Exploring the Determinants of Quality of Work Life in the Construction Industry: A Quantitative Approach

Abstract

This research aims to identify and quantify the factors affecting quality of work life (QWL) among professionals in the Indian construction industry. The study employs a structured questionnaire, distributed to 900 construction professionals, yielding a response rate of 80.44%. The QWL construct was assessed through eight factors: career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, the work–family interface, emotional intelligence, work culture, and work commitment. Both descriptive and inferential analysis were carried out. The relative importance index method was used to rank these factors based on their relative importance. Work commitment (RII = 0.772) ranked as the most important factor, this was due to work commitment including significant items. The high ranking of this factor suggests that commitment to work is highly valued in the construction industry. The study also employed structural equation modelling to validate the association among these QWL factors. The findings reveal that job satisfaction (t = 0.765) and career growth (t = 0.751) play significant roles in QWL, suggesting that these factors should be prioritized to enhance QWL in the construction industry. The results of this study provide valuable insights for organizations, HR practitioners, and researchers in the construction industry, emphasizing the need to focus on job satisfaction and career growth to enhance QWL. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of QWL in the construction industry, offering valuable insights for organizations, HR practitioners, and researchers. Future research could adopt longitudinal study designs or qualitative methods to further explore the QWL among construction professionals.

1. Introduction

The construction industry (CI) in India plays a significant role, both directly and indirectly, in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). It employs 33 million individuals and influences a wide range of associated sectors such as cement, steel, electronics, and skill enhancement. With over 200 organizations operating in the corporate sector and around 120,000 Class A contractors registered with various government construction industry professional bodies, the sector has seen substantial growth contributing 8% to the national GDP [1]. However, the CI is currently facing a shortage of both skilled and unskilled personnel. This shortage is directly linked to the CI’s organizational culture and the nature of the job. Factors such as skills, individual traits, educational qualifications, work culture, working atmosphere, passion for the industry, and ability are all crucial for determining the quality of work life (QWL) in the CI [2]. QWL, as defined by various authors, is a multi-dimensional concept. Walton and Richard (1973) considered it a significant contribution to the philosophy of productivity in human resources [3]. Cohen and Rosenthal (1980) defined QWL as an “internationally conscious effort to bring about improved labor-management to contribute mutually explains the problem of enhancement of organizational performance and employee satisfaction” [4]. Nadler and Lawler (1983) stated that QWL refers to “an individual’s perception of and attitudes towards his or her work and the total working environment” [5]. Professionals in the CI often face extended working hours, lower salaries compared to other sectors, subhuman working conditions, risk and safety issues, exposure to dangerous tasks, and the physically demanding activities required in construction projects. These factors can significantly impact physical and social benefits to the individual [6].

Research on QWL has been extensively conducted in developed nations and in several developing countries such as Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, Philippines, Egypt, and India. However, the focus has primarily been on various sectors like technology, healthcare, manufacturing, and education, with minimal attention given to the construction industry, particularly in a developing country context like India [7]. This study is set in the context of professionals in the construction industry in India. As per data from Statista, the World Bank, and the International Labor Organization (ILO), in the fiscal year of 2023, the real estate and construction industry in India employed close to 71 million individuals. Interestingly, the workforce in this sector was at its smallest in the fiscal year 2021, with a little over 57.4 million employees [8]. Existing research on India’s labor market highlights the vulnerabilities of these workers, manifested in informal employment, substandard working conditions, job insecurity, and extended working hours [9].

Supporting professionals with QWL is, therefore, not just necessary but inevitable in Indian construction industries. QWL has gained significance in recent trends as it is an essential requirement for organizations to attract and retain engineers who are committed to supporting the organization. The focus on QWL has increased rapidly due to changes in the work environment and human factors, often overlooked by modern economies in favor of technological advancement, efficiency, and economic growth. Some of the factors such as lack of appreciation, extensive effort, poor interpersonal relations, lack of skilled workforce, increased cost of materials, technology adoption, project complexity, frequent power failure, environmental sustainability, natural hazards, and poor working conditions and work environment are leading causes of job dissatisfaction. These factors often lead to professionals leaving their profession [10,11], but in general the motive of the organization is to attract and retain talent, to improve productivity and performance, and to ensure the overall well-being of professionals in the CI. As is well known, job satisfaction is an important aspect of QWL, but it is not the sole determinant as it comes under the umbrella of QWL factors. Considering the fact that the QWL has an essential impact on the development and retention of employees, more significant consideration must be given to the QWL of the employee and the deciding factors that affect the QWL. Therefore, this study is inclined toward determining the factors affecting the QWL of professionals working in the Indian construction industry. Also, the aim is to determine the relative importance index of the factors and to rank them. Also, this research reveals the influence of QWL factors by using structural equation modelling.

2. QWL in the Construction Industry

The preliminary factors were identified through a literature survey. Additionally, a few anecdotal shreds of evidence and archival data supporting QWL, especially in the CI, are given in

Table 1. QWL factors identified in the construction industry.

Authors, Year	Reference	Factors
		Job Satisfaction	Remuneration and Fringe Benefits	Work-Family Interface	Work Culture	Contribution from Management
Jayaranman et al., 2023	[7]	*	-	*	*	-
Rahaman and Rahman, 2021	[15]	-	*	*	-	*
Kotera et al., 2020	[12]	*	-	*	*	-
Allam and Shaik, 2020	[13]	*	-	*	-	*
Ahmad et al., 2020	[14]	*	-	-	*	*
Ahmed, 2019	[16]	*	-	-	*	*
Fordjour and Chan, 2019	[17]	-	-	-	*	*
Oswald et al., 2019	[18]	-	-	-	*	-
Seadon and Tookey, 2019	[19]	*	*	*	-	*
Holden and Sunindijo, 2018	[20]	-	*	*	*	-
von Danwitz, 2018	[21]	-	-	-	-	*
Zuo et al., 2018	[22]	-	-	-	-	*
Martínez-León et al., 2018	[23]	*	-	*	-	-
Khushboo Kumar and Rachna Chaturvedi, 2018	[24]	-	-	*	-	-
Langdon and Sawang, 2018	[25]	-	*	*	-	-
Simmons et al., 2018	[26]	-	-	-	*	-
Xia et al., 2018	[27]	-	-	*	*	-
Barrett and Khalfan, 2018	[28]	-	-	-	*	*
Patience F. Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2018	[29]	-	*	-	-	*
Morello et al., 2018	[30]	-	*	-	-	*
Shan et al., 2017	[31]	*	*	*	-	*
Valdes-Vasquez et al., 2016	[32]	-	-	*	*	*
Turner and Mariani, 2016	[33]	*	-	*	-	*
Mas-Machuca et al., 2016	[34]	*	-	*	*	*
Turner et al., 2009	[35]	-	-	*	*	*
Pasamar, 2015	[36]	-	-	*	*	*
Zheng et al., 2015	[37]	-	*	*	-	*
Christopher Samuel and Kanchana Timmaraju, 2015	[38]	-	-	-	-	*
de Sivatte et al., 2015	[39]	-	-	*	*	-
Zheng et al., 2016	[40]	-	-	*	-	*
Deery and Jago, 2015	[41]	-	-	*	*	-
Turner et al., 2009	[35]	-	-	*	-	-
Ru Hsu, 2011	[42]	*	-	*	-	-
Mäkelä et al., 2011	[43]	-	-	*	-	-
Bradley et al., 2010	[44]	*	-	*	-	*
H. Lingard et al., 2010	[45]	*	-	*	*	-
H. C. Lingard et al., 2010	[46]	*	-	*	-	*
Turner et al., 2009	[35]	-	-	*	*	*
Wilkinson, 2008	[47]	-	*	*	*	*
Deery, 2008	[48]	-	-	*	*	*
H. Lingard and Francis, 2007	[49]	-	-	*	*	-
Ruth Eikhof, 2007	[50]	-	-	*	*	-
Hughes and Bozionelos, 2007	[51]	*	*	-	-	*
Russo and Waters, 2006	[52]	-	-	*	*	-
H. Lingard and Francis, 2004	[53]	-	-	*	*	-
H. Lingard, 2004	[54]	-	-	*	*	-
H. Lingard, 2003	[55]	-	-	*	-	*

Note: * factors studied by previous authors; - not available.

. These factors include job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, the work–family interface, work culture, and contributions from management. Studies conducted by different authors over the years have focused on different combinations of these factors. For instance, Kotera et al., 2020 [12] studied job satisfaction, the work–family interface, and work culture, but did not focus on remuneration and fringe benefits or contributions from management. On the other hand, Allam and Shaik, 2020 [13] and Ahmad et al., 2020 [14] studied job satisfaction, the work–family interface, and contributions from management, leaving out remuneration and fringe benefits or work culture, respectively. This table provides a clear overview of the focus areas of each study, thereby offering a valuable resource for understanding the evolution of research in the CI. It is evident that while some factors have been consistently studied across different research initiatives, others have received varying levels of attention. This underscores the complexity and multifaceted nature of the CI. The factors are job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, the work–family interface, work culture, and management contributions are listed in Table 1.

2.1. Job Satisfaction

Handling engineering professionals within an organization and maintaining qualified employees, in the long run, is a critical challenge. Improving job satisfaction in functioning family, and cultural environments is essential for establishing priorities and increasing efficiency. The outcomes of one previous study indicate that organizational engagement, income rating, job suitability, and a culture-supporting work–life balance (WLB) increase job satisfaction for engineers. Employment rates and career suitability are the second most significant variables in assessing job satisfaction for men and women [23]. From a survey of 50 female professionals conducted in Lagos, Nigeria, the main finding was that most of the respondents in the age group of 30–40 years were not satisfied with their perks and fringe benefits. It was found that a strong correlation exists between the age group of the respondents and the degree of satisfaction. The results have served as recommendations to frame policies for construction firms and to implement changes that contribute to improving QWL, which can result in enriched job satisfaction, leading to improved management and productivity growth [31]. Organizational attributes, employees’ personal dimensionality, personal and professional conflicts, and work strategies help to monitor job satisfaction, job commitment, and employee retention rates [39,41,56]. Job satisfaction is entirely controlled by the support extended by the superior in the workplace and by family members. If either of these fails, then work–family conflicts arise. The outcome of the work–family conflict harms the satisfaction level at the workplace. The employee, on the whole, is more satisfied with their work experience after an intercession and specifies the significant role their superior’s attitudes and behaviors play [34].

2.2. Remuneration and Fringe Benefits

Specific research expresses that deficiencies in individual and family time, in the growth of living expenses, and concern about job insecurity act as active stressors. Strategies that follow self-blaming, acceptance rates, high levels of psychological distress, and varied anxiety fluctuations are listed [25,27,57]. This shows that poor control of boundaries is responsible for a relatively low WLB. Technology, work culture, traveling time, wage incentives, health, and WLB programs affect QWL. On the other hand, WLB programs backed by an acceptable work culture will facilitate a better balance between work and life in the CI, resulting in the QWL of the employees being maintained [20,40]. Many employees are not aware of the working organization’s human resources policies. These results offer valuable insights for both practitioners and researchers who are exploring the actual spread and impact of the new equilibrium in the context of employee benefits. Simply offering benefits to a limited segment of the workforce does not necessarily lead to any positive improvements in the QWL [58].

2.3. Work–Family Interface

Michelle Turner et al. (2009) compared the QWL experiences of workers employed in construction firms. The impacts may vary based on the organization size, and this should be considered an essential variable in WLB research in construction, specifically tackling issues that need careful consideration and management [35,59]. Interviews were carried out to understand WLB issues and challenges, and the interview results helped to identify the reasons for these challenges, keeping the national perspective in mind. Generally, companies engage in WLB interventions to address specific issues with respect to gender equality, a flexible system of working, stress management strategies, wellness programs, and childcare [39]. Helen et al. (2010) expressed that the time series modeling process, adopted on a weekly work hour, basis enabled the participant to finish duty at both work and home, although they remained dissatisfied with WLB [35,46]. A survey was conducted of waged and salaried construction workers engaged in a project. They assessed the development of the work–family interface, a sort of positive relationship between work and family life. The job schedule aptly regulated the relationship between flexibility and regulation and the contribution of the job to the family. The research suggests that tasks can be structured to promote work–family enrichment in the CI, notably by providing supervisor support, autonomy, adequacy of time, and control. Employees understand the obstacles of WLB activities and take careful notice of the factor that affects QWL [47,60]. Awareness among professionals in the CI about WLB has spread unevenly. This area needs to be benchmarked and reconsidered to be brought into practice throughout the CI. Employers often ignore the point of implementing this in practice. The imbalance between professional and personal life results in emotional exhaustion, stress, and cynicism. This causes the employer’s low performance, leading to decreased QWL [48].

2.4. Work Culture

Inefficient control of boundaries is liable for relatively poor QWL. Construction organizations should ensure that WLB management programs are transparent to all workers and endorsed and promoted at the company and project level by higher authorities so that employees feel comfortable using them. Such decisions should also appeal to employees’ diverse needs [20]. The CI is intensely antagonistic, with numerous groups drowning in the sea of chaos, each with its plan and needs. Organizational mentality will affect an organization’s culture, with implications for all dimensions of the CI. Finding unique and new aspects in construction requires all the minds within an organization to work together [28]. Work culture and organizational productivity indirectly impact the performance of the employers through the availability of WLB programs. The effect of QWL on organizational productivity is a relatively understudied relationship at the organizational level, and it is not very easy to study work culture in an unorganized sector like the construction industry [40]. The CI has a particular work culture characterized, unlike other industries, mainly by longer and ill-defined working hours. Specifically, it is a challenge for professionals in the CI to maintain non-working time and a WLB. Management support for work–life balance projects is crucial for achieving QWL and satisfaction with working arrangements. The relationship between superior and subordinate should be preserved to produce a positive outcome in terms of QWL [45,61].

2.5. Contributions from Management

The employee should consider management factors as central, and, for the organization, performance can be boosted through both project management skills and project success factors [22]. QWL is a concerning issue for management and personnel because people benefit from improved well-being because they have WLB, and this, moreover, influences the efficiency and performance of the organization. Based on the sociocultural conditions in India, management focuses on new work-life balance approaches have been proposed in the areas of care for the aged, training for employees, and transportation. But organizational approaches are diverse and inconsistent and have concentrated mainly on the organized sector. There is no central government framework covering problems relating to work and families across sectors. The implicit gendering of administration policies and interventions formalizes hierarchical systems that necessitate these actions in the first place [38,39]. A previous study, however, indicates that construction is an unappealing occupation choice for women due to factors such as work hygiene, poor WLB, and gender inequality. For an organization, this management component should be considered significantly [30,62]. The organization as management adds to the overall depth of knowledge by discovering latent QWL factors that influence the job satisfaction of craftsmen, particularly in the CI. The management factors may serve as instructions for construction firms to establish policies and procedures that significantly contribute to improved QWL, lead to improved job satisfaction for employees, and to better retention, productivity, and work performance [63].

2.6. Identified Factors

The expert interviews conducted with experienced professionals discussed the real thrust of QWL in the CI, the challenges, and the lifestyles of construction professionals. The experts considered for this study were professionals from top-level management, having more than 10 years of experience in private construction companies and academics also ensured that sample was representative of different roles and perspectives. Opinions on the repeated factors affecting QWL, identified from the literature, were discussed. Additionally, some more factors were found from the literature that affect QWL in the CI and these were also discussed to receive the experts’ opinions. Finally, the experts were asked to rank the additional factors and the top three were considered in this study namely, career growth, work commitment, and emotional intelligence. These factors were sorted by following specific guidelines suggested by [64]. The combination of preliminary factors identified from the literature review was used predominantly, as were other factors selected from the experts’ opinions. The significant factors identified for the study on the QWL assessment of professionals in the Indian CI are considered and shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Objective and Hypothesis

The research objective is (1) to identify the QWL factors affecting the CI, (2) to quantify the relative importance of the QWL factors and to demonstrate the ranking of the factors (3) in order to determine the QWL among the professionals in the CI using SEM approaches to validate the association among QWL factors, namely career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, thework–family interface, emotional intelligence, and work culture and work commitment.

Development of Hypothesis for SEM

The proposed conceptual model of this research is represented in Figure 2. Therefore, the hypotheses were formulated based on the existing research on QWL and it is tested through the SEM approach.

H1. 

Career growth has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H2. 

Management has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H3. 

Job satisfaction has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H4. 

Remuneration and fringe benefits have a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H5. 

The work–family interface has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H6. 

Emotional intelligence has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H7. 

Work culture has a significant positive impact on the QWL.

H8. 

Work commitment has a significant positive impact on QWL.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Sample and Procedure

The research on quality of work life in the Indian construction industry employs a modified structured questionnaire, designed based on standard questionnaires found in the literature [65,66,67,68,69]. The questionnaire was customized according to the professional’s level in the construction industry. The target population for this study refers to individual professionals working in selected private construction companies in India who are designated as project managers, planning engineers, design engineers, and site engineers/supervisors. The prepared questionnaires were distributed to 900 construction professionals in person and online, 759 were returned and a valid count of 724 responses was considered for the research, therefore indicating a response rate of 80.44%. Before the main survey, a pilot study was carried out to examine the proposed study instrument’s validity, reliability, and content validity. The necessary relevant adjustments were made to enhance the excellence of the study instrument based on the pilot study’s findings. The data collection process involved distributing the questionnaires to the professionals in the construction industry. The participants’ responses were then collected and analyzed to draw conclusions about the QWL in the construction industry. All participants were informed that their participation is voluntary, and their responses will be kept anonymous. No incentives were provided to encourage their participation. The study adheres to the ethical principles and guidelines of the university.

4.2. Survey Instrument

The questionnaire includes several categories of variables with 92 items in total. These categories include career growth (4 items) [66,68], management (12 items) [65,66], job satisfaction (17 items) [68], remuneration and fringe benefits (14 items) [66], work–life interface [66,67]—issues at home (12 items), personal satisfaction (10 items), and emotional intelligence [69]—physical exhaustion (4 items), mental exhaustion (6 items), psychological exhaustion (4 items), work culture [65,66] (4 items), and work commitment [66] (5 items). Each category contains specific items related to the QWL in the construction industry, and the respondents rated these using a 5-point Likert’s scale for each item on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Analysis

The respondents’ characteristics, including gender, age (in years), marital status, education qualification, work experience in present organization (in years), and level of management, collected as part of the demographic information section, are given in

Table 2. Demographic information.

Demographic Profile		Percentage (%) N = 724
Gender	Female	28.5
	Male	71.5
Age (in years)	18–28	53.6
	29–38	40.2
	39–48	2.9
	49–58	3.3
Marital status	Single	48.1
	Married	50.4
	Others	1.5
Educational qualification	UG	52.8
	PG	39.5
	Diploma	7.7
Experience in the present organization (in years)	Less than 1	18.1
	1–5	56.1
	6–15	21.5
	Greater than 15	4.3
Level of management	Junior level	44.6
	Middle level	43.8
	Senior level	11.6
Annual pay	Less than 2 Lakhs	6.8
	2–4 Lakhs	42
	4–6 Lakhs	29.6
	Above 6 Lakhs	21.6

Note: UG—under graduate (B.E./B.Tech./any Bachelors); PG—post graduate (M.E./M.Tech./any Master’s Degree).

.

5.2. Reliability Analysis

Initially, before conducting data analysis, the survey scales were subjected to reliability analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was used as a measure of internal consistency reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the entire questionnaire is 0.924. The survey scale included 92 items that are aspects of QWL. Data collection has a robust internal efficiency of more than 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha [70].

5.3. Relative Importance Index (RII)

The relative importance index (RII) method infers the relative importance of the factors and recognizes the most important criteria from the respondents to prioritize indicators that help to rank the factors. The RII was calculated for each item using SPSS v23.0 software to pinpoint the most crucial variables affecting the QWL balance among CI professionals. The items were classified based on their RII values. This ranking system allows for the identification of the most significant factors or causes of delays within the Indian CI. The factors were then ranked based on their RII values, with the factor with the highest RII ranked first. The relative importance of each item is determined using the formula provided in Equation (1), which calculates the relative index. This method aids in understanding the level of importance of each item.

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e} \mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e} \mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\left(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}\right)=\sum \frac{W}{(A\times N)}$$

(1)

where,

W = weightage on Likert’s scale by each respondent,

A = highest weight,

N = total number of samples.

All the factors of QWL are classified based on the variables with RII, and are tabulated in

Table 3. Categories of variables with RII values of QWL in CI.

Items		RII
Career growth
1	How much are you satisfied with the responsibilities, you are handed over?	0.48
2	Are you satisfied with your career growth?	0.56
3	How much are you satisfied with your recognition?	0.53
4	How much are you satisfied with your promotion rate?	0.59
Management
1	Is your Superior Supporting you at work?	0.75
2	How much are you satisfied with the opportunities given to you?	0.71
3	Does management have transparency in the system?	0.62
4	Are you satisfied with your working hours?	0.63
5	How much are you satisfied with the training offered to you by the management?	0.71
6	Are you satisfied with your travel distance from your place of stay to work place?	0.74
7	Are you satisfied if you are allotted for special projects apart from routine work?	0.72
8	Are you satisfied with the work environment?	0.7
9	Are you satisfied with your organization making life easier at work?	0.65
10	Are you satisfied with your management’s support in difficult situations?	0.67
11	Is your Superior Supporting you at work?	0.7
12	How much are you satisfied with the chances of promotion?	0.63
Job satisfaction
1	Are you satisfied with the physical working conditions in your organisation?	0.7
2	Are you satisfied with the relationship with your colleagues?	0.75
3	Are you satisfied with the relationship with top management?	0.65
4	Are you satisfied with the relationship with your subordinates?	0.77
5	Are you satisfied with the amount of work (responsibilities) given to you?	0.7
6	Are you satisfied with the rate of pay (salary)	0.63
7	Are you satisfied with the Hours of work?	0.63
8	Are you satisfied with the Job security?	0.66
9	Are you satisfied with the variety in work?	0.65
10	Are you satisfied with the freedom to use your own abilities?	0.67
11	Are you satisfied with the opportunity of promotion?	0.61
12	Are you satisfied with the attention paid to your suggestion?	0.66
13	Are you working to achieve tight deadlines?	0.7
14	Is it needed to work long hours?	0.62
15	Do you find work-life imbalance?	0.58
16	Do you need to prove yourself?	0.68
17	Are you awarded with appropriate work incentives?	0.62
Remuneration and fringe benefits
1	How much are you satisfied with the incentive schemes?	0.62
2	How much are you satisfied with the benefits given to you by the current organization?	0.66
3	How much are you satisfied with the transportation facilities provided by the management?	0.64
4	How much are you satisfied with the personal health care programmes?	0.67
5	Are you satisfied with the remuneration you get?	0.63
6	How much are you satisfied with the compensation offered for any loss?	0.62
7	How much are you satisfied with financial assistance for any emergency situation from organization?	0.66
8	How much are you satisfied with the employee bonus schemes?	0.61
9	Are you satisfied with the guidance you receive at your workplace?	0.7
10	Are you convenient with the assignment of additional responsibilities, if needed?	0.72
11	Are you satisfied with the Canteen facilities?	0.65
12	Are you satisfied with the availability of a resting place?	0.61
13	Are you satisfied with the Drinking water facilities?	0.73
14	Are you satisfied with the Medical Facilities?	0.73
Work–life interface
Issues at home
1	Are you getting enough sleep, time for exercise & time to have healthy food?	0.6
2	Are you getting time for personal care?	0.6
3	Are you getting time to spend with your friends?	0.59
4	Are you able to enhance your knowledge (Part time study/Certifications) along with your routine job?	0.59
5	Are you able to take part in community activities or to fulfil religious commitments?	0.54
6	Are you able to spend time with your children at home daily?	0.54
7	Are you able to do/manage household activities during working days?	0.55
8	Are you able to attend family functions along with your routine job?	0.53
9	Are you able to take care of your family and to spend time with them daily?	0.54
10	Do you feel any imbalance between your work and family?	0.58
11	Are you having time to look after elders/special care needed members at your home?	0.55
12	At work, how often do you skip your food/tea/snacks?	0.58
Personal satisfaction
1	How much are you satisfied with the relation you have with your colleagues officially?	0.52
2	Are you getting enough respect at the workplace?	0.53
3	Are you satisfied with your works getting recognized?	0.57
4	Are you satisfied with the balance of workload at work place?	0.56
5	Are you satisfied with your personal life?	0.59
6	Are you satisfied with the outcome you give at your workplace?	0.54
7	How much are you satisfied with your job?	0.55
8	Does your job outcome fulfil your satisfactory level?	0.55
9	How much pride and interest do you take in your profession?	0.5
10	Are you overall satisfied with your profession?	0.52
Emotional intelligence
Physical exhaustion
1	Are you feeling tired?	0.57
2	Are you feeling physically exhausted?	0.55
3	Are you feeling weak?	0.52
4	Are you feeling less energetic?	0.59
Mental exhaustion
1	Are you having a good day?	0.68
2	Are you feeling happy?	0.65
3	Are you feeling worthless?	0.51
4	Are you feeling disillusioned and resentful about people?	0.54
5	Are you feeling rejected?	0.48
6	Are you feeling optimistic?	0.62
Psychological exhaustion
1	How often do you feel depressed?	0.58
2	How often do you feel emotionally exhausted?	0.53
3	How often do you feel troubled?	0.53
4	How much are you satisfied with your job?	0.57
Work culture
1	Does your management entertain informal relationships?	0.52
2	Are you able to work with comfort & convenience?	0.65
3	Do your peers & colleagues discuss issues across the table?	0.64
4	Does your organization treat all employees equal irrespective of gender?	0.64
Work commitment
1	Do you accept challenging work?	0.8
2	Do you focus more on opportunities rather than problems/issues?	0.72
3	Do you work or take initiative to improve productivity?	0.78
4	Do you prepare well or take extra effort to give the best result?	0.81
5	Do you feel a strong sense of loyalty towards your organization?	0.75

. Career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, the work–family interface, emotional intelligence, work culture and work commitment were considered for the ranking. RII analysis is used as per their relative merits to rank the factors. The ranking results for each classification are shown in

Table 4. Ranking of Factors.

Variables	RII	Rank
Work Commitment	0.772	1
Management	0.689	2
Job Satisfaction	0.664	3
Remuneration and Fringe Benefits	0.661	4
Work Culture	0.613	5
Emotional Intelligence	0.565	6
Work–Life Interface	0.555	7
Career Growth	0.54	8

, using the relative index analysis. Primarily focused on the outcome of the ranking, eight constructs were highlighted with RII index values.

Table 4 presents the ranking of various factors based on their relative importance index (RII) values and the top five most important factors are discussed below:

Work Commitment (RII = 0.772): Ranked as the most important factor, this was due to the fact that work commitment includes significant items such as preparing well or investing extra effort to achieve the best result (RII = 0.81), accepting challenging work (RII = 0.8), working or taking initiative to improve productivity (RII = 0.78), feeling a strong sense of loyalty towards the organization (RII = 0.75), and focusing more on opportunities rather than problems/issues (RII = 0.72). The high ranking of this factor suggests that commitment to work is highly valued in the CI.

Management (RII = 0.689): This factor ranked second, which includes significant items related to support from superiors (RII = 0.75), travel distance from place of stay to workplace (RII = 0.74), special projects allotted (RII = 0.72), satisfaction with opportunities and satisfaction with training/certification offered by the management (RII = 0.71). This indicates the significant role management practices have in influencing QWL.

Job Satisfaction (RII = 0.664): Ranked third, job satisfaction encompasses significant items such as relationships with subordinates (RII = 0.77), colleagues (RII = 0.75), satisfaction with physical working conditions, amount of work, and achieving tight deadlines (RII = 0.7). This suggests that job satisfaction is a critical component of QWL.

Remuneration and Fringe Benefits (RII = 0.661): This factor ranked fourth includes significant items related to satisfaction with drinking water facilities and medical facilities (RII = 0.73), assignment of additional responsibilities (RII = 0.72), and guidance at the workplace (RII = 0.7). This indicates the importance of fair and adequate compensation and benefits in contributing to QWL.

Work Culture (RII = 0.613): Ranked fifth, work culture includes significant items includes the ability to work with comfort and convenience (RII = 0.65), peers and colleagues discussing issues across a table and the organization treating all employees equally irrespective of gender (RII = 0.64), and management entertaining informal relationships (RII = 0.52). This suggests that a positive and inclusive work culture is essential for QWL.

The remaining factors, including emotional intelligence, the wlWork–life interface, and career growth, also play significant roles in QWL, although they are ranked lower.

5.4. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for QWL

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a powerful statistical technique used to test hypotheses about relationships between observed and latent variables [71]. It allows for the simultaneous examination of multiple dependence relationships [72]. In this study, SEM is used for testing the theoretical model proposed. The summary of model fitness indices and their corresponding reference ranges are presented in

Table 5. Abstract of model fitness indices.

Model Fitness Index	Value	Reference Range
Chi-square/degrees of freedom	3.461	Between 2 and 5
Significance value	0.095	Greater than 0.05
Goodness of fitness index (GFI)	0.932	Greater than 0.90
Goodness of fitness index (AGFI)	0.921	Greater than 0.90
Comparative fit index (CFI)	0.907	Greater than 0.90
Root mean square residuals (RMR)	0.043	Less than 0.08
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)	0.028	Less than 0.08

. It can be observed from Table 5 that all the model fitness indices are within the reference range. For instance, the chi-square/degrees of freedom index is 3.461, which is within the good fit range of 2 to 5 [72]. Similarly, the significance value of the SEM model is 0.095, which is greater than the reference benchmark of 0.05 [70]. Previous research indicates a total fit, with GFI index and AGFI index values being 0.932 and 0.921, respectively [73,74]. Ref. [75] found that CFI values above 0.90 indicate a good fit, and the study’s CFI index of 0.907 confirms this. Furthermore, Ref. [76] recognized RMR and RMSEA values of 0.043 and 0.028, respectively, as less than 0.08, indicating a good fit. Thus, it is concluded that the SEM, which integrates factors determining the assessment of QWL among CI professionals, is a good fit.

The structural equation modelling (SEM) model, which was developed and validated using SPSS AMOS 23.0, is depicted in Figure 3. This model presents the standardized coefficients for the QWL among professional engineers in the CI.

Standardized coefficients, which are the regression weights derived from the SEM model, have been adjusted so that the variances of both observed and latent variables equal 1. This means that standardized coefficients that represent the number of standard deviations of a latent variable will shift per standard deviation increase in the observed variable.

As seen in

Table 6. Regression weights of SEM model.

Path			Standardized Estimate	Standard Error	Critical Ratio	SMC	p
Career growth	→	QWL	0.751	0.064	17.467	0.56	<0.001 **
Management	→	QWL	0.643	0.172	15.304	0.41	<0.001 **
Job satisfaction	→	QWL	0.765	0.27	17.74	0.59	<0.001 **
Remuneration and fringe benefits	→	QWL	0.733	0.214	17.115	0.54	<0.001 **
Work–family interface	→	QWL	0.689	0.299	16.237	0.47	<0.001 **
Emotional intelligence	→	QWL	0.577	0.214	13.887	0.33	<0.001 **
Work culture	→	QWL	0.666	0.066	15.769	0.44	<0.001 **
Work commitment	→	QWL	0.669	0.065	15.467	0.45	<0.001 **

Note: 1. ** symbolizes significance at the 1% level; 2. SMC—squared multiple correlation.

, the standardized coefficient for the impact of career growth on QWL is 0.751, suggesting a partial effect of career growth on QWL, assuming other variables remain constant. The positive coefficient implies that a unit increase in career growth corresponds to a 0.751 unit increase in QWL among CI professional engineers.

In a similar vein, the standardized coefficient for the influence of construction company management on QWL is 0.643, indicating the partial effect of management on QWL, with other variables held constant. The positive coefficient suggests that a unit increase in management corresponds to a 0.643 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

Likewise, the standardized coefficient for the impact of job satisfaction on QWL is 0.765, suggesting the partial effect of job satisfaction on QWL, assuming other variables remain constant. The positive coefficient implies that a unit increase in job satisfaction corresponds to a 0.765 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

The standardized coefficient for the influence of remuneration and fringe benefits on QWL is 0.733, indicating the partial effect of these factors on QWL, with other variables held constant. The positive coefficient suggests that a unit increase in these benefits corresponds to a 0.733 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

The standardized coefficient for the impact of the work–family interface on QWL is 0.689, suggesting a partial effect of this factor on QWL, assuming other variables remain constant. The positive coefficient implies that a unit increase in the work–family interface corresponds to a 0.689 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

Similarly, the standardized coefficient for the influence of emotional intelligence on QWL is 0.751, indicating the partial effect of this factor on QWL, with other variables held constant. The positive coefficient suggests that a unit increase in emotional intelligence corresponds to a 0.751 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

The standardized coefficient for the impact of work culture on QWL is 0.666, suggesting the partial effect of this factor on QWL, assuming other variables remain constant. The positive coefficient implies that a unit increase in work culture corresponds to a 0.666 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

The standardized coefficient for the influence of work commitment on QWL is 0.669, indicating the partial effect of this factor on QWL, with other variables held constant. The positive coefficient suggests that a unit increase in work commitment corresponds to a 0.669 unit increase in QWL among professional CI engineers.

From the SEM analysis, the hypothetical relationships depicted in the research’s conceptual model were examined. The factors of QWL have significant positive factor loadings on their latent variable, with standardized coefficients of 0.751, 0.643, 0.765, 0.733, 0.689, 0.577, 0.666, and 0.669. The SEM model also reveals that the entire hypothesis stated in the conceptual model is significant at the 1% level. The study results show that all the model fitness values are within the expected range. Therefore, it is concluded that the SEM, which integrates factors that determine the QWL of professionals in CI, is a good fit.

6. Discussion

The research aimed to identify and quantify the QWL factors affecting the CI, and validate the association among these factors using SEM. The QWL construct was assessed through eight factors: career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration, fringe benefits, the work–family interface, emotional intelligence, work culture, and work commitment. RII analysis was used to rank the criteria of QWL in CI according to the relative importance given by construction professionals. Based on these ranking results, eight constructs were highlighted with RII index values. The career growth, the work–family interface, and emotional intelligence were measured by two items with the RII values. That reveals the a lower variability among the items and the level of relative importance with other constructs is also low. Whereas management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, and work commitment have higher relative importance values. The SEM analysis further validated the associations among these factors. All the hypotheses stated in the conceptual model regression weights were highly significant (p < 0.01). Each factor showed a positive impact on the QWL, implying that an increase in these factors corresponds to an increase in QWL among professional CI engineers. The model fitness values were within the expected range, confirming the goodness of fit of the SEM. The results of the SEM manifest that the chosen factors contribute better to the QWL of the professional construction engineers working in the CI, which means the CI has to focus on improving these factors in order to enhance the QWL of their employees. Among the given factors, job satisfaction plays a significant role in QWL of the professional construction engineers. Job satisfaction of the employees gives them mental strength during tough times whenever they face challenges in the job environment. It gives them courage to handle problems and they are able to perceive positive job pressures rather than negative, which may affect their health. Another important factor is career growth, which gives the professional construction engineers appropriate positions in their company according to their skills and abilities, with the relevant compensation packages and benefits. Construction professionals can achieve systematic career growth based on their performance in order to satisfy their financial and psychological needs.

Therefore, based on the results of the SEM model, it is concluded that the CI should focus on the above-mentioned factors in order to provide better QWL to their construction professionals. These findings align with previous research that emphasizes the importance of these factors in determining QWL. For instance, career growth has been identified as a significant contributor to QWL [66]. Similarly, the roles of job satisfaction, the work–family interface, and renumeration and fringe benefits in influencing QWL have been highlighted in several studies [65,66,67,68]. The finding that work culture and commitment is an important factor aligns with the study by [65,66], but opposite is true for management. Such contrasting results warrant further investigation and could be due to differences in the demographic profile of the respondents or the specific context of the CI in India. Engineers in the construction industry experience a lower quality of life due to a variety of factors such as high job stress, the nature of the organizational culture, and the work environment. This diminished lifestyle quality negatively impacts the balance between their work and personal life, leading to challenges in both their professional and personal spheres. This issue could be further explored by examining the specific factors that contribute to this poor lifestyle and how they relate to the QWL factors identified in this study. Similarly, the gendering of administration policies and work–life interventions are critical issues that deserve more attention. These issues could be further explored by examining the specific administration policies and interventions that contribute to this gender inequality and how they can be addressed to improve the QWL of women in the CI.

7. Conclusions

The purpose of this research is to reveal the outcomes obtained from the data collected from professionals in the CI in India through a quantitative approach. The RII method was used to infer that work commitment emerged as the most important factor, followed by management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, and work culture. SEM underscores the importance of career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, the work–family interface, emotional intelligence, work culture, and work commitment in determining the QWL in the CI. It provides valuable insights for organizations seeking to enhance the QWL of their professionals. The research on enhancing the QWL of engineers in the CI has engrossed different organizations, HR practitioners, and researchers in India and abroad. The QWL is an important characteristic for any organization to continue to recruit and retain professionals. The QWL is an intrinsic requisite designed to increase job performance, improve the learning process in the workplace, and result in better employee development and transition. The WLB, working conditions, career growth, and job satisfaction are construction professionals’ most important QWL dimensions. QWL encourages employees to divide their time by prioritizing and maintaining a balance of the proportion of time devote to family, health, vacations, and so on, along with their career, business, and travel. Organizations that have a satisfied workforce could achieve and sustain an advantageous position in the competitive market through the improved performance of their employees, because a satisfactory QWL generates positive energy in individuals and spreads across the community of employees. When there is a good relationship between employer and employee (a psychological contract) it builds a quality working life (QWL) [77,78]. Hence, the author of this paper is working on this gap, seeking to produce fruitful outcomes.

It was found and is emphasized that ensuring a QWL is essential if construction companies want to enhance their level of performance, as the performance of their employees is responsible for improving both the individual and organizational performance of construction organizations. Also, it will benefit the organization to increase its productivity and policy making, as this study identifies the affecting factors and their importance with the QWL. This aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being, which is committed to ensuring health and promoting the well-being of all individuals. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing a quantitative analysis of the determinants of QWL in the CI, offering valuable insights for organizations, HR practitioners, and researchers, specifically in the Indian context. The findings can guide organizations in the CI to develop strategies that enhance these factors, thereby improving the QWL of their professionals. However, this study is not without limitations. The sample size was limited to 724 respondents, which may not be representative of the entire CI. Future research could involve a larger and more diverse sample to validate these findings. Future research could adopt a longitudinal study design or qualitative methods to further explore the QWL among construction professionals. Also, as QWL differs in different organizations, countries, and contexts, it can be adopted for future studies.