Working from Home during COVID-19: An Exploratory Study on Experiences and Challenges of Women in Construction

Abstract

Early studies on the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that the working from home (WFH) mandate and unusual caregiving arrangements have dramatically impacted the employment of women, especially those with young children. This study explores women’s perceptions of the WFH mandate arrangement. Data were collected from the female workforce in the Australian construction industry using an online questionnaire. The specific objectives were to (i) explore their WFH experiences; (ii) examine their perceived impacts of WFH challenges on work activities and performance; and (iii) explore the relationships among critical challenges, the respondents’ demographic characteristics and their overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for WFH after COVID. Although most respondents were new to the WFH arrangement, there is evidence suggesting that they were adapting well to the sudden shift to a WFH arrangement. Sixteen (out of twenty-two) challenges recorded positive perceived impacts on work activities and performance. The top three critical challenges were (i) mutual trust between you and your work supervisor; (ii) availability of suitable space at home; and (iii) information and communication exchanges via virtual meetings. The respondents also indicated positive satisfaction with a WFH arrangement along with perceived positive work performance while WFH. Most of them indicated high preference for WFH after COVID, which was positively correlated with the level of education attainment. The critical challenges identified together with a set of negative factors might be useful for employment organizations to re-optimize their WFH practices.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic brought on a mass social experimentation of a working from home (WFH) arrangement and produced a tremendous amount of new information about WFH, which altered one’s perceptions about its practicality and effectiveness [1]. The WFH arrangement induced by the pandemic also demonstrated the feasibility of continuing WFH for many workers in different jobs across many industries beyond the pandemic [2]. Correspondingly, there is a sudden growth in the literature on various aspects of a WFH arrangement induced by the pandemic and its future implementation, building up a rich body of knowledge. These include its challenges and opportunities, its impacts on personal and organizational performance, and the implications of WFH after the pandemic (e.g., [3,4,5,6,7]). In contrast to the vast literature on WFH (or remote working) in pre-pandemic times, authors have stressed that care should be exercised in drawing the lessons learned about WFH based on this pandemic period [2,7]. This is because the uncertainties and unusual caregiving arrangements had placed greater stress on workers [8,9,10]. Nonetheless, this body of knowledge will continue to grow, as the pandemic has catalyzed the shift to WFH, and there is strong evidence that WFH, especially under a hybrid mode (working partly in company workplace and partly from home), has been seen as a ‘new’ normal after the pandemic [1,3,11].

This study aims to contribute to this body of knowledge, given that little empirical work exists on the WFH mandate experiences of the construction workforce during the pandemic. Although a considerable portion of the literature is devoted to the impacts of the pandemic on the construction industries across many countries, most studies had considered construction site operations, particularly on-site construction workers’ health and safety issues, as revealed in the respective systematic review studies (e.g., [12,13,14]). Using a gender lens, this study explores the female workforce perceptions of the WFH mandate arrangement induced by the pandemic in the context of the Australian construction industry. The specific objectives are to (i) explore the respondents’ WFH experiences prior to and during the pandemic; (ii) examine how they perceived the impacts of challenges associated with WFH on their work activities and performance; and (iii) explore the relationships among critical challenges associated with WFH, the respondents’ demographic characteristics and their overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for WFH after COVID. The findings provide useful insights for employment organizations and have implications for their attempts to re-optimize their current WFH practices. This exploratory study also lays the groundwork for further research efforts on WFH (or hybrid mode) practices in the industry.

2. Working from Home: Before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

While a spotlight was thrown on the WFH arrangement following its sudden growth due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not a new or novel workplace practice. WFH (also known as flexible working, remote working, telework or telecommuting) has been well covered in the literature during the pre-pandemic periods. Theoutcome of the vast literature is a collection of systematic review studies focusing on WFH from various perspectives, including its benefits and drawbacks [15], the relationships between flexible working and individual and organizational performance outcomes [16] and the psychological mediators and individual consequences of telework [17]. However, the prevalence of remote working was considerably low, as revealed in the literature; for example, in the UK, Felstead and Reuschke [18] found that the shift to WFH had been gradual, with a 3% increase over almost 40 years between 1981 and 2019, topped at 4.7% in 2019, just before the pandemic. Similarly, in the European Union, 5.4% of employed persons aged 15 to 64 usually worked from home in 2019, and this trend was consistent throughout the last decade [19]. On the other hand, Mokhtarian et al. [20] opined that the prevalence rates of telecommuting vary greatly in the literature due to the different telecommuting arrangements (full-time vs. part-time), the different samples and sampling techniques across studies. Nonetheless, with the focus mainly on voluntary and/or informal WFH mode, previous studies in pre-pandemic times provide suggestive evidence on its benefits both at personal and organizational levels [7,15,17].

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a radical shift to a WFH arrangement was mandated due to lockdowns imposed by governments and affecting millions of workers across the globe. The resulting large and enduring uptake of WHF is associated with major operational challenges for organizations, which scrambled to adapt to a near instantaneous change in managerial and personnel work practices [1]. Correspondingly, there is a surge in studies related to mandatory (or involuntary) WFH in different contexts and perspectives, creating a vast body of knowledge with mixed results and outcomes. Authors stress the importance of considering different types of WFH arrangements in evaluating the practicality and effectiveness of the WFH practice. For example, Hackney et al. [7] compared studies published before and during the pandemic (i.e., voluntary or optional vs. mandatory WFH) in their analysis of the impacts of WFH arrangements on personal and organizational performance and productivity. Similarly, Yang et al. [2] specifically differentiate WFH during regular work hours from WFH outside normal work hours in examining the associations between these WFH arrangements and workers’ well-being. In modeling workers’ preference for WFH after the pandemic, Caligiuri and De Cieri [21] have specifically focused on an involuntary WFH arrangement. Additionally, Gohoungodji et al.’s [22] study has specifically examined the success factors of teleworking before and during the pandemic. It could be expected that this body of knowledge will continue to grow, given the fact that the pandemic has catalyzed a long-lasting shift to WFH globally, where firms re-optimize or opt for more WFH arrangements than before the pandemic [7,22]. At another level, the broader economic and social consequences associated with WFH—including the redirection of worker spending away from city centers, the declines in use and value of urban real estate and outmigration from some cities—will continue to unfold for many years to come [1].

3. Women Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic

When millions of employees worldwide suddenly moved to mandatory WFH with no or little preparation, which required major changes to their lifestyle, it was expected that not all would benefit from a WFH arrangement [1]. The findings in the literature hitherto are rather mixed on the impacts of WFH on both individual and organizational levels. For example, Hackney et al. [7] found that the overall impacts are less positive and could be detrimental to personal and organizational productivity and performance when an WFH arrangement becomes mandatory and full time. Similarly, Bolisani et al. [23] stressed that a conclusive positive or negative verdict pertaining to a WFH arrangement was not feasible and highlighted the presence of three broad groups of employees in their cluster analysis, i.e., those who were very dissatisfied with their WFH experience, those who were very satisfied, and lastly, those who were neutral. The disproportionate impacts of the WFH arrangement on workers may be attributed to demographic characteristics, individual capabilities, organizational response and policies [3] and job-related characteristics [7,24,25].

As gender is a key demographic characteristic, there are many gendered studies on the impacts of a mandatory WFH arrangement during the pandemic on workers. While it may be inconclusive to draw a negative conclusion, with continued growth in the literature, early empirical evidence suggests that women were disproportionately impacted by a mandatory WFH arrangement. For example, Sharma and Vaish [26] reported that the mental health of about one-third of their female respondents was moderately and severely affected, along with about 80% of respondents experiencing a great increase in household chores when WFH during the pandemic lockdowns. Participation in home schooling was also found to be associated with adverse employment outcomes for mothers but not fathers, with mothers experiencing an increased risk of losing their job and being more likely to voluntarily leave work, especially if there was a need to create home-schooling contents for their school-age children [10]. In a study based in Canada, Fuller and Qian [9] reported that the conflicts between employment and care responsibilities were more challenging among mothers with children under the age of six. Similarly, Dunatchik et al.’s [27] study in the US found that mothers were primarily responsible for childcare and home schooling even when both parents WFH, a gender inequality in caregiving persisted during the pandemic. This is consistent with another US-based study, where mothers with young children have been reported to reduce their work hours four to five times more than fathers [28]. There is also a small collection of Australia-based studies reporting on similar negative experiences among the female workforce (e.g., [29,30,31,32,33]).

The mandate WFH experiences among the female workforce in construction have been little reported in the literature. Although there are a few empirical investigations on a mandatory WFH arrangement among the construction workforce in different countries, the focus is on project-based construction workers [34] or professional personnel and consultants in construction (e.g., [35,36,37]). In Australia, based on a survey conducted around six months into the pandemic, Oo and Lim [38] found that the unfamiliar situations and challenges faced by female workers in the Australian construction industry include the mandatory WFH arrangement, changes to their work location and work hours, and their increased household responsibilities. The top ranked challenges associated with the changes to work location and work hours were (i) overworked; (ii) working space; (iii) social interactions; (iv) collaboration; and (v) parenting [39]. It is recognized that the WFH experiences of women working in the construction industry are peculiar because of (i) the sudden shift to WFH necessitated by the pandemic and (ii) the low prevalence of regular and planned remote working (or WFH) in the industry prior to the pandemic [38]. Indeed, the construction industry is one of the most male-dominated industries with the greatest degree of gender segregation [40]. The underrepresentation of the female workforce in the industry has continued to draw researchers’ attention to various aspects, including the attraction, retention and working experiences of women in the industry [41]. With no exception, at the time of the pandemic, the female workforce in construction were facing many challenges associated with the WFH arrangement, as documented in previous studies (e.g., [4,5,15,35,42]. These challenges are wide ranging and can be classified into individual, organizational and social levels [43]. The present study focuses on 22 challenges associated with the WFH arrangement.

4. Research Method

An online anonymous questionnaire survey on the WFH phenomenon induced by the COVID-19 pandemic was fielded in the second quarter of 2022, i.e., after a series of national-, state- and territory-based pandemic lockdowns between March 2020 and December 2021 in Australia [44]. The targeted population was the construction workforce in the Australian construction industry aged 18 years and above who had experienced WFH during the pandemic. The survey was distributed to (i) the authors’ professional and personal contacts, who were also asked to further distribute the online survey link to their contacts, and (ii) prequalified consultants and general contractors listed on the government registers for public sector construction procurement. These recruitment strategies were deemed justifiable because there is no publicly accessible list of construction businesses in Australia, and a low response rate was anticipated in survey research. The New South Wales (NSW) government public works advisory granted its permission for using their registers. The online survey drew over two hundred responses from a non-probability sample of workers in the industry. For the research aim and objectives set in the present study, the findings were drawn based on a subsample of the female workforce in construction (n = 78).

The first section of the survey focused on the respondents’ demographic background and their domestic household responsibilities during the lockdown periods. This was followed by questions on their WFH experiences prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, the questions revolved around their perceptions of the impacts of 22 challenges associated with WFH on their work activities and performance, their satisfaction with the WFH arrangement and preference for WFH after COVID. Instead of work productivity, the emphasis was placed on ‘work activities and performance’ due to a lack of an objective measurement of WFH productivity and the unsuitability of the conventional method based on direct measures of output and hours worked [18,45,46]. Additionally, individual employees’ WFH productivity may vary significantly under a pandemic lockdown state, irrespective of the extent of their paid work activitieswhich are feasible to be performed at home [47]. Correspondingly, the respondents’ self-reported WFH performance was measured on a five-point Likert scale from ‘I get much less done’ (1) to ‘I get much more done’ (5). Next, the 22 challenges adapted from the literature on WFH or remote working [15,35,43,48] were worded in a neutral way. For example, one of the challenges (‘working hours’, which was not worded as longer or shorter working hours) was included to capture the respondents’ positive, neutral or negative perceived impacts of this respective challenge on their work activities and performance. The relevant scale used was a five-point Likert scale of ‘very negatively’ (−2), ‘negatively’ (−1), ‘neutral’ (0), ‘positively’ (+1), ‘very positively’ (+2) and an ‘n/a’ option, since some challenges would not be appliable for individual respondents. Lastly, their overall satisfaction with the WFH arrangement and preference for WFH after COVID were measured using a single item (‘Overall, I am very satisfied with WFH arrangement’ and ‘If I was given an opportunity, I would like to WFH’) and scored on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5).

Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed in the data analysis. Firstly, a normality test was performed using the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which confirms that the observed variables do not meet the normality assumption. Therefore, non-parametric inferential statistical tests were used for the data analysis. These included (i) the one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test for examining whether the sample median is equal to a test value of three (i.e., the mid-point of the five-point Likert scale in testing the hypothesis of whether the respondents’ perceptions are either on the positive or negative side of the scale); (ii) the correlation test to examine the association among critical challenges associated with WFH, the respondents’ demographic characteristics and their overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for WFH after COVID. In identifying the critical challenges, the normalized values of the mean scores and total mean score of all observed variables were calculated. Individual challenges of (i) a mean score greater than the total mean score; and (ii) a normalized value equal to or greater than 0.50. were deemed critical challenges. This approach was similar to that of studies on the critical success factors (e.g., [49,50]).

5. Results

There are 78 useable response sets from female respondents for the data analysis. While the sample size is considered rather small, the authors are confident that the prospective respondents who were willing to respond to the online survey voluntarily were genuine in sharing relevant and informative insights on their mandatory WFH experiences. Indeed, it is noted that a similar study focusing on the WFH phenomenon among the female workforce in the Australian construction industry has also recorded a considerably low number of responses despite the support from professional bodies and construction women’s networks for the recruitment of respondents [38]. Similarly, Oakman et al.’s [32] WFH study focusing on the general population in Australia used multiple recruitment strategies, including paid advertisement on Facebook social media, and did not manage to obtain a high number of responses either.

Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Profile	Freq.	%
Age
18–25	3	3.8
26–35	11	14.1
36–45	26	33.3
46–55	25	32.1
56 and above	11	14.1
Prefer not to answer	2	2.6
Highest level of education
Primary and secondary education	7	9.0
Certificate	10	12.8
Diploma/Advanced diploma	13	16.7
Undergraduate degree	26	33.3
Postgraduate degree	22	28.2
Years of work experience
Less than 1	1	1.3
1 to 5	20	25.6
6 to 10	21	26.9
11 to 15	13	16.7
16 to 20	7	9.0
21 to 25	7	9.0
26 and above	9	11.5
Type of employment
Self-employed	1	1.3
Employed by an organization (private or public sector)	58	74.4
Family business	9	11.5
Business owner	10	12.8
Employment status
Full-time	63	80.8
Part-time	14	17.9
Casual	1	1.3
Type of organization
Consultancy firm	38	48.7
Contracting firm	40	51.3
Job position
Architect/Interior Designer/Town Planner	10	12.8
QS/Cost Engineer/Cost Planner/Estimator	2	2.6
Administrator/Contract Administrator	13	16.7
Project Director/Project Manager	4	5.1
Director/Manager (Administrative, Estimating, Finance, HR, Marketing, Business Management)	44	56.4
Project Engineer	1	1.3
Others (e.g., Environmental Scientist, Building Certifier)	4	5.1
Work location
New South Wales	61	78.2
Queensland	10	12.8
Victoria	6	7.7
Multiple states and territories	1	1.3
Annual job income (before tax)
Up to 50k	4	5.1
51k–70k	13	16.7
71k–90k	12	15.4
91k–110k	13	16.7
111k–130k	7	9.0
131k–150k	6	7.7
151k–200k	4	5.1
Above 200k	11	14.1
Prefer not to answer	8	10.3
Income as the primary source of support for family
Yes	44	56.4
No	34	43.6
Caring responsibilities during COVID
Yes	50	64.1
No	28	35.9
Home schooling during COVID
Yes	40	51.3
No	38	48.7

depicts the respondents’ demographic characteristics. Most of them (79.5%) were above 35 years old, and over 90% of the respondents attained a tertiary level of education. Approximately 75% of the respondents had over 5 years of work experience in the construction industry, of whom 11.5% had over 25 years of industry experience. At the time of the survey, about 80% of respondents were working full time, and they mainly worked in the state of NSW (78.2%). About three-quarters of the respondents were employees of construction business organizations. The percentages of respondents working for consultancy and contracting firms were 48.7 and 51.3%, respectively. In terms of their job position, about 55% of the respondents were director and managerial staff, and this was followed by the second largest group of administrative staff (16.7%). Slightly over half of the respondents (52.6%) indicated an annual job income above AUD 90,000, of whom about one-quarter were earning above AUD 200,000. In terms of family responsibilities, more than half of the respondents had caring (64.1%) and home-schooling (51.3%) responsibilities during the pandemic lockdown periods. Almost all respondents spent time on ‘unpaid domestic work during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown periods including (or excluding) caring and home-schooling responsibilities if applicable’ (Figure 1). The largest group (51.3%) spent an average of between 5 and 14 h in a typical week, and about 10% of the respondents indicated an average of as high as more than 30 h per week.

5.1. WFH Experiences Prior to and during COVID-19

In terms of the respondents’ WFH experiences, Figure 2 shows that the majority of them (78.2%) worked at their company workplaces (office and/or construction site) for most of their working days in pre-pandemic times. This can be explained by the fact that about three-quarters of the respondents were employees of public or private organizations (Table 1) who would have little say about their workplace. As revealed, they were new to the WFH arrangement. A closer investigation shows that the four respondents (5.1%) who worked fully from home before the pandemic were business owners and worked in a family business. During the pandemic lockdown periods, the mandatory WFH arrangement was marked by a sharp decrease in the percentages of respondents working at their company workplaces in the years 2020 and 2021, respectively. Only slightly over 10% of the respondents worked at their company workplaces in the year 2021. Correspondingly, the percentages of respondents who were (i) working partly in their company workplace and partly from home and (ii) working fully from home in the years 2020 and 2021 were 82.1% and 89.7%, respectively. With the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns ending in December 2021 [44], it can be seen that about half of the respondents (55.0%) were back to their company workplaces for most of their working days in the second quarter of the year 2022. Nonetheless, the percentages of respondents who continued to work partly in company workplaces and partly from home during this time period were about two times higher than during the period prior to the pandemic (32.1% vs. 16.7%). Similarly, the percentages of those who worked fully from home more than doubled since the pandemic (5.1% vs. 12.8%).

Next, Figure 3 shows the distribution of the respondents’ self-reported work performance when WFH during the pandemic lockdown periods in comparison to their normal workplace. Most of them (83.3%) reported that they were able to get at least about the same or more paid work activities done as in their normal workplace, with a corresponding mean score of 3.487 (out of 5, std. dev. 1.148). A one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test confirms that the median of this measure is statistically above three (i.e., neutral level—'I get about the same done’), signifying the significance of improved work performance reported by the respondents. In addition, approximately 60% of the respondents (i.e., the largest group) indicated that over 80% of their paid work activities was feasible under a WFH arrangement (Figure 4). This was followed by the second largest group of respondents (21.1%), who indicated a range between 61 and 80%. All in all, almost all respondents (97.4%) were able to perform over 40% of their paid work activities during the WFH periods induced by the pandemic.

5.2. Perceived Impacts of Challenges Associated with a WFH Arrangement, Overall Satisfaction with WFH and Preference for WFH after COVID

Table 2. The respondents’ perceived impacts of challenges associated with WFH on their work activities and performance.

	Challenges	N	Mean a	Std. Dev.	Sig. b	Normalized Value c	Rank
C1	Availability of suitable space at home	74	0.378	1.043	0.005	0.947	2
C2	Working hours	77	0.351	1.244	0.020	0.921	4
C3	Caring responsibilities	50	0.180	1.224	0.317	0.766	13
C4	Home schooling	40	−0.500	1.219	0.018	0.144	21
C5	Home office environment	75	0.227	1.021	0.073	0.808	10
C6	Overall work–family balance	72	0.181	1.387	0.305	0.766	12
C7	Self-motivation	78	0.308	1.120	0.021	0.882	6
C8	Time management between household and work demands	77	0.182	1.254	0.270	0.767	11
C9	Self-discipline	77	0.325	1.044	0.009	0.898	5
C10	Social interactions with colleagues	76	−0.658	1.090	0.000	0.000	22
C11	Communication and/or collaboration with colleagues	77	−0.364	1.075	0.006	0.269	19
C12	Team spirit and inspiration	76	−0.487	0.973	0.000	0.156	20
C13	Availability of equipment and infrastructure (e.g., software, hardware, internet connection)	77	0.156	0.933	0.153	0.743	15
C14	Technical or ICT support	74	0.243	0.919	0.031	0.823	8
C15	Access to work-related information	77	0.260	0.865	0.012	0.838	7
C16	Tasks’ dependency	75	0.133	0.890	0.224	0.723	16
C17	Updates on office politics and decisions	72	−0.125	1.006	0.292	0.487	17
C18	Feedback from colleagues	73	−0.247	0.983	0.036	0.376	18
C19	Support from work supervisor	67	0.164	0.846	0.113	0.751	14
C20	Mutual trust between you and your work supervisor	71	0.437	0.874	0.000	1.000	1
C21	Control and demand from work supervisor	69	0.232	0.770	0.017	0.813	9
C22	Information and communication exchanges via virtual meetings	76	0.368	1.018	0.003	0.938	3

^a Scale: ‘very negatively’ (−2), ‘negatively’ (−1), ‘neutral’ (0), ‘positively’ (+1), ‘very positively’ (+2). ^b One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test for median equals 0. ^c Normalized value = (mean − minimum mean)/(maximum mean − minimum mean).

depicts the respondents’ perceived impacts of challenges associated with a WFH arrangement on their work activities and performance in terms of the mean scores, the normalized values and the respective ranking of these challenges. The recorded mean scores range between −0.658 and 0.437 (scale −2 to 2). Although high variabilities in their responses were detected, with corresponding high standard deviation values ranging from 0.770 to 1.387, it is rather surprising to note that only as few as six challenges had negative mean scores (i.e., with perceived negative impacts). These challenges were (i) home schooling (C4); (ii) social interactions with colleagues (C10); (iii) communication and/or collaboration with colleagues (C11); (iv) team spirit and inspiration (C12); (v) updates on office politics and decisions (C17); and (vi) feedback from colleagues (C18). Of these, the median values of C4, C10, C211, C12 and C18 are statistically below zero (i.e., neutral level), signifying that over half of the respondents perceived these five challenges as negatively impacting their work activities and performance when WFH. On the other hand, sixteen challenges with perceived positive impacts recorded rather low mean scores, which were only marginally above zero, ranging between 0.133 and 0.437. Although all the respective mean scores are further from one (i.e., 1 = positive impact), the median values of nine challenges are statistically significantly above zero. This provides evidence suggesting that the impacts of these challenges (i.e., C1, C2, C7, C9, C14, C15 and C20 to C22) on work activities and performance when WFH were perceived positively among the majority of the respondents.

In terms of critical challenges, the results show that sixteen challenges recorded mean scores greater than the total mean score (0.079) and normalized values above 0.50, suggesting that these sixteen challenges were deemed critical challenges for performing paid work activities under a WFH arrangement during the pandemic. Figure 5 shows the perceived positive impacts of the top ten critical challenges associated with WFH on work activities and performance. Among these critical challenges, ‘Mutual trust between you and your work supervisor (C20)’, ‘Availability of suitable space at home (C1)’ and ‘Information and communication exchanges via virtual meetings (C22)’ ranked as the top three, implying that these are important factors at play in designing and implementing a WFH work mode. There are also top ranked critical challenges, which are personal-related factors, namely ‘self-motivation (C7)’ and ‘self-discipline (C9)’.

The respondents’ overall satisfaction with a WFH arrangement during the pandemic was rather positive, as indicated by a mean value of 3.870 (out of 5) shown in

Table 3. The respondents’ overall satisfaction with a WFH arrangement and future preference for WFH.

	Mean #	Std. Dev.	Sig. a
‘Overall, I am very satisfied with WFH arrangement’	3.870	1.005	0.000
‘If I was given an opportunity, I would like to WFH’	3.947	1.057	0.001

^# Scale: Five-point Likert scale, ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly disagree’ (5). ^a One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test for median equals 3.

. Similarly, most respondents indicated a high preference for WFH after COVID, with the respective mean score close to 4. The median values of these two measures are statistically above three (i.e., neutral level), signifying the significance of the positive satisfaction and high preference for WFH for a greater number of respondents (i.e., more than half). About half of the respondents (51.3%) would like to often or always WFH after COVID (Figure 6), followed by a group of respondents (39.5%), who would like to sometimes work from home after COVID. This denotes that nine in ten respondents (90.8%) would like to at least be able to sometimes work from home after COVID.

5.3. Relationships among Critical Challenges Associated with WFH, Demographic Characteristics, Overall Satisfaction with WFH and Preference for WFH

As expected, the test results show that correlations exist among the sixteen critical challenges associated with WFH (

Table 4. The correlation among the respondents’ perceived impacts of challenges associated with WFH, their overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for WFH after COVID.

	Correlation a
	C1	C2	C3	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9	C13	C14	C15	C16	C19	C20	C21	C22	Overall Satisfaction with WFH
C2	0.486 **
C3	0.427 **	0.667 **
C5	0.684 **	0.673 **	0.663 **
C6	0.470 **	0.689 **	0.738 **	0.637 **
C7	0.507 **	0.599 **	0.574 **	0.657 **	0.678 **
C8	0.452 **	0.706 **	0.693 **	0.575 **	0.744 **	0.626 **
C9	0.451 **	0.590 **	0.613 **	0.530 **	0.509 **	0.803 **	0.627 **
C13	0.522 **	0.457 **	0.437 **	0.558 **	0.579 **	0.554 **	0.462 **	0.373 **
C14	0.504 **	0.450 **	0.386 **	0.475 **	0.517 **	0.528 **	0.412 **	0.376 **	0.788 **
C15	0.515 **	0.504 **	0.549 **	0.547 **	0.548 **	0.558 **	0.410 **	0.477 **	0.666 **	0.750 **
C16	0.463 **	0.436 **	0.599 **	0.613 **	0.620 **	0.690 **	0.499 **	0.548 **	0.624 **	0.637 **	0.736 **
C19	0.385 **	0.236	0.385 **	0.477 **	0.476 **	0.569 **	0.318 **	0.473 **	0.610 **	0.490 **	0.481 **	0.569 **
C20	0.192	0.358 **	0.353 *	0.245 *	0.182	0.390 **	0.304 *	0.422 **	0.380 **	0.395 **	0.347 **	0.353 **	0.533 **
C21	0.200	0.330 **	0.359 *	0.356 **	0.340 **	0.515 **	0.388 **	0.495 **	0.410 **	0.380 **	0.395 **	0.536 **	0.664 **	0.719 **
C22	0.368 **	0.465 **	0.649 **	0.432 **	0.497 **	0.564 **	0.507 **	0.558 **	0.492 **	0.551 **	0.635 **	0.612 **	0.543 **	0.536 **	0.531 **
Overall satisfaction with WFH	0.409 **	0.572 **	0.513 **	0.618 **	0.583 **	0.595 **	0.539 **	0.500 **	0.403 **	0.459 **	0.355 **	0.430 **	0.424 **	0.286 *	0.310 *	0.487 **
Preference for WFH after COVID	0.182	0.282 *	0.313 *	0.235 *	0.293 *	0.299 **	0.251 *	0.149	0.137	0.142	0.108	0.140	0.109	0.099	0.043	0.174	0.545 **

^a Spearman’s correlation. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

). Most of the positive correlations detected, ranging between 0.182 and 0.803, are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. There are many moderately strong positive relationships (r > 0.60) between some of the critical challenges, including between (i) ‘Self-motivation (C7)’ and ‘Self-discipline (C9)’ with r = 0.803; (ii) ‘Caring responsibilities (C3)’ and ‘Overall work–family balance (C6)’ with r = 0.738; and (iii) ‘Technical or ICT support (C14)’ and ‘Access to work-related information (C15)’ with r = 0.750. In contrast, only four weak correlations detected (r < 0.30) are not statistically significant—for example, the correlations between ‘Availability of suitable space at home (C1)’ and ‘Mutual trust between you and your work supervisor (C20)’ with r = 0.192.

Addressing the relationships among the critical challenges, the respondents’ overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID, on the one hand, all sixteen critical challenges recorded low to moderate statistically significant positive correlations, with an overall satisfaction with WFH. These correlations, ranging between 0.310 and 0.618, are all statistically significant, and the strongest positive relationship is recorded for ‘Home office environment (C5, r = 0.618)’. On the other hand, only six critical challenges are statistically significantly related to the respondents’ preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID in a positive way. The respective positive correlations are indeed rather weak, ranging between 0.251 and 0.313. Nonetheless, there is a moderately positive relationship between the respondents’ overall satisfaction with WFH and their preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID (r = 0.545, p < 0.01), suggesting that high overall satisfaction with WFH during the COVID pandemic is associated with greater preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID and vice versa.

Lastly,

Table 5. The correlation among the respondents’ demographic characteristics, their overall satisfaction with a WFH arrangement and preference for WFH after COVID.

Variables	Overall Satisfaction with WFH		Preference for WFH After COVID
	Correlation Coeff.	p-Value	Correlation Coeff.	p-Value
Age a	0.150	0.199	0.175	0.136
Level of education a	0.060	0.607	0.247 *	0.031
Years of experience in the industry a	−0.075	0.515	0.011	0.928
Annual income level a	0.030	0.809	−0.150	0.223
Income as the primary source of support for family (yes = 1, no = 0) b	−0.068	0.558	−0.057	0.623
Caring responsibilities (yes = 1, no = 0) b	−0.044	0.702	0.066	0.573
Home schooling (yes = 1, no = 0) b	−0.125	0.278	0.026	0.821

^a Spearman’s correlation. ^b Point-biserial correlation. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

depicts the correlations among the respondents’ demographic characteristics, their overall satisfaction with WFH and preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID. While there is a mix of positive and negative correlations detected between these variables, these correlations are rather weak (r < 0.30), and almost all are not statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. The only statistically significant correlation is that between the level of education attainment and preference for WFH after COVID (r = 0.247, p = 0.031). This positive correlation suggests that the respondents’ preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID increases with educational attainment. That is, a higher level of education attainment is associated with a higher preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID and vice versa.

6. Discussion

First, the exploratory findings provide evidence on the low prevalence of regular and planned remote work (or WFH) among female workers in the construction industry before the pandemic, as claimed by Oo and Lim [21]. However, the evidence indicates that a WFH arrangement, especially a hybrid mode—working partly from a company workplace and partly from home—is likely to stay in the industry, based on the reported statistics (Figure 2). Indeed, a hybrid mode with some paid workdays at home was found feasible and perceived as favorable by employees in some recent studies across different countries (e.g., [1,11,24] and in Australia [5]. The current findings are consistent with these previous studies, with most respondents reporting a relatively high proportion of their paid work activities being feasible with the mandatory WFH arrangement induced by the pandemic (Figure 4) and with nine in ten respondents (90.8%) expressing a wish that they would like to at least be able to sometimes work from home after COVID (Figure 6). It should be noted that the self-reported percentage of work, which was feasible under a WFH arrangement, was based on the respondents’ assessment of their job tasks but not their occupations, which were found unhelpful in explaining the viability of WFH practices [25]. Dingel and Neiman [47] reported that the teleworkable ratio (i.e., a measure of the extent of work, which can be performed remotely) for construction occupations has been reported below 25%, similar to those in other industries, such as agriculture, manufacturing and retail trades. Nonetheless, while the respondents were not asked to state their job tasks and activities in the survey, the relatively high self-reported percentage of work, which was feasible under a WFH arrangement, could partly be explained, as many of the respondents were director, managerial and administrative staff (Table 1). These respondents were mostly likely office-based staff for most of their working days before the pandemic. In terms of the impact of a WFH arrangement on work activities and performance, the positive trend of the respondents’ self-reported WFH work performance, including improved work performance among nearly half of the respondents (48.7%), is again rather consistent with the respective percentages reported in Aksoy et al.’s [1] global survey in 27 countries and Parry et al.’s [46] study in the UK. Correspondingly, the current findings also recorded statistically significantly high overall satisfaction with a WFH arrangement, which is positively related to the respondents’ preference for WFH after COVID, re-echoing the findings by Beck and Hensher [5] and Deole et al. [24]. It is noted that female respondents in Ahmadi et al.’s [51] study were more satisfied with a WFH arrangement compared to male respondents. Similarly, Aksoy et al. [1] found that women valued a WFH arrangement more than men.

Nevertheless, it is unquestionable that the sudden shift to a mandatory WFH arrangement induced by the pandemic will bring with it challenges and obstacles. This phenomenon is well demonstrated in the present study by the respondents’ mixed perceptions of the impacts of challenges associated with a WFH arrangement on their work activities and performance, along with high variabilities in their responses. A plausible explanation of these observations is that the challenges would have impacted individuals to varying extents, especially since they were facing different circumstances, and many personal factors were at play, including their domestic household responsibilities. On the one hand, it could be expected that the respondents would be learning by doing in dealing with the challenges associated with the mandated WFH arrangement, and that they would be confronted with either positive or negative outcomes. On the other hand, the overall perceived impacts, which are positive for sixteen challenges (out of twenty-two), seemingly suggest that the respondents were able to maneuver the challenging situations and realize the potential benefits of WFH. For example, the mean scores show that the ‘Overall work–family balance (C6)’ has a perceived positive impact, echoing the reported positive experience of overall work–family balance among WFH construction workforce in Pirzadeh and Lingard’s [34] and Ogunnusi et al.’s [36] studies. This could be explained because a WFH arrangement offers employees the flexibility to organize their daily routine while managing their family responsibilities, and there are many other potential benefits [5,11,43] along with various coping strategies for realizing the potential benefits of WFH [39,51]. Respectively, authors reported high job satisfaction under WFH arrangements during the pandemic (e.g., [2,32]).

All in all, the findings indicate that the female respondents were adapting well to the sudden shift to a WFH arrangement despite some challenges (6 out of 22), which recorded negative perceived impacts. These challenges included ‘Home schooling (C4)’, ‘Social interactions with colleagues (C10)’ and ‘Communication and/or collaboration with colleagues (C11)’. Indeed, these recorded negative factors are rather anticipated; for example, it is likely that the impacts of a WFH arrangement and home schooling are mutually reinforcing, creating new and demanding situations for many. Petts et al. [10] found that home schooling during the early stage of the pandemic was associated with negative employment outcomes for mothers but not fathers. In terms of difficulties in communication and the lack of social interaction and effective communication, these are all the drawbacks of remote working, which have been reported in previous studies published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic [43], as well as studies conducted during the pandemic (e.g., [4,5,27]). Although all six challenges of perceived negative impacts are not deemed as critical challenges, these negative factors should nevertheless be addressed by organizations continuing with a WFH arrangement after COVID. Conversely, the correlations existing among the sixteen critical challenges of perceived positive impacts suggest that these challenges are interrelated and highlight the need for pragmatic strategies to incorporate them in the design and implementation of WFH practices. Lastly, the absence of associations between the critical challenges and preference for WFH after COVID suggests that there could be many other factors affecting employee preference for WFH; the predictors identified by Caligiuri and De Cieri (2021) [21] are the extent of work–life conflict and need fulfilments (needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness). This may also explain the absence of associations between most of the demographic characteristics (with the exception of the level of education attainment) and preference for a WFH arrangement after COVID, as revealed in the present study.

7. Research Implications

Given the low prevalence of the WFH practice in the construction industry before the pandemic, it is unarguable that the limited studies on WFH experiences among construction workers are crucial in providing useful insights for employment organizations and laying the groundwork for further studies. The current exploratory study, as one of the limited studies, offers preliminary evidence on an overall positive WFH experience for the female workforce in the construction industry. Indeed, the findings are rather surprising, since women have been found disproportionally impacted in different aspects due to the mandatory WFH arrangement in several Australian-based studies (e.g., [32,33,38]. This discrepancy in findings could be explained by differences in the time of study, sample population, sample size, research method and different research focuses. Indeed, authors have stressed the importance of recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all WFH arrangement in consideration of the potential research implications of WFH studies [1,2,7,37]. Thus, while the present findings should be interpreted with care, given the small sample size, they do provide an insight on the top critical challenges associated with a WFH arrangement along with a set of negative factors, which might be useful for employment organizations to re-optimize their present WFH practices. This may include the development of the respective human resource protocols on possible WFH arrangements (full-time, hybrid, mandatory or optional) in terms of the type of jobs and tasks, the team dynamic and the evaluation of WFH effectiveness and productivity [7]. For the research community, the findings clearly have implications for further explorations of the relationships found in the present study, including examining the respective causal effects between variables.

8. Conclusions

As one of the very few studies on mandatory WFH experiences among the female workforce in the construction industry, the findings provide a first-hand insight, which is valuable to both employment organizations and the research community. The results show that most of the challenges associated with a WFH arrangement recorded positive perceived impacts on work activities and performance, signifying that the respondents were adapting well to the sudden shift to mandatory WFH arrangements induced by the pandemic. Although most of the respondents were new to a WFH arrangement, there is evidence suggesting their positive satisfaction with a WFH arrangement along with perceived positive work performance while WFH. About 90% of respondents would like to at least be able to sometimes work from home after COVID, which is positively correlated with the level of education attainment. These findings lay the groundwork for future studies on WFH practices exploring the various relationships revealed in the present study. In addition, the top critical challenges identified associated with a WFH arrangement along with a set of negative factors might be useful for employment organizations to re-optimize their WFH practices.

Nonetheless, one of the key limitations of this study is its small sample size, which may reduce its exploratory power and the generalizability of the research findings. Although a low response rate is expected in online surveys, further studies could consider different sampling techniques, such as obtaining support from employers in distributing the online survey. In addition, researchers could consider using qualitative approaches, such as an interview and focus group discussion, to further explore the WFH experiences of women in the construction industry. Next, future studies could explore other perspectives of different WFH arrangements (e.g., full-time, hybrid, mandatory or optional), including the opportunities and obstacles to WFH among different cohorts of construction workers. Indeed, there are many other aspects of WFH in the context of the construction industry, which should draw researchers’ attention, including (i) the gender differences in WFH experiences; (ii) the possible objective measures of personal and organizational performance and productivity when WFH; (iii) the challenges presented to the firms’ human resources management in implementing WFH or hybrid work mode; (iv) the roles of organizational support and control in employee WFH experiences and performance; (v) the determination of an optimal hybrid work mode; and (vi) the factors contributing to successful implementation of WFH arrangements.