Lingard, H and Francis, V (2004) The work-life experiences of office and site-based employees in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 22(9), pp. 991-1002. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A survey was conducted among employees of a large Australian construction firm. Comparisons were made between employees who differed by gender and work location. Male employees in site-based roles reported significantly higher levels of work to family conflict and emotional exhaustion than male employees who worked in the regional or head office. Site-based male employees were also less satisfied with their pay than male respondents who worked in the regional of head office. Few significant differences were found between women who worked in different locations. Neither were significant differences between men and women who worked in the same location reported. The results are explained in terms of women's tendency to work in administrative, secretarial or support services roles, which typically demand fewer hours. The paper concludes that the experiences of site-based construction employees, particularly men, warrant further attention to explore the sources of work-life imbalance and burnout.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | burnout; construction; job satisfaction; social exchange; work-family conflict |
| Index terms: | construction industry, women, construction employee, job satisfaction, work-family conflict, construction firm, survey, burnout |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, practitioner, management, occupational health and safety management, sociology, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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