Next Article in Journal
Blockchain-Based Strategy to Optimize Certified Notifications from Government Entities
Previous Article in Journal
Examining the Role of Organizational Culture on Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Environmental Knowledge and Attitude Toward Energy Savings
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Mediating Effect of Affective Commitment on the Relationship between Competence Development and Turnover Intentions: Does This Relationship Depend on the Employee’s Generation?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/admsci14090194
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Unequal Ground: Gender Disparities at Work Life in the Construction Industry

by
M. G. Soundarya Priya
and
K. S. Anandh
*
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 194; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090194
Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Revised: 22 August 2024 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published: 28 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Resource Development and Retention in the Digital Age: Best Practices and Technologies for Maximizing Positive Employee Outcomes)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research intends to explore how gender impacts different aspects of the quality of work life, emotional intelligence, and the work–family interface among professionals in the Indian construction industry. This study employs quantitative methodology using a questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were circulated to 900 construction professionals, and 724 valid responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 80.44%. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and independent sample t-Tests. The independent samples t-Test revealed significant (p < 0.05) gender disparities in various quality of work life factors, emotional intelligence, and work–family interface. Males had a more positive perception of career growth, management, and the working environment. In contrast, females experienced higher job satisfaction, work commitment, personal satisfaction towards their workplace and personal life, a higher work–family interface, and a better work–life balance. Females also experienced a higher level of physical exhaustion and had a higher level of emotional intelligence, while males experienced a higher level of mental exhaustion. There were no significant gender differences in satisfaction towards remuneration and fringe benefits, work culture, or the level of psychological exhaustion. The findings suggest that construction industry organizations could implement policies and practices that promote equal opportunities, provide support for work–family integration, and foster a culture of emotional intelligence. This research adds to the current body of knowledge by igniting novel empirical proof of gender-based differences in the Indian construction industry. It highlights the importance of addressing these disparities to improve the quality of work life, emotional intelligence, and work–family interface among professionals in the industry.

1. Introduction

The construction industry (CI) in India is a significant contributor to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), both directly and indirectly. It provides employment to 33 million people and has a considerable impact on several related sectors, including cement, steel, electronics, and skill development. The construction sector, consisting of more than 200 corporate organizations and approximately 120,000 Class A contractors registered with different government construction bodies, has undergone substantial expansion. It has made a notable contribution of 8% to the national GDP (The Indian Construction Sector 2016). Nevertheless, the CI is currently facing a scarcity of proficient and unskilled laborers, a predicament that can be attributed to the industry’s organizational culture and nature of work. The quality of work life (QWL) in the CI is determined by various kinds of factors, including skills, personal characteristics, educational background, work culture, working environment, passion for the industry, and capability (Major Challenges 2022). QWL is a multi-dimensional concept as defined by several authors, as it is a crucial factor in the philosophy of human resource productivity (Walton 1973). QWL is a “conscious international effort to improve labor–management relations to mutually address the issue of enhancing organizational performance and employee satisfaction” (Cohen and Rosenthal 1980). QWL is “an individual’s perception of and attitudes towards their work and the overall working environment” (Nadler and Lawler 1983). Professionals in the CI often face extended work hours, comparatively lower salaries than other sectors, inadequate working conditions, safety hazards, exposure to dangerous tasks, and physically demanding activities associated with the projects. These factors have a significant impact on the physical and social benefits experienced by the individual (Reizen 2019).
Extensive research on QWL has been carried out in developed countries as well as in several developing nations including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, Philippines, Egypt, and India. Despite this, the construction industry, particularly in developing countries such as India, has received limited attention compared to other sectors such as technology, healthcare, manufacturing, and education (Jayaraman et al. 2023). Based on data from Statista, the World Bank, and the International Labor Organization (ILO), the real estate and construction sector in India had a workforce of approximately 71 million people during the fiscal year of 2023. Curiously, the number of employees in this sector reached its lowest point in the fiscal year 2021, with a total of approximately 57.4 million workers (Rathore 2023). Existing research on India’s labor market highlights the disadvantages faced by these workers, which are evident in their engagement in informal employment, poor working conditions, lack of job security, and long working hours (Breman 2020).
The job nature and stress experienced by a construction professional are not the same as for other employees working in the manufacturing or service sectors. Also, it is found that there is a need to study the QWL of construction employees due to the variations in their lifestyles (Senthamizh Sankar et al. 2023). Few researchers have explored the relationship between the demands on work time, control over working hours, and supervisor support. The need for work time is positively correlated with the work–family interface (WFI). WFI also states the originality in examining the extent of demand on different configurations of job nature (Ngozi 2015; Zhang and Bowen 2021). The degree of work–life balance (WLB) and the deciding factors that influence the CI show that an inferior limit exists for professionals, and it generally reflects in the low WLB. On the other hand, implementing new technology, long working hours, and stress affect WLB. Further WLB activities bolstered by proper business culture can improve WLB in the CI (Lingard et al. 2015; Martínez-León et al. 2018; Zuo et al. 2018). The framework illuminates the problems and hurdles encountered by working women, providing valuable insights for human resource professionals. This knowledge can be used to formulate policies that enhance WLB for female employees and attract more skilled women to this sector. A recent study has shown that QWL was initially developed for professionals who often experience negative and positive job satisfaction, which indirectly affects the employee’s well-being due to work pressure (Zhang and Bowen 2021). Conversely, job dissatisfaction is primarily caused by a lack of recognition, excessive workloads, limited participation in decision-making, limited opportunities for career advancement, significant effort required, strained interpersonal relationships, insufficiently skilled workforce, increased cost of materials, adoption of new technologies, complexity of projects, frequent power outages, concerns about environmental sustainability, exposure to natural hazards, and unfavorable working conditions. Engineers working in the CI leave their profession due to high levels of job dissatisfaction (Engelen et al. 2022; Rotimi et al. 2023; Stein 1983).
Due to these reasons, the recent trends for providing the best QWL is an essential requirement for organizations to continue to draw and sustain engineers committed to the organization (Soundarya Priya and Anandh 2024). QWL is a concept that encompasses various aspects of an employee’s experience at work. It includes factors such as job satisfaction, work environment, career growth opportunities, and WLB (Sirgy et al. 2001). QWL is increasingly recognized as a critical factor in enhancing employee performance, commitment, and overall organizational effectiveness (Nayak et al. 2018; Soundarya Priya et al. 2023b). Despite its importance, QWL has received limited attention in the CI, particularly in the context of gender disparities (Soundarya Priya and Anandh 2024). Gender disparities in the workplace have been a topic of considerable interest in recent years. However, existing research has focused on industries such as technology, finance, and healthcare, with less attention given to the CI (Agarwal et al. 2024; Powell et al. 2009; Singhapakdi et al. 2014). Given the male-dominated nature of the CI, it is crucial to examine the influence of gender on various factors related to the QWL. This study aims to explore the gender disparities in the quality of work life (QWL), emotional intelligence (EI), and work–family interface (WFI) among professionals in the construction industry (CI). The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
  • Does gender influence the perception of career growth, management, job satisfaction, satisfaction towards remuneration and fringe benefits, satisfaction towards working environment, work culture, and work commitment?
  • Does gender influence the levels of physical exhaustion, mental exhaustion, psychological exhaustion, and emotional intelligence?
  • Does gender influence the frequency of issues at home/workplace, personal satisfaction towards workplace and personal life, work–family interface (WFI), and work–life balance (WLB)?
This research study also aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on gender disparities in the workplace and provide valuable insights for practitioners in the CI. The findings of this study could give insights into the development of gender-inclusive policies and practices that enhance the QWL, EI, and WFI for all employees in the CI.

2. Gender Disparity in CI

2.1. QWL

QWL is a concept that encompasses various elements that contribute to an individual’s job satisfaction, which are derived from their working conditions (Singhapakdi et al. 2014; Sirgy et al. 2001; Warr et al. 1979). Understanding QWL satisfaction requires identifying the key components of working conditions, especially the experience of the work environment (Easton et al. 2013). These elements cannot be sufficiently explained individually; they must be considered as a whole (Van Laar et al. 2007). Various aspects, such as the interface between home and work or support in the workplace, can be taken into account. Furthermore, it is recommended to distinguish between the causes, specifically the working conditions, and the effects, namely the perception of QWL, in order to effectively target appropriate interventions in the workplace (Jayaraman et al. 2023; Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023). A recent survey in France (IFOP 2022) revealed that only 37% of women occupy managerial positions, indicating a significant gender gap. This study examines the QWL of women and managers in the face of these gender disparities. Numerous investigations examining gender disparities in job satisfaction have discovered that despite women experiencing more unfavorable working conditions, job rewards, and job values, there is no discernible disparity in overall job satisfaction between women and men (Bokemeier and Lacy 1987; Singhapakdi et al. 2014). Recent research has explored the effects of extrinsic/intrinsic rewards, work relationships, and WLB rewards on job satisfaction (Andrade et al. 2019). They found no differences in job satisfaction between women and men, leading some authors to term this phenomenon as the “gender-job satisfaction paradox” (Mihajlov et al. 2021). By examining the satisfaction dimensions, the authors reveal different sources of satisfaction. These findings highlight the need to refine the measurement of job satisfaction by considering different sources of satisfaction, such as various dimensions of working conditions. These dimensions should be included when measuring the QWL (Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023). Studies show that women tend to have a lower quality of work life (QWL) compared to men, specifically in relation to the work environment and work organization, such as role ambiguity and decision latitude (Schoepke et al. 2004). However, women tend to have a better QWL when it comes to social relationships in the workplace (Marcacine et al. 2019). Therefore, a similar outcome could be anticipated in this study.

2.2. EI

EI is the ability to recognize and manage one’s own emotions and those of others, and it has a significant role in the CI (Sunindijo and Zou 2013). EI involves the interplay between emotion and cognition, as well as self-regulation, either individually or in interaction with others (Chun et al. 2010; Kukah et al. 2022). Over the past twenty years, studies have shown that construction managers with high EI are likely to possess excellent communication skills and exhibit creativity and innovation when tackling complex tasks, leading to successful projects (Goleman 2005; Konanahalli and Oyedele 2016; Takšić et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018). EI can be divided into three distinct categories: perceiving emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (Lam and Kirby 2002; Pellitteri 2002). Two main aspects of EI have been identified in research: the skill-based and trait-based models. The skill-based model defines EI as an individual’s ability to reason about emotions (Mayer and Salovey 1993), while the trait-based model describes EI as a collection of competencies, abilities, dimensions, and personal skills that influence an individual’s capacity to handle pressures and demands (Bar-On 2004; Ogińska-Bulik 2005). Nelson and Low’s model emphasizes intra-personal psychology to assist an individual in self-development, leading to a lasting self-discovery of personal strengths. In the CI, EI competencies such as assertiveness, leadership skills, team-building characteristics, conflict resolution, and high self-control in the face of provocation contribute to improved personal and project performance, inspired leadership, increased resilience against stress, enhanced communication skills, and boosted confidence among project practitioners (Kukah et al. 2022; Lawani et al. 2024; Sankar et al. 2024). However, the research does not explicitly state the gender differences in EI within the CI. A study on construction management MSc students suggested that there are variations in EI growth depending on gender and age. However, the limited size of the sample hinders from making conclusive statements (Mo and R.J. 2007). More research is needed to investigate the role of gender in EI within the CI. It is important to note that the findings can vary depending on the cultural context and the specific measures used in the studies.

2.3. WFI

WLB in the CI is complex and influenced by various factors, including gender and organization size (Turner et al. 2009). Companies often implement work life interventions to address issues related to gender equality, flexible working systems, stress management strategies, wellness programs, and childcare (de Sivatte et al. 2015; Zhang and Bowen 2021). This imbalance between professional and personal life can result in emotional exhaustion, stress, cynicism, and decreased performance, reducing profits (Anandh and Gunasekaran 2016; Turner et al. 2009). Gender plays a significant role in the WFI. Social role theory suggests that societal norms often designate men as primary earners while women manage domestic responsibilities (Eagly and Wood 2012). This traditional division of labor influences how each gender values various aspects of their lives, including their perceptions of WLB (Kaufman and Taniguchi 2019; Major 1993). Men are typically more task-oriented, deriving self-esteem from their work roles, while women tend to be more relationship-oriented (Babin and Boles 1998). In male-dominated industries such as construction, these gender differences are particularly evident (Fielden et al. 2000; Watts 2009). Women in the CI often report higher levels of work stress than men (Kamardeen and Sunindijo 2017) and find the work environment to be discriminatory and hostile (Agarwal et al. 2024; Dainty et al. 1999). Organizational barriers further limit women’s participation and effectiveness in the construction workforce (Al-Dalaeen and Tarawneh 2022; Suresh et al. 2023; Tijani et al. 2022). Work–family conflict is a situation where the demands of work and non-work roles are mutually incompatible (Agarwal et al. 2024; Greenhaus and Beutell 1985) and are linked to adverse health effects for the worker, such as overall well-being, psychological stress, and unhealthy eating habits (Allen et al. 2000; Allen and Armstrong 2006; Christoforou et al. 2024; Colenberg et al. 2021). Studies in the Australian CI have explored the precursors of this conflict, revealing that workers experience high levels of work–family conflict, which are predicated on excessive job requirements, including extended and irregular working hours (Lingard and Francis 2004; Turner and Mariani 2016). The interaction between work and family roles in the construction industry is complex and influenced by various factors (Soundarya Priya et al. 2023a), including gender. Employers should take careful notice of the factors that affect the QWL and implement strategies to address specific issues concerning gender equality, flexible working systems, stress management strategies, wellness programs, and childcare (Lingard et al. 2010; Zhang and Bowen 2021). In conclusion, the interaction between work and family roles in the CI is complex and influenced by various factors, including gender.

3. Data Collection and Questionnaire Design

This study on the QWL, EI, and WFI in the CI utilizes a modified structured questionnaire, which is adapted from established questionnaires in the literature (Edwards et al. 2009; Kukah et al. 2022; Lee et al. 2015; Lingard et al. 2012; Mazerolle et al. 2015). The questionnaire is tailored to the individual professional level of selected private construction companies in India. A pilot study was conducted with a sample of 80 construction professionals prior to the main survey to validate the questionnaire’s reliability and content validity. The pilot study revealed that some items in the questionnaire were ambiguous or difficult to understand, and Cronbach’s alpha for a few subscales was below the acceptable threshold of 0.7. Based on these findings, the revised questionnaire included the ambiguous items rephrased, a few items that were not contributing to the internal consistency of the subscales had been removed, and a few items had been modified to improve the content validity of the questionnaire. The revised main study structured questionnaires were distributed to 900 construction professionals through in-person visits and online platforms between February 2023 and March 2024. This process yielded 759 responses in return and a valid count of 724 responses was considered for this research, therefore indicating a response rate of 80.44%. The data collection process entailed circulating the questionnaires to professionals in the CI and subsequently gathering and scrutinizing their responses to derive conclusions regarding the QWL in the industry. The participants were notified that their contribution was voluntary and that their responses would be kept confidential. The study complied with the university’s ethical principles and guidelines. The questionnaire comprised several categories of variables with a total of 92 items. These categories included career growth (4 items) (Edwards et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2015); management (12 items) (Lee et al. 2015; Lingard et al. 2012); job satisfaction (17 items) (Edwards et al. 2009); remuneration and fringe benefits (14 items) (Lee et al. 2015); work–life interface (Lingard et al. 2012; Mazerolle et al. 2015)—issues at home (12 items) and personal satisfaction (10 items); emotional intelligence (Kukah et al. 2022)—physical exhaustion (4 items); mental exhaustion (6 items) and psychological exhaustion (4 items); work culture (4 items) (Lee et al. 2015; Lingard et al. 2012); and work commitment (5 items) (Lee et al. 2015). Each category contained specific items related to the QWL, EI, and WFI in the CI, and respondents rated using a 5-point Likert’s scale for each item as it can capture a range of responses on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

The demographic information collected as part of the study included the respondents’ gender, age (in years), marital status, education qualification, work experience in their present organization (in years), and level of management (all presented in Figure 1).
From Figure 1, it can be observed that 71.5% of the sampled respondents are males and the remaining 28.5% are females. A few decades ago, females did not tend to opt for jobs in the CI; however, recently the CI developed many job opportunities for women, which caused a considerable increase in female representation. The majority of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 38, with 53.6% in the 18–28 age group and 40.2% in the 29–38 age group. Only a small percentage of respondents were in the 39–48 and 49–58 age groups (2.9% and 3.3%, respectively). This suggests that the CI organizations’ workforce is relatively young. The 724 respondents were an almost equal blend of single (48.1%) and married (50.4%), with a very small percentage falling into the ‘others’ category (1.5%), which included divorced and widows/widowers. It can be observed that more than half of the respondents (52.8%) had an undergraduate degree, while 39.5% had a postgraduate degree, and 7.7% had a diploma. This suggests that the industry workforce is highly educated. From the collected data, it is evident that the majority of respondents (56.1%) had between 1 to 5 years of experience in their organization, 18.1% had less than 1 year of experience, 21.5% had between 6 and 15 years of experience, and only 4.3% had more than 15 years of experience. This suggests that the organizations had a relatively high turnover rate or they were growing and hiring new employees. The results show that the respondents were almost equally divided between the junior level (44.6%) and middle level (43.8%), with a smaller percentage at the senior level (11.6%). This suggests a typical hierarchical structure in the organizations.

4.2. Reliability Analysis

A reliability test was carried out as a start-up for the analysis to check the reliability or internal consistency of the study questionnaire before analysis. In this study, the Cronbach alpha value is 0.924, and the Cronbach alpha based on standardized items is 0.928. Both of these values are close to 1, indicating a high level of internal consistency for the scale with 92 items. This suggests that the items in the study questionnaire are closely related as a group and likely measure the same underlying construct. The data collection has a robust internal efficiency of more than 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha (McCall 1994).

4.3. Independent Sample t-Test

The t-Test carried out independently for the samples associates the mean of two independent sets to state whether there is a statistical indication that related population means are significantly dissimilar or not. The objective of this study is (1) to investigate the influence of gender on various QWL factors such as career growth, management, job satisfaction, remuneration and fringe benefits, working environment, work culture, and work commitment; (2) to investigate the influence of gender on various factors related to EI, such as physical exhaustion, mental exhaustion, psychological exhaustion, and EI itself; and (3) to investigate the influence of gender on various factors related to WFI, such as the frequency of issues at home/workplace, personal satisfaction towards workplace/personal life, WFI, and WLB.

4.3.1. Gender vs. QWL Factors

The t-Test was executed to recognize the presence of significant gender-based perception differences for various QWL factors among constructional professionals (Table 1).
Hypothesis H0:
There is no significant difference in the perception of QWL factors between males and females.
Hypothesis H1:
There is a significant difference in the perception of QWL factors between males and females.
Levene’s test for the equality of variances was conducted, and the results are disclosed in t-test tables, where N = number of samples, F = F ratio, T = t-Test value, and p-value = level of significance. These results are analyzed to verify that both groups (i.e., male and female construction professional engineers) had equal variances, confirming the existence of homogeneity between the two groups at a 5% significance level.
There is a significant difference in the perception of career growth between males (M = 13.41, SD = 2.744) and females (M = 12.76, SD = 2.617); t-value = 2.940, p = 0.003. It is observed that males experience higher career growth than females. There is a significant difference in the perception of management between males (M = 42.53, SD = 8.834) and females (M = 33.02, SD = 12.328); t-value = 11.599, p < 0.001. This suggests that males have a more positive perception of management than females. There is a significant difference in job satisfaction between males (M = 56.97, SD = 11.042) and females (M = 61.00, SD = 13.608); t-value = −4.142, p < 0.001. This suggests that females are more satisfied with their jobs than males. There is no significant difference in satisfaction towards remuneration and fringe benefits between males (M = 28.12, SD = 5.936) and females (M = 28.68, SD = 6.152); t-value = −1.129, p = 0.259. This suggests that both genders are equally satisfied with their remuneration and fringe benefits, indicating that the organizations surveyed are providing equal remuneration to both genders. There is a significant difference in satisfaction towards the working environment between males (M = 22.46, SD = 5.458) and females (M = 20.80, SD = 4.071); t-value = 3.966, p < 0.001. This suggests that males are more satisfied with the working environment than females. There is no significant difference in the perception of work culture between males (M = 14.72, SD = 3.461) and females (M = 14.27, SD = 3.895); t-value = 1.519, p = 0.129. This suggests that both genders perceive the work culture similarly, indicating that the organizations surveyed have cultivated a work culture that is perceived similarly by both genders. There is a significant difference in work commitment between males (M = 19.25, SD = 3.712) and females (M = 20.25, SD = 3.515); t-value = −3.328, p = 0.001. This suggests that females show higher work commitment than males.

4.3.2. Gender vs. EI

This t-Test was performed to recognize the presence of a significant mean difference persisting between gender and EI in the CI, as shown in Table 2.
Hypothesis H0:
There is no significant difference in the levels of physical exhaustion, mental exhaustion, psychological exhaustion, and EI between males and females.
Hypothesis H1:
There is a significant difference in the levels of physical exhaustion, mental exhaustion, psychological exhaustion, and EI between males and females.
There is a significant difference in the level of physical exhaustion between males (M = 11.05, SD = 3.958) and females (M = 15.04, SD = 3.713); t-value = 3.163, p < 0.001. This suggests that females experience a higher level of physical exhaustion than males. There is a significant difference in the level of mental exhaustion between males (M = 17.35, SD = 4.045) and females (M = 15.94, SD = 5.066); t-value = −4.424, p < 0.001. This suggests that males experience a higher level of mental exhaustion than females. There is no significant difference in the level of psychological exhaustion between males (M = 10.63, SD = 3.791) and females (M = 10.99, SD = 3.524); t(722) = −1.185, p = 0.236. This suggests that both genders experience a similar level of psychological exhaustion. There is a significant difference in the level of EI between males (M = 39.03, SD = 8.390) and females (M = 41.97, SD = 7.918); t-value = −3.379, p < 0.001. This suggests that females have a higher level of EI than males.

4.3.3. Gender vs. WFI

This t-Test was performed to recognize the existence of significant differences between genders towards various factors of WFI, as shown in Table 3.
Hypothesis H0:
There is no significant difference in the frequency of issues at home/workplace, personal satisfaction with workplace/personal life, WFI, and WLB between males and females.
Hypothesis H1:
There is a significant difference in the frequency of issues at home/workplace, personal satisfaction with workplace/personal life, WFI, and WLB between males and females.
There is a significant difference in the frequency of issues at home/workplace between males (M = 37.44, SD = 10.768) and females (M = 34.40, SD = 9.803); t-value = 3.516, p < 0.001. This suggests that males experience a higher frequency of issues at home/workplace than females. There is a significant difference in personal satisfaction towards workplace/personal life between males (M = 23.58, SD = 9.995) and females (M = 32.00, SD = 9.677); t-value = −5.405, p < 0.001. This suggests that females experience higher personal satisfaction in their workplace and personal life than males. There is a significant difference in the WFI between males (M = 61.03, SD = 14.639) and females (M = 66.39, SD = 14.151); t-value = −3.145, p = 0.002. This suggests that females have a higher WFI than males. There was a significant difference in WLB between males (M = 34.57, SD = 30.152) and females (M = 43.51, SD = 28.438); t-value = −2.791, p = 0.004. This suggests that females have a better WLB than males.

5. Discussion

5.1. Gender vs. QWL

The findings of this research provide valuable insights into the influence of gender on various QWL factors among professionals in the CI. The results suggest that gender significantly influences some QWL factors while it does not significantly impact others. The study found that males experience higher career growth than females, which could be attributed to societal norms and expectations or organizational policies and practices that favor males in terms of career advancement opportunities (Gospel 2003; Smith 2022). This finding is consistent with previous research that has reported gender disparities in career growth perceptions (Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023; Johnson and Mathur-Helm 2011). Regarding management, males were found to have a more positive perception than females. This could be due to the traditionally male-dominated nature of the CI, which may lead to management practices and styles that are more relatable to males (Choi et al. 2020; Dainty et al. 2000). Interestingly, females were found to be more satisfied with their jobs than males. This could be due to various factors, such as the value placed on WLB, the nature of the tasks performed, or the level of support received from colleagues and supervisors (Bokemeier and Lacy 1987; Andrade et al. 2019; Mihajlov et al. 2021; Singhapakdi et al. 2014). There was no significant difference in satisfaction towards remuneration and fringe benefits between males and females, suggesting that the organizations surveyed were providing equal remuneration to both genders. This is a positive finding, as it indicates a level of gender equality in terms of pay and benefits in these organizations (Elmuti et al. 2009; Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023). Males were found to be more satisfied with the working environment than females. This could be due to the physical nature of the CI being more suited to males (Choi et al. 2020; Marcacine et al. 2019; Powell et al. 2012). There was no significant difference in the perception of work culture between males and females, indicating that the organizations surveyed cultivated a work culture perceived similarly by both genders. This shows that these organizations have been successful in creating an inclusive work culture that values and respects all employees, regardless of their gender (Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023; Schoepke et al. 2004). Females were found to show higher work commitment than males. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as higher levels of job satisfaction, a greater sense of responsibility, or a stronger desire to prove themselves in a male-dominated industry (Meyer et al. 2002; Salès-Wuillemin et al. 2023).

5.2. Gender vs. EI

The findings of this research provide valuable insights into the influence of gender on various factors related to EI among professionals in the CI. The study found that females experience a higher level of physical exhaustion than males. This could be attributed to the physically demanding nature of the CI, which may disproportionately affect females (Lawani et al. 2024; Johnson and Mathur-Helm 2011). In terms of mental exhaustion, males were found to experience a higher level than females. This could be due to the traditionally male-dominated nature of the CI, which may lead to increased mental stress and pressure on males (Dainty et al. 2000; Lawani et al. 2024). Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the level of psychological exhaustion between males and females. This could be due to various factors, such as the nature of the tasks performed, the level of support received from colleagues and supervisors, or the coping strategies employed by individuals (Kukah et al. 2022; Siron et al. 2013). Females were found to have a higher level of EI than males. This could be due to inherent gender differences in emotional processing and understanding or the socialization processes that encourage females to develop higher EI (Elmuti et al. 2009; Kukah et al. 2022).

5.3. Gender vs. WFI

The findings of this research provide valuable insights into the influence of gender on various factors related to WFI among professionals in the CI. The study found that males experience a higher frequency of issues at home/workplace than females. This could be because traditionally males in the CI perform highly physically demanding jobs, which may lead to increased stress and pressure (Soundarya Priya et al. 2023a; Zhang and Bowen 2021). In terms of personal satisfaction in the workplace/personal life, females were found to have higher satisfaction than males. This could be due to various factors, such as the nature of the tasks performed, the level of support received from colleagues and supervisors, or the coping strategies employed by individuals (Eby et al. 2005; Hammer et al. 2011; Zhang and Bowen 2021). Females were found to have a higher WFI than males. This could be due to inherent gender differences in emotional processing and understanding or the socialization processes that encourage females to develop higher EI (Chung and van der Lippe 2020; Turner and Mariani 2016). In terms of WLB, females were found to have a better balance than males. This could be due to various factors, such as the value placed on WLB, the nature of the tasks performed, or the level of support received from colleagues and supervisors (Agarwal et al. 2024; Chung and van der Lippe 2020).

6. Conclusions

The research aimed to investigate the influence of gender on various factors related to the quality of work life, emotional intelligence, and work–family interface among professionals in the construction industry. The study found that gender significantly influences some QWL factors. Males had a more positive perception of career growth, management, and the working environment, while females had higher job satisfaction and work commitment. There were no significant gender differences in satisfaction towards remuneration and fringe benefits or work culture. In terms of EI, females reported a significantly higher level of physical exhaustion and EI, while males reported a higher level of mental exhaustion. There were no significant gender differences in psychological exhaustion. Regarding the WFI, males experienced a higher frequency of issues at home/workplace while females experienced higher personal satisfaction in their workplace/personal life, a higher WFI, and a better WLB. These findings provide valuable insights into the influence of gender on various factors related to the QWL, EI, and WFI. However, it also highlights the need for further research to understand the reasons behind these differences and their implications for workplace policies and practices. In conclusion, the study underscores the importance of considering gender differences in the workplace and suggests that more efforts are needed to ensure equality and inclusivity in the CI. The findings of this study make several distinctive contributions to the existing literature on gender disparities in the workplace. Firstly, by focusing specifically on the Indian construction industry, this research sheds light on gender dynamics within a sector that has received relatively less scholarly attention compared to other industries. The unique context of the construction industry, characterized by its male dominance and physically demanding nature, offers a valuable opportunity to examine the specific challenges and experiences faced by women in this field. The study’s findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how gender operates within this particular sector, which can inform targeted interventions to promote gender equality. Secondly, this research employs a multifaceted approach by investigating the interplay of the quality of work life (QWL), emotional intelligence (EI), and work–family interface (WFI). This comprehensive perspective goes beyond examining isolated factors and highlights the interconnectedness of various aspects of the work experience. The study’s findings reveal the complex ways in which gender influences these factors, offering a more holistic understanding of gender disparities in the workplace. Finally, the study’s focus on the Indian context adds a unique dimension to the existing literature, as it explores gender disparities within a specific cultural and societal framework. The findings can contribute to a broader understanding of how cultural factors intersect with gender to shape workplace experiences and outcomes. By understanding the gender differences in the QWL, EI, and WFI, organizations can develop more effective strategies to improve employee satisfaction, well-being, and performance. This aligns with Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 5: Good Health and Well-Being and Gender Equality, which is committed to ensuring health and equality, and promoting the well-being of all individuals.

6.1. Practical Implications

The findings of this study have several practical implications for organizations, particularly those in the CI. Understanding the influence of gender on various factors related to the QWL, EI, and WFI can help organizations develop more effective human resource management strategies. For instance, organizations can use these insights to design gender-inclusive policies and practices that enhance the QWL, EI, and WFI for all employees. This could include initiatives to promote equal career growth opportunities, create a positive work environment, provide ergonomic workstations, and improve job satisfaction for all genders. Moreover, organizations can use these findings to address issues related to physical and mental exhaustion among employees by encouraging open communications and training to enhance EI. This could involve implementing wellness programs, providing flexible work arrangements, or offering support services to help employees manage work-related stress and maintain a healthy WLB, fostering a culture of respect and equality, where all employees feel valued and empowered to contribute their best.

6.2. Limitations and Future Studies

While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The sample was predominantly male, which may have influenced the results and interpretations of the study. The experiences and perspectives of females might be underrepresented, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to response bias. Furthermore, the study was cross-sectional in nature, which prevents the establishment of causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine the changes over time and the causal relationships between gender and factors related to the QWL, EI, and WFI. A healthy relationship between employers and employees, often referred to as the Psychological Contract (M G et al. 2024; Soundarya Priya et al. 2022), contributes to a high-quality work life (QWL). The author of this paper addresses this gap with the intent of producing beneficial results. Future research could aim to include a more diverse sample in terms of gender, age, marital status, educational qualifications, experience, and level of management. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors investigated in this study. Additionally, qualitative studies could be conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences and perspectives of professionals in the CI. This could involve conducting interviews or focus group discussions to explore the issues in more depth.
Overall, this study is a step toward understanding the complex dynamics of gender disparities in the workplace. Hopefully, the findings of this study can stimulate further research and discussion on gender disparities in the workplace, particularly by (1) prompting investigations into the root causes of the identified gender disparities in the construction industry, (2) encouraging further exploration of the complex relationships between the QWL, EI, and WFI, and their implications for gender equality, and (3) inspiring cross-cultural and inter-industry comparisons to understand the nuances of gender disparities in diverse contexts. The practical implications of this research can also motivate future studies that assess the effectiveness of various interventions aimed at fostering a more equitable and inclusive work environment. The ultimate goal is to create a workplace environment where everyone, regardless of their gender, can thrive and succeed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G.S.P.; methodology, M.G.S.P. and K.S.A.; software, M.G.S.P.; validation, M.G.S.P. and K.S.A.; formal analysis, M.G.S.P.; investigation, M.G.S.P.; resources, K.S.A.; data curation, M.G.S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.S.P.; writing—review and editing, M.G.S.P. and K.S.A.; visualization, M.G.S.P.; supervision, K.S.A.; project administration, K.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Institutional Ethics Committee of the SRM Institute of Science and Technology approved the research project (Ethical Clearance Number: 8503/IEC/2023, Dated on: 25 January 2023). The research was carried out in accordance with the principles set forth by the Institutional Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

All participants included in this study were provided with a participant information sheet and an informed consent form was obtained.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express our gratitude to the Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed to be University). The authors thank all the respondents who answered our questionnaire. We would also like to express our gratitude to the editor, and anonymous reviewers of this paper for their work and contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Agarwal, Upasna A., Rupashree Baral, and Mansi Rastogi. 2024. Work–family conflict and work engagement among construction professionals: Role of psychological contract breach and gender. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Dalaeen, Aswan S., and Sultan Tarawneh. 2022. Obstacles Facing Women Working in The Jordanian Construction Industry: Women’s Perspective. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management 12: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allen, Tammy D., and Jeremy Armstrong. 2006. Further Examination of the Link Between Work-Family Conflict and Physical Health. American Behavioral Scientist 49: 1204–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allen, Tammy D., David E. L. Herst, Carly S. Bruck, and Martha Sutton. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5: 278–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anandh, K. S., and K. Gunasekaran. 2016. Constructing a model to examine the influence of quality of work-life on work-life balance—Discernment of civil engineers from construction industry in Chennai. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Andrade, Maureen Snow, Jonathan H. Westover, and Jeff Peterson. 2019. Job Satisfaction and Gender. Journal of Business Diversity 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Babin, Barry J., and James S. Boles. 1998. Employee Behavior in a Service Environment: A Model and Test of Potential Differences between Men and Women. Journal of Marketing 62: 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bar-On, Reuven. 2004. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, Description and Summary of Psychometric Properties. Edited by G. Geher. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bokemeier, Janet L., and William B. Lacy. 1987. Job Values, Rewards, and Work Conditions as Factors in Job Satisfaction among Men and Women. The Sociological Quarterly 28: 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Breman, Jan. 2020. The Pandemic in India and Its Impact on Footloose Labour. Indian Journal of Labour Economics 63: 901–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Choi, Seung Hye, Eun Young Choi, and Haeyoung Lee. 2020. Comparison of job quality indices affecting work–life balance in South Korea according to employee gender. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 4819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Christoforou, Rania, Svenja Lange, and Marcel Schweiker. 2024. Individual differences in the definitions of health and well-being and the underlying promotional effect of the built environment. Journal of Building Engineering 84: 108560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chun, Jae Uk, Barrie E. Litzky, John J. Sosik, Diane C. Bechtold, and Veronica M. Godshalk. 2010. Emotional Intelligence and Trust in Formal Mentoring Programs. Group & Organization Management 35: 421–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chung, Heejung, and Tanja van der Lippe. 2020. Flexible Working, Work–Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research 151: 365–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cohen, R., and E. Rosenthal. 1980. Should union participate in quality of work life activities. The Quality of Work Life-the Canadian Scene 1: 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  16. Colenberg, Susanne, Tuuli Jylhä, and Monique Arkesteijn. 2021. The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being—A literature review. Building Research & Information 49: 352–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dainty, Andrew R. J., Barbara M. Bagilhole, and Richard H. Neale. 2000. a grounded theory of women’s career under-achievement in large UK construction companies. Construction Management and Economics 18: 239–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dainty, Andrew R. J., Richard H. Neale, and Barbara M. Bagilhole. 1999. Women’s careers in large construction companies: Expectations unfulfilled? Career Development International 4: 353–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. de Sivatte, Isabel, Judith R. Gordon, Pilar Rojo, and Ricardo Olmos. 2015. The impact of work-life culture on organizational productivity. Personnel Review 44: 883–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eagly, A. H., and W. Wood. 2012. Social role theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Edited by P. A. M. Van Lange, E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanskiand. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  21. Easton, Simon, Darren Van Laar, and Rachel Marlow-Vardy. 2013. Quality of Working Life and the Police. Management 3: 135–41. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eby, Lillian T., Wendy J. Casper, Angie Lockwood, Chris Bordeaux, and Andi Brinley. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior 66: 124–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Edwards, Julian A., Darren Van Laar, Simon Easton, and Gail Kinman. 2009. The Work-related Quality of Life Scale for Higher Education Employees. Quality in Higher Education 15: 207–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Elmuti, Dean, Heather Jia, and Henry H. Davis. 2009. Challenges women face in leadership positions and organizational effectiveness: An investigation. Journal of Leadership Education 8: 167–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Engelen, Lina, Margie Rahmann, and Ellen de Jong. 2022. Design for healthy ageing—The relationship between design, well-being, and quality of life: A review. Building Research & Information 50: 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fielden, Sandra L., Marilyn J. Davidson, Andrew W. Gale, and Caroline L. Davey. 2000. Women in construction: The untapped resource. Construction Management and Economics 18: 113–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goleman, D. 2005. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gospel, Howard. 2003. Quality of Working Life: A Review on Changes in Work Organization, Conditions of Employment and Work-Life Arrangements. Geneva: International Labour Office. [Google Scholar]
  29. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1985. Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. The Academy of Management Review 10: 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hammer, Leslie B., Ellen Ernst Kossek, W. Kent Anger, Todd Bodner, and Kristi L. Zimmerman. 2011. Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 134–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. IFOP. 2022. Le Nouveau Rôle Central Des Managers et l’enjeu de La Reconnaissance au Travail. Available online: https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Focus-233-Le-nouveau-role-central-des-managers-et-lenjeu-de-la-reconnaissance-au-travail.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
  32. Jayaraman, Samuel, Hesil Jerda George, Mariadoss Siluvaimuthu, and Satyanarayana Parayitam. 2023. Quality of Work Life as a Precursor to Work–Life Balance: Collegiality and Job Security as Moderators and Job Satisfaction as a Mediator. Sustainability 15: 9936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Johnson, Z., and B. Mathur-Helm. 2011. Experiences with Queen Bees: A South African Study Exploring the Reluctance of Women Executives to Promote Other Women in the Workplace. South African Journal of Business Management 42: 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kamardeen, Imriyas, and Riza Yosia Sunindijo. 2017. Personal Characteristics Moderate Work Stress in Construction Professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 143: 04017072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kaufman, Gayle, and Hiromi Taniguchi. 2019. Gender equality and work–family conflict from a cross-national perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 60: 385–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Konanahalli, Ashwini, and Lukumon O. Oyedele. 2016. Emotional intelligence and British expatriates’ cross-cultural adjustment in international construction projects. Construction Management and Economics 34: 751–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kukah, Augustine Senanu, Isaac Akomea-Frimpong, Xiaohua Jin, and Robert Osei-Kyei. 2022. Emotional intelligence (EI) research in the construction industry: A review and future directions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 29: 4267–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lam, Laura Thi, and Susan L. Kirby. 2002. Is Emotional Intelligence an Advantage? An Exploration of the Impact of Emotional and General Intelligence on Individual Performance. The Journal of Social Psychology 142: 133–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lawani, Kenneth, Luis Alfredo Arias Abad, Nigel Craig, Billy Hare, and Iain Cameron. 2024. Exploring emotional intelligence and conflict management styles in Dominican Republic construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 22: 89–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, Jin-Soo, Ki-Joon Back, and Eric S. W. Chan. 2015. Quality of work life and job satisfaction among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27: 768–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lingard, Helen, and Valerie Francis. 2004. The work-life experiences of office and site-based employees in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics 22: 991–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lingard, Helen, Michelle Turner, and Sara Charlesworth. 2015. Growing pains: Work-life impacts in small-to-medium sized construction firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 22: 312–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lingard, Helen, Valerie Francis, and Michelle Turner. 2010. Work-Family Conflict in Construction: Case for a Finer-Grained Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136: 1196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lingard, Helen, Valerie Francis, and Michelle Turner. 2012. Work time demands, work time control and supervisor support in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 19: 647–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Major, Brenda. 1993. Gender, Entitlement, and the Distribution of Family Labor. Journal of Social Issues 49: 141–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Major Challenges. 2022. Available online: https://www.constructconnect.com/blog/4-major-challenges-facing-the-construction-industry (accessed on 29 December 2023).
  47. Marcacine, Patrícia Ribeiro, Sybelle de Souza Castro, Shamyr Sulyvan de Castro, Maria Cristina Cortez Carneiro Meirelles, Vanderlei José Haas, and Isabel Aparecida Porcatti de Walsh. 2019. Quality of life, sociodemographic and occupational factors of working women. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 24: 749–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Martínez-León, Inocencia María, Isabel Olmedo-Cifuentes, and Ma Camino Ramón-Llorens. 2018. Work, personal and cultural factors in engineers’ management of their career satisfaction. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 47: 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mayer, John D., and Peter Salovey. 1993. The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence 17: 433–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mazerolle, Stephanie M., Christianne Marie Eason, and Walter A. Trisdale. 2015. Work-Life Balance Perspectives of Male NCAA Division I Athletic Trainers: Strategies and Antecedents. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care 7: 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McCall, R. B. 1994. Fundamental Statistics for Behavioural Sciences. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. [Google Scholar]
  52. Meyer, John P., David J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky. 2002. Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. M G, Soundarya Priya, Anandh K.S., Sathyanarayanan Rajendran, and Krishna Nirmalya Sen. 2024. The role of psychological contract in enhancing safety climate and safety behavior in the construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mihajlov, Snežana, Nenad Mihajlov, and Goran Perić. 2021. Gender differences in job satisfaction among employees in Serbia. Ekonomski Pogledi 23: 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mo, Yi Yi, and Andrew R.J. 2007. Measuring and Enhancing the Emotional Intelligence of Construction Management Students: An Empirical Investigation. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 2: 110–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nadler, David A., and Edward E. Lawler. 1983. Quality of work life: Perspectives and directions. Organizational Dynamics 11: 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nayak, Tanaya, Chandan Kumar Sahoo, and Pravat Kumar Mohanty. 2018. workplace empowerment, quality of work life and employee commitment: A study on indian healthcare sector. Journal of Asia Business Studies 12: 117–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ngozi, Chukwuemeke Deborah. 2015. Work life balance and employee performance in selected commercial banks in lagos state. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences 3: 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ogińska-Bulik, Nina. 2005. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational stress and health outcomes in human service workers. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 18: 167–75. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pellitteri, John. 2002. The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Ego Defense Mechanisms. The Journal of Psychology 136: 182–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Powell, Abigail, Andrew Dainty, and Barbara Bagilhole. 2012. Gender stereotypes among women engineering and technology students in the UK: Lessons from career choice narratives. European Journal of Engineering Education 37: 541–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Powell, Abigail, Barbara Bagilhole, and Andrew Dainty. 2009. How Women Engineers Do and Undo Gender: Consequences for Gender Equality. Gender, Work & Organization 16: 411–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rathore, M. 2023. Employment in Real Estate and Construction Sector in India FY 2017–2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1213080/india-employees-in-real-estate-and-construction-sector/ (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  64. Reizen, Richard S. 2019. Issues in Construction Industry. Available online: http://www.gouldratner.com/publication/issues-facing-the-construction-industry-in-2019 (accessed on 19 September 2021).
  65. Rotimi, F. E., M. Burfoot, N. Naismith, M. Mohaghegh, and M. Brauner. 2023. A systematic review of the mental health of women in construction: Future research directions. Building Research & Information 51: 459–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Salès-Wuillemin, Edith, Brigitte Minondo-Kaghad, Julien Chappé, Morgan Gélin, and Adrien Dolard. 2023. The quality of working life: Gap between perception and idealization impact of gender and status. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1112737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sankar, S. Senthamizh, K. S. Anandh, and K. Prasanna. 2024. Safety Leadership: A Catalyst for Positive Safety Climate on Construction Sites. Buildings 14: 1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schoepke, Jen, Peter L. T. Hoonakker, and Pascale Carayon. 2004. Quality of Working Life among Women and Men in the Information Technology Workforce. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 48: 1576–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Senthamizh Sankar, S., K. S. Anandh, and M. Rama. 2023. Examining the Influence of Various Factors that Affect Construction Professionals Lifestyle—A Case of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. In Proceedings of SECON’22. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, M. Joseph Sirgy, Dong Jin Lee, Kalayanee Senasu, Grace B. Yu, and Amiee Mellon Nisius. 2014. Gender disparity in job satisfaction of Western versus Asian managers. Journal of Business Research 67: 1257–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sirgy, M. Joseph, David Efraty, Phillip Siegel, and Dong-Jin Lee. 2001. A New Measure of Quality of Work Life (QWL) Based on Need Satisfaction and Spillover Theories. Social Indicators Research 55: 241–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Siron, Rusinah, Mohd Amin Tasripan, and Mohd Yunus Majid. 2013. A study of quality of working life amongst managers in Malaysian industrial companies. Journal of Business and Economics 4: 561–70. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith, Malcolm. 2022. Research Methods in Accounting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  74. Soundarya Priya, M. G., and K. S. Anandh. 2024. Exploring the Determinants of Quality of Work Life in the Construction Industry: A Quantitative Approach. Buildings 14: 1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Soundarya Priya, M. G., K. S. Anandh, K. Prasanna, K. Gunasekaran, Emmanuel Itodo Daniel, Mariusz Szóstak, and Della Sunny. 2023a. Exploring the Factors That Influence the Work–Family Interface of Construction Professionals: An Indian Case Study. Buildings 13: 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Soundarya Priya, M. G., K. S. Anandh, S. Kamal, and S. Shanmuga Priya. 2023b. Assessing Quality of Working Life (QWL) Among Construction Professionals in Private Sectors in Chennai. In Proceedings of SECON’22. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, vol. 284, pp. 635–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Soundarya Priya, M. G., K. S. Anandh, S. Rajendran, and K. N. Sen. 2022. An investigation on the effects of psychological contract (PC) towards site safety in the south Indian construction industry. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1101: 042025-1–042025-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stein, Barry A. 1983. Quality of Work Life in Action: Managing for Effectiveness. AMA Membership Publications Division. New York: American Management Associations. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sunindijo, Riza Yosia, and Patrick X. W. Zou. 2013. The Roles of Emotional Intelligence, Interpersonal Skill, Transformational Leadership in Improving Construction Safety. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building 13: 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Suresh, Subashini, Suresh Renukappa, Mark Stride, Rachel Nicola Toor, and Asiha Khan. 2023. Women in the UK construction industry: Are we still clinging to the ‘old boys club’? Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Takšić, Vladimir, Tamara Mohorić, and Stefan Holmstrom. 2018. Cross-Cultural Studies of Trait Emotional Intelligence Using the Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire (ESCQ). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  82. The Indian Construction Sector. 2016. Available online: https://www.thehindu.com/features/homes-and-gardens/indias-construction-sector-to-boom/article8314034.ece (accessed on 26 August 2022).
  83. Tijani, Bashir, Robert Osei-Kyei, and Yingbin Feng. 2022. A review of work-life balance in the construction industry. International Journal of Construction Management 22: 2671–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Turner, Michelle, and Anthony Mariani. 2016. Managing the work-family interface: Experience of construction project managers. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9: 243–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Turner, Michelle, Helen Lingard, and Valerie Francis. 2009. Work-life balance: An exploratory study of supports and barriers in a construction project. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 2: 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Van Laar, Darren, Julian A. Edwards, and Simon Easton. 2007. The Work-Related Quality of Life scale for healthcare workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60: 325–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Walton, Richard E. 1973. Quality of working life: What is it. Sloan Management Review 15: 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  88. Warr, Peter, John Cook, and Toby Wall. 1979. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52: 129–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Watts, Jacqueline H. 2009. ‘Allowed into a Man’s World’ Meanings of Work–Life Balance: Perspectives of Women Civil Engineers as ‘Minority’ Workers in Construction. Gender, Work & Organization 16: 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, Lianying, Tingting Cao, and Yu Wang. 2018. The mediation role of leadership styles in integrated project collaboration: An emotional intelligence perspective. International Journal of Project Management 36: 317–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, Rita Peihua, and Paul Bowen. 2021. Work-family conflict (WFC)—Examining a model of the work-family interface of construction professionals. Safety Science 144: 105469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zuo, Jian, Xianbo Zhao, Quan Bui Minh Nguyen, Tony Ma, and Shang Gao. 2018. Soft skills of construction project management professionals and project success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25: 425–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00194 g001
Figure 1. Demographic information (source: author’s creation).
Figure 1. Demographic information (source: author’s creation).
Admsci 14 00194 g001
Table 1. t-Tests: gender vs. QWL factors.
Table 1. t-Tests: gender vs. QWL factors.
FactorsGenderNMeanStandard DeviationLevene’s Test for Equality of Variancest-Test for
Equality of Means
Fp-ValueTp-Value
Career growthMale51813.412.7440.2250.6352.9400.003 **
Female20612.762.617
ManagementMale51842.538.8340.4500.53811.599<0.001 **
Female20633.0212.328
Job satisfactionMale51856.9711.0420.1410.759−4.142<0.001 **
Female20661.0013.608
Remuneration and fringe benefitsMale51828.125.9361.3170.251−1.1290.259
Female20628.686.152
Working environmentMale51822.465.4581.6530.1273.966<0.001 **
Female20620.804.071
Work cultureMale51814.723.4610.7970.3801.5190.129
Female20614.273.895
Work commitmentMale51819.253.7123.7300.054−3.3280.001 **
Female20620.253.515
Note: ** represents significance at a 1% level.
Table 2. t-Test: gender vs. EI.
Table 2. t-Test: gender vs. EI.
FactorsGenderNMeanStandard DeviationLevene’s Test for Equality of Variancest-Test for
Equality of Means
Fp-ValueTp-Value
Physical
exhaustion		Male51811.053.9582.5770.1093.163<0.001 **
Female20615.043.713
Mental
exhaustion		Male51817.354.0451.0090.179−4.424<0.001 **
Female20615.945.066
Psychological
exhaustion		Male51810.633.7910.7730.379−1.1850.236
Female20610.993.524
Emotional
intelligence		Male51839.038.3900.9930.319−3.379<0.001 **
Female20641.977.918
Note: ** represents significance at 1% level.
Table 3. t-Tests: gender vs. WFI.
Table 3. t-Tests: gender vs. WFI.
FactorsGenderNMeanStandard
Deviation		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variancest-Test for
Equality of Means
Fp-ValueTp-Value
Frequency of issues at
home/workplace		Male51837.4410.7682.8740.0903.516<0.001 **
Female20634.409.803
Personal satisfaction towards workplace/personal lifeMale51823.589.9950.3050.581−5.405<0.001 **
Female20632.009.677
WFIMale51861.0314.6390.1960.757−3.1450.002 **
Female20666.3914.151
WLBMale51834.5730.1520.1880.665−2.7910.004 **
Female20643.5128.438
Note: ** represents significance at 1% level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Soundarya Priya, M.G.; Anandh, K.S. Unequal Ground: Gender Disparities at Work Life in the Construction Industry. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090194

AMA Style

Soundarya Priya MG, Anandh KS. Unequal Ground: Gender Disparities at Work Life in the Construction Industry. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(9):194. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Soundarya Priya, M. G., and K. S. Anandh. 2024. "Unequal Ground: Gender Disparities at Work Life in the Construction Industry" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 9: 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop