed because Q9-7 and Q9-8 were essentially (n ¼ 436)
tied, with nearly identical percentages in the fourth (satisfied x sat-
isfied) quadrant. Based on these results, it was observed that from
question set Q9, being satisfied with coworkers and peers, the de-
gree of respect and fair treatment received from superiors, the
amount of challenge in the job, the feeling of accomplishment varies for each contingency table, it is not possible to rank-order
gained from the job, the ability to work independently, and the the findings; however, they are useful for comparison against con-
amount of responsibility in the job exhibited the highest multivari- sistency of responses.
ate frequency distribution when cross tabulated with Q2. Fisher’s Based on these results, it was observed that from question set
exact probability test used to generate the contingency analyses in Q10, being satisfied with the physical environment of the work-
Table 11 yielded a p < 0.001 for each of the employer attractive- place, the pace of work, the number of quick-response tasks, the
availability of equipment and software related to one’s job, and
ness factors tested, indicating that each of them affected the
the age of the equipment and software used on the job exhibited
respondents’ satisfaction with their lives as employees.
the highest multivariate frequency distribution when cross tabu-
Question set Q10 dealt with workplace issues, asking the re-
lated with Q2. Fisher’s exact probability test used to generate
spondents about their satisfaction with the physical work environ-
the contingency analyses in Table 12 yielded a p < 0.001 for each
ment (Q10-1), pace of work (Q10-2), number of people available
of the physical work environment factors tested, indicating that
to get the work done (Q10-3), number of quick response tasks
each of them affected the respondents’ satisfaction with their lives
(Q10-4), time available to do a good job (Q10-5), availability of
as employees.
equipment/software (Q10-6), and age of equipment/software used
(Q10-7). These options had the highest frequency of responses for
satisfaction observed for question set Q10 and are cross tabulated Open-Ended Questions
with question Q2 (Table 12). Since the number of respondents
The first two questions (Q32 and Q33) in this group asked respond-
ents to list the five most and least satisfying aspects of working for
their current employer and to rank-order them in the respective re-
Table 11. Contingency Tables for Respondents’ Satisfaction with Their sponse fields. Respondents could select from a list of variables
Life as an Employee (Q2) and with Job Satisfaction Factors (Q9) (prompts) or select “other” and input their own short-answer re-
Q2: Respondents’ satisfaction
sponses. The responses shown in Figs. 1–4 were compiled from
with their life as an employee the fixed-response prompts and the short-answer responses. Fig. 1
Job satisfaction shows the results of the question that asked the respondents to re-
factors Response Dissatisfied (%) Satisfied (%) port on the most satisfying aspect of working for their current em-
Q9-1: Coworkers Dissatisfied 4.39 3.70 ployer. The five most often reported factors were challenging work,
and peers (n ¼ 433) Satisfied 7.39 84.53 new problems to solve, variety of tasks; rate of pay; good working
Q9-7: Degree of Dissatisfied 9.13 5.05 relationships with coworkers; feeling valued as an employee; and
respect and fair Satisfied 4.33 81.49 benefits package. Fig. 2 shows the respondents’ least satisfying as-
treatment received
pects of working for their current employer. The five most often
(n ¼ 416)
Q9-8: Amount of job Dissatisfied 5.82 5.37
reported factors were limited or no advancement/promotion oppor-
challenge (n ¼ 447) Satisfied 7.38 81.43 tunities; proximity of home to workplace; distance and drive time;
Q9-9: Feeling of job Dissatisfied 4.39 1.54 rate of pay; not feeling valued as an employee; and poor balance
accomplishment Satisfied 7.46 86.62 between work time and personal time.
(n ¼ 456) Fig. 3 shows the responses to the open-ended question that
Q9-11: Ability to Dissatisfied 1.43 0.61 asked respondents to provide a singular reason for wanting to stay
work independently Satisfied 11.20 86.76 with their current employer. The top five most often reported
(n ¼ 491) responses were (1) job security; need the income; (2) good pay/
Q9-15: Amount of Dissatisfied 5.47 5.25 benefits; (3) enjoy my work; fits my skills and abilities; (4) good
job responsibility Satisfied 6.78 82.49
communication/working environment; and (5) flexibility, balance
(n ¼ 457)
between work and personal time.

94 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Challenging work; variety of tasks 10.5%
Rate of pay 9.9%
Good working relationships with coworkers 9.7%
Feeling valued as an employee 8.9%
Benefits package 8.6%
Job fit to talents and skills 8.5%
Proximity of home to work (drive time) 7.7%
Good working relationship with supervisor 7.0%
Good balance between work and personal time 6.1%
Corporate philosophy; direction of company 4.3%
Limited employment opportunities elsewhere 4.3%
Opportunities for advancement/promotion 3.3%
Does not apply - I am the owner/family owned 3.1%
Corporate social responsibility; philanthropy 2 3%
2.3%
Training provided for my job 2.3%
Corporate culture 2.2%
Routine work; mundane work 1.0%
Job rotation training 0.2%
Self-fulfillment 0.1%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Selection Frequency

Fig. 1. Respondents’ five most satisfying aspects of working for current employer (Q32, n ¼ 535)

Limited/no advancement/promotion opportunity 11.8%

Proximity of home to work (drive time) 8.5%
Rate of pay 8.4%
I do not feel valued as an employee 6.8%
Poor balance between work and personal time 5.6%
Lack of training provided for my job 5.4%
Benefits package 5.2%
Corporate culture 4.7%
Corporate philosophy; direction of company 4.6%
Work is not challenging; routine/uninteresting 4.6%
Too much overtime required 4.5%
Does not apply - I am the owner 4.3%
Poor working relationship with supervisor 4.2%
Not enough work to do; I am not kept busy 4.0%
Lack of job rotation training 3.5%
Little/no corporate social responsibility, philanthropy 3 3%
3.3%
Poor job fit; talents/skills are not optimized 3.2%
Poor working relationships with coworkers 2.5%
Better employment opportunity elsewhere 2.0%
None (I'm satisfied) 1.9%
Disorganized; lack of communication 0.5%
Lack of time to complete tasks 0.3%
Job security 0.2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Selection Frequency

Fig. 2. Respondents’ five least satisfying aspects of working for current employer (Q33, n ¼ 531)

17.8%
Job security; need the income
15.8%
Good pay/benefits
12.9%
Enjoy my work; fits my skills and abilities
10.9%
Good communication/working environment
6.9%
Flexibility; balance betw. work and pers. time
5.9%
Good relationships with supervisor
5.9%
Good relationships with coworkers
5.9%
Feel wanted; valued as an employee
5.9%
I am the owner
4.0%
Other
3.0%
Worked for employer for many years; loyalty
3.0%
Challenging work; variety of tasks
2.0%
Advancement opportunities
0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%
Selection Frequency

Fig. 3. Main reason for staying with current employer (Q34, n ¼ 485)

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 95

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Not enough pay; higher pay elsewhere 15.8%
Nothing; only termination 14.9%
Poor balance between work and family/personal time 11.9%
Job does not suit my skills; unenjoyable 10.9%
Poor management poor relationship with supervisor 8.9%
No advancement opportunities/advancement elsewhere 7.9%
I do not feel valued or respected at my job 6.9%
Bored with tasks; not enough work 6.9%
Other 5.0%
Retirement 5.0%
Commute too far 3.0%
I'm the owner, therefore sale/bad economy 3.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Selection Frequency

Fig. 4. Main reason for leaving current employer (Q35, n ¼ 474)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4 shows the responses to the open-ended question as to
what would make the respondents leave their current employment.
Although “nothing, only termination” was the second most fre-
quent response at 14.85%, it should be noted that in the tabulation
and compilation of the responses, those that responded in a lacka-
daisical manner (e.g., “a job is a job” or “I don’t really care about
my job, but I have no reason to leave”) were also included in this
category. The five most often reported factors that would make re-
spondents want to leave their current employer were (1) not enough
pay; higher pay elsewhere; (2) nothing; only termination; (3) poor
balance between work and family/personal time; (4) job does not
suit my skills; un-enjoyable; and (5) poor management, poor rela-
tionship with supervisor.
Fig. 5 shows the responses to the question about which work-
related program or policy an employer could implement to retain
the respondents. It was interesting to note that nearly a third of the
respondents to this question responded “none/n.a.,” leaving one to
wonder whether they could not come up with a suggestion at the
moment, whether nothing was suitable for the type of work they do,
or whether the perception might be that office/employer policies are
only as good as those individuals in charge of their actual imple-
mentation. A follow-up study could potentially probe this question
further. Fig. 6 shows the frequency of responses to the question
about what (if any) non-work-related program or policy could
be implemented by the employer to keep the respondents. Similar
to the responses to the previous question, there was a large number
of respondents to this question who answered with “none/n.a.”
It was evident from the number of participants responding to
this question (only 51% of the total number of survey respondents),
as well as the types of responses compiled, that the respondents
did not understand the question, could not come up with a non-
work-related policy, or, perhaps, such a policy would not factor
into their motivation to remain with their employer. As with the
previous question, a follow-up study could probe this issue further.
Summary of Results

None/N.A.
More flexible hours/schedule
Benefits; health insurance
Training/cross-training programs
Other
Better communication
Apply equality throughout workplace
St
Stronger leadership
l d hi
Pay raise
Advancement opportunities
More challenging work
0%
Fig. 5. One work-related program or policy that employer could
implement to retain respondent (Q36, n ¼ 427)
29.7% This study examined three research areas: factors that impact a
13.9% woman’s satisfaction with her job, factors that impact a woman’s
12.9% satisfaction with her employer, and non-work-related factors that
11.9% affect employee satisfaction among women in the construction
7.9% industry. Employees who were dissatisfied with their employers
6.9% reported the attitudes of the owner or managers (such as condescen-
5.9% sion, poor or lack of communication, and a “good ol’ boy” atmos-
4 0%
4.0% phere), fairness and equality (such as in pay, responsibility, and
3.0%
authority), and not feeling respected or valued as an employee as
2.0%
having the most profound negative impact on their job satisfaction
2.0%
and desire to remain with the employer. The five most commonly
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% reported areas of dissatisfaction in the closed-ended questions
(Fig. 2) were as follows: limited or no opportunities for advance-
ment/promotion, distance from home to work (drive time cutting
into time with family), rate of pay, not feeling valued as an

None/N.A. 52.7%
Fitness/health program (paid) 12.9%
More free time; vacation 9.7%
Other 4.3%
Healthcare benefits 4.3%
Paid company activities outside of work 4.3%
Instill more positivity into the work environment 3.2%
Greater acceptance of women in workplace 2.2%
Childcare 2.2%
School/degree program support 2.2%
2 2%
Community involvement 2.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Selection Frequency

Fig. 6. Responses to one non-work-related program or policy that employer could implement to retain respondent (n ¼ 382)

96 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Table 13. Summary of Response Variables That Increased Respondents’
Job Satisfaction
Closed-ended responses (n ¼ 535)
Good relationships with coworkers
and peers
Degree of respect and fair treatment
from superiors
Amount of challenge on the job
Feeling of accomplishment gained
from job
Ability to work independently
Amount of responsibility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Open-ended responses (n ¼ 535)
Challenging work; variety of tasks
Rate of pay
Good relationship with coworkers
Feeling valued as an employee
Benefits package
organization rather than another or who refrain from joining a trade
or professional organization altogether may not be adequately rep-
resented in this study. Furthermore, while the response rate of
nearly 18% was favorable, not all participants responded to every
question, resulting in a proportionally low number of respondents
to many of the questions. The length of the survey or the depth of
the personal questions may have been a contributing factor. Future
studies could refine these questions and compare members of trade
and professional organizations in the construction industry with
responses from employees who are not affiliated with any trade
or professional organization. Future studies could also examine
potential similarities or differences based on gender by including
male subjects.
The results of the open-ended questions were interesting, in that

Table 14. Summary of Response Variables That Affected Respondents’
Organizational Commitment and Willingness to Stay or Leave Employer
Increases desire to stay Increases desire to leave
(n ¼ 485) (n ¼ 474)
Good pay and benefits Higher pay elsewhere
Enjoy work; good fit to skills Poor job-to-skills fit; skills not
optimized
Good communication with superiors Poor relationship with
supervisor
Flexibility; balance between work Poor management
and personal time
Feeling valued as an employee No advancement opportunity;
opportunity elsewhere
Good coworker relationships Poor balance between work and
personal time
employee, and poor balance between work time and personal
time. The top five factors reported in the open-ended responses
(Table 13) as causing the highest level of satisfaction were as
follows: challenging work (new problems to solve, variety of
tasks), rate of pay, good working relationship with coworkers, feel-
ing valued as an employee, and benefits package. It was interesting
to note that rate of pay and feeling valued as an employee made it
on both lists as either a cause of satisfaction or dissatisfaction and
may be related to the employer’s corporate philosophy or attitudes
of the owner or managers and how they interacted with the em-
ployee. The work-related policies or initiatives that the respondents
liked or would like to have (Fig. 5) were additional training (or
cross training); flex hours (including telecommuting and 4-day
work weeks); fairness and equality (in pay, advancement opportu-
nities, responsibilities, and respect); and retirement plans/profit
sharing. Table 14 lists the six most commonly reported responses
that increase the employee’s desire to stay and also the six most
recorded responses that increase the employee’s desire to leave
her employer.
Conclusions
Much of the existing literature on women in construction is limited
to identifying variables that can attract women to jobs but not nec-
essarily retain them for a long career. Therefore, the aim of this
research was to identify variables that affect women’s satisfaction
with their job and employer as well as their overall intention to
remain with their employer.
Several limitations were noted regarding this study. It can be
argued that these results may be limited to the membership of
NAWIC. Personality, cultural, sociological, or other differences
between women who decide to join one trade or professional
factors reported as increasing job satisfaction and desire to stay
were also those that decreased job satisfaction and desire to stay.
For example, “feeling valued as an employee” and “not feeling val-
ued as an employee” are perceptions based on factors that influence
these feelings. Perhaps it is a lack of WLB initiatives that causes
this perception of not being valued. Perhaps there are other
explanatory variables not captured in this study. This study iden-
tified a number of factors that influence the perception of being
valued, although the degree to which, or in what combination with
other variables (if any), the influence of other unnreported factors
can be inferred from these results is unknown. Therefore, further
studies into these areas are certainly warranted, specifically, those
that examine the perception of fair and equitable treatment of all
employees as well as communication and respect between manage-
ment and staff. As more industry-specific research is conducted and
findings are used to help companies and consulting firms better
understand not only what leads to job satisfaction of different em-
ployee populations, but moreover leads to a willingness and desire
to stay with that company, the more work-life balance or, better yet,
work-life integration will improve.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the leadership and membership
of the National Association of Women in Construction for their
support and participation in conducting this research.
References
Agapiou, A. (2002). “Perceptions of gender roles and attitudes toward work
among male and female operatives in the Scottish construction indus-
try.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 20(8), 697–705.
Bhatia, S., and Amati, J. (2010). “ ‘If these women can do it, I can do it,
too’: Building women engineering leaders through graduate peer men-
toring.” Leadersh. Manage. Eng., 10(4), 174–184.
Caven, V. (2006). “Career building: Women and non-standard employment
in architecture.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 24(5), 457–464.
Emslie, C., and Hunt, K. (2009). “ ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’? A quali-
tative study of gender and work-life balance among men and women in
mid-life.” Gender Work Organ., 16(1), 151–172.
Fielden, S., Davidson, M., Gale, A., and Davey, C. (2000). “Women in
construction: the untapped resource.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 18(1),
113–121.
Fielden, S., Davidson, M., Gale, A., and Davey, C. (2001). “Women, equal-
ity and construction.” J. Manage. Dev., 20(4), 293–304.
Forma, P. (2009). “Work, family and intentions to withdraw from the
workplace.” Int. J. Soc. Welfare, 18(2), 183–192.
Guest, D. E. (2002). “Perspectives on the study of work-life balance.” Soc.
Sci. Inform./Int. Soc. Sci. Counc., 41(2), 255–279.

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 97

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.

 Guillaume, C., and Pochic, S. (2009). “What would you sacrifice? Access
to top management and the work-life balance.” Gender Work Organ.,
16(1), 14–36.
Hewlett, S. A., and Luce, C. B. (2005). “Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping
talented women in the road to success.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 83(3),
43–54.
Layne, P. (2010). “Special issue on women in civil engineering.” Leadersh.
Manage. Eng., 10(4), 139–140.
Lingard, H., Francis, V., and Turner, M. (2010). “Work-family conflict in
construction: Case for a finer-grained analysis.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 136(11), 1196–1206.
Merrill, M. A., and Merrill, R. R. (2003). Life matters: Creating a dynamic
balance of work, family, time, and money, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nomaguchi, K. M. (2009). “Change in work-family conflict among employed
parents between 1977 and 1997.” J. Marriage Fam., 71(1), 15–32.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., and Bilimoria, D. (2008). “Women’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes.”
J. Bus. Ethics, 80(4), 727–743.
Schwartz, F. N. (1989). “Management women and the new facts of life.”
Harvard Bus. Rev., 67(1), 65–76.
Smith, J., and Gardner, D. (2007). “Factors affecting employee use of work-
life balance initiatives.” New Zeal J. Psychol., 36(1), 3–12.
Stephens, B., and Riley, K. (2005). “Developing annual estimates of hires
and separations.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 〈http://www.bls.gov/
osmr/pdf/st050250.pdf〉 (Dec. 17, 2011).
98 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION & PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013.139:87-98.
Toor, S., and Ofori, G. (2011). “Women leaders breaking the glass ceiling in
Singapore’s construction industry.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.,
137(1), 1–6.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2008). Women in the labor force: A
databook, Rep. 1011, 〈http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2008.pdf〉
(Feb. 21, 2011).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2009). Women in the labor force: A
databook, Rep. 1018, 〈http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2009.pdf〉
(Feb. 21, 2011).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2010). Women in the labor force: A
databook, Rep. 1026, 〈http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2010.pdf〉
(Feb. 21, 2011).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2011). Women in the labor force: A
databook, Rep. 1034, December 2011, 〈http://www.bls.gov/cps/
wlf-databook-2011.pdf〉 (Dec. 17, 2011).
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. (2008). “Women in the
labor force.” 〈http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/popchar/pages/109wlf.html〉
(Feb. 21, 2011).
Watts, J. H. (2009). “ ‘Allowed into a man’s world’ meanings of work–life
balance: Perspectives of women civil engineers as ‘minority’ workers in
construction.” Gender Work Organ., 16(1), 37–57.
Whitmarsh, L., Brown, D., Cooper, J., Hawkins-Rogers, Y., and
Wentworth, D. (2007). “Choices and challenges: A qualitative explora-
tion of professional women’s career patterns.” Career Dev. Q., 55(3),
225–236.