Lingard, H (2004) Work and family sources of burnout in the Australian engineering profession: Comparison of respondents in dual- and single-earner couples, parents, and nonparents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(2), pp. 290-298. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A survey of practicing professional civil engineers in the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria was conducted. The survey explored the engineers' experience of work and family sources of burnout. Burnout was predicted by a combination of both work and family Stressors. Regression analysis revealed that burnout was predicted by different variables among respondents in dual-compared to single-income households and among parents and nonparents. Family variables were more important sources of burnout among participants in dual-income households and parents. The writer concludes that preventive strategies for burnout in the engineering profession must extend beyond the work environment and deal with issues at the work-family interface. Also, sociodemographic characteristics of the workforce must be considered when devising preventive strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; employees; personnel management |
| Index terms: | profession, household, income, work environment, regression analysis, Victoria, engineer, Australia, New South Wales, stressors, burnout, personnel, strategy, civil engineer, survey |
| Subjects: | Geography, management, statistical analysis, occupational health and safety management, demography, health conditions and diseases, institututions, profession, data collection methods, economic analysis, regions and continents |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here