Forsythe, A E (2008) The lack of a clearly defined retention strategy and the impact of the retention of civil engineers. PhD thesis, Capella University, USA.
Abstract
Developing retention strategies for retaining professional employees has the potential of providing large cost savings to an organization associated with employee turnover. However, determining the needs of select groups of professional employees can be difficult to determine in today's markets. Through a quantitative fixed research design, this research used a survey to investigate the impact of a non-articulated retention strategy and the retention of civil engineering professionals. The responses from 361 participants indicated that there is statistical support that there is a root cause as to the low retention rate experienced by the organization. However, there does not appear to be a correlation between the root cause and the satisfaction of the civil engineers.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Pizur, T |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | civil engineering; markets; market; civil engineer; employee; professional |
| Index terms: | survey, civil engineer, employee turnover, satisfaction, strategy, cost saving, research design, retention, markets |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, research design and methodology, data collection methods, management, project delivery, economics, profession |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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