Building a Diverse Engineering and Construction Industry:

Public and Private Sector Retention of Women

in the Civil Engineering Workforce
Julie A. Maurer 1; Donwe Choi 2; and Hyungjo Hur 3

Abstract: The gender gap in the construction and engineering workforce persists, despite efforts to close it over the past several decades.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Increasing gender diversity is a critical strategy for strengthening the supply of engineering professionals required to meet current and future
demand in both public and private sectors. This study evaluates major demographic trends in the civil engineering workforce during the past
decade with an emphasis on gender diversity. We also examine trends affecting the retention of female supervisors by examining job turnover
in both public and private sectors. We found that female civil engineers are underrepresented in supervisory positions as compared to their
representation in the workforce overall. They are also much more likely to leave their jobs than male supervisors. Their departure rate is higher
in the private sector than in the public sector. These results illustrate the advancement challenges that women encounter on their career paths,
and the consequences of these barriers—namely, less gender diversity in the pool of civil engineers available to meet growing demand in the
construction industry, and fewer women available for promotion into leadership positions. The findings of this study will be beneficial to
managers and other stakeholders working to diversify the construction industry workforce. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000913.
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Turnover; Engineering and construction industry; Diversity.

Introduction and construction industry, however, is driven by these dynamics

Rapid growth in the construction industry in the US has driven
increasing workforce demand. In 1998, construction spending in
the United States was $689 billion (private sector: $534 billion;
public sector: $155 billion); in 2019, it was $1,326 billion (private:
$997 billion; public: $329 billion; US Census Bureau 2020). Ac-
cording to the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), the annual hiring rate grew by 20.1% during the period be-
tween 2015 and 2019, increasing from 3,982 to 4,981 hires per year
(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020a). In addition, the construction
industry has played an important role in the nation’s economy, con-
tributing 4.1% to the US gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019
(Bureau of Labor Economics 2020). As the number of workers
has increased in this sector, so has the job turnover rate. In 2015
the turnover rate was 21%, but it increased to 27.6% in 2019
(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020b). Consequently, the construction
industry overall is facing a skilled labor shortage, with the rising
turnover rate bringing negative impacts and invisible costs to em-
ployees, organizations, and the broader industry (Hancock et al.
2013; Meier and Hicklin 2008). The strength of the engineering
1
Lead Research Manager, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, Ohio
State Univ., 281 W Lane Ave., Columbus, OH 43210. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-0375-6025. Email: maurer.99@osu.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Texas Tech Univ., 2500
Bdwy., Lubbock, TX 79409. Email: donwchoi@ttu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Public Administration, Dankook Univ.,
152 Jukjeon-ro, Jukjeon 1(il)-dong, Suji-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do,
South Korea (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-9481-9433. Email: hyungjohur@dankook.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 20, 2020; approved on
December 10, 2020; published online on April 19, 2021. Discussion period
open until September 19, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
as well. According to the BLS, civil engineers (CEs) comprise one
of the largest occupational categories in the construction industry,
with 34,700 engineers employed in this field in 2019 and demand
projected to grow by 3.4% to 36,400 in 2029 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics 2020c). Effective human resource management strategies
are vital for ensuring that this growing workforce demand is met.
Increasing the diversity of this workforce is one such strategy
(Menches and Abraham 2007).
Efforts to recruit and retain women as CEs have been ongoing
for decades, yet parity has not been achieved (Hatch 2008). Only
13 out of every 100 CEs are female, according to 2018 American
Community Survey data (US Census Bureau). The gender imbal-
ance increases in management positions, posing additional human
resource development challenges. Attracting women to degree
programs (and also retaining them) has improved with the grow-
ing emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathemat-
ics (STEM) careers; but despite these efforts, the number of
female graduates transitioning into engineering jobs continues
to lag behind the number of male graduates transitioning to these
jobs (Ohland et al. 2015; Piatek-Jimenez et al. 2018). Women are
less likely than men to pursue CE careers in the absence of female
role models in leadership positions (Cech et al. 2011). Moreover,
drawing on American Community Survey data, a recent study of
the spatial distribution of the gender wage gap in the US found that,
in 2015, women in architecture and engineering (A and E) occupa-
tions earned less than men in many states (Nikkhah Manesh et al.
2020). While there have been improvements in this area since 2007,
the first year for which data were analyzed, the study confirms that
this problem persists. Addressing wage inequality experienced by
female engineers is a critical strategy for recruiting and retaining
women in the construction industry. The present study explores the
career path leading to women in management positions by examin-
ing the turnover rates of female CE supervisors.

© ASCE 04021028-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028

 Increasing the retention of female CEs in supervisory roles will
increase the likelihood of their eventually becoming managers. Past
studies have found that women serving in supervisory roles in the
construction industry suffer more stress than their male counter-
parts because they face barriers to success and limited opportunities
for personal development (Loosemore and Waters 2004; McDonald
and Korabik 1991). Moreover, women have been found to experi-
ence more frustration with their career progress than male col-
leagues (Court and Moralee 1995; Dainty et al. 2000a; Fielden
et al. Davey 2000; Sommerville et al. 1993). When women do se-
cure management roles, there is evidence that females are more
likely to experience greater role stress than men (Davidson and
Cooper 1983; McDonald and Korabik 1991). In addition, the
organizational structure and overall climate of the construction
industry have been found to hinder the participation of female man-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
not, as might be assumed, related to family issues. Instead, the ab-
sence of professional development and advancement opportunities
were cited as the main factors influencing their departure (NAE
2018). Women who persist in the engineering workforce have been
found to have positive professional identities, meaning that the val-
ues, beliefs, and motives through which they define themselves as
professionals are positively aligned with those of their work activ-
ities and workplace culture (Buse et al. 2013; Cech 2015; Hatmaker
2013). “Professional identities provide the cultural link between
individuals’ self-beliefs and the activities that make up their paid
employment and thus likely underlie a broader sense of career-
fit confidence shown to be important for persistence” (Cech et al.
2011). Fostering bottom-up cultural changes to create more sup-
portive work environments for women is necessary to reduce turn-
over and improve gender diversity in the CE workforce (Hatch

agers in the decision-making process, further inhibiting their chan- 2008; Johnson 2013; Servon and Visser 2011).
ces for success (Dainty et al. 2000b; Seymour and Rooke 1995). A Tables 1 and 2 show the demographic trends in the CE work-
recent study by Hickey and Cui (2020) found that women are force. NSF has anonymized and deidentified the data set to make it
underrepresented in US construction and engineering executive publicly available for research projects. Sample weights developed
leadership positions at 400 of the country’s largest architecture, en- by NSF are used to adjust for differences in selection probabilities,
gineering, and construction firms. They point to the low number of nonresponse, and undercoverage, so that inferences can be made
women in the pool of possible candidates as a significant contrib- to the entire US population. We used NSF survey weights in
uting factor. our analysis to adjust for attrition bias; this method ensures more
It is important to understand key elements within the engineer- representative data and more accurately estimates population mea-
ing and construction environment that challenge efforts to achieve sures. Table 1 shows the total increase in the workforce population
greater workforce equity (Hatch 2008; Menches and Abraham during the period between 2003 and 2017: from 205,259 in 2003
2007). Knowing more about the underlying factors influencing (private: 129,597, public: 75,662), to 210,148 in 2017 (private:
the recruitment and retention of female CEs will better equip man- 136,285, public: 73,863). Gender diversity decreased in both the pri-
agers for successful leadership of their teams. This study evaluates
vate and the public sectors in 2017, despite a slight increase in the
major demographic trends in the CE workforce during the past de-
percentage of women CEs from 2003 to 2013. In the private sector,
cade with an emphasis on gender. We also examine voluntary turn-
the proportion of women rose from 10% in 2003 to 14% in 2013; in
over rates in both the public and the private sectors, for female
the public sector, during this same period, it went from 13% to 19%.
versus male CEs, using logistic regression analysis. Measuring ac-
Table 2 indicates the workforce diversity of CE supervisors.
tual voluntary turnover rates provides empirical evidence that ex-
These roles are dominated by white males. Even though the per-
tends existing knowledge of how turnover behavior impacts the
centage of female supervisors increased slightly from 2003 to 2014,
diversity of the CE workforce. We use data from the 2003, 2013,
2015, and 2017 National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG),
conducted by the National Science Foundation (NSF). This re-
search thus provides insights into the gender diversity of workers
within the CE workforce and extends our understanding of female Table 1. Demographic trends in the civil engineering workforce by gender
CEs’ labor market experiences. The findings of this study will be Private Public
beneficial to managers and other stakeholders working to diversify
CE workforce 2003 2013 2017 2003 2013 2017
the construction industry workforce, given that it employs a large
population of CEs (Grigg 2018). Population 129,597 112,551 136,285 75,662 79,159 73,863
Women (%) 10 13 14 13 22 19
Note: NSCG sample sizes for years 2003, 2013, and 2017, respectively, are:
Gender Diversity in the CE Workforce private 865, 1,027, and 731; public 540, 575, and 361. Full time workers
who have Bachelor, and Master degrees. Public: federal, state, and local
The gender gap in the engineering workforce persists, despite ef- government; private: for profit business/industry.
forts to close it over the past several decades (US Department of
Labor, Women’s Bureau 2020). Increasing gender diversity is a
critical strategy for strengthening the supply of engineering profes-
sionals required to meet current and future demand (Frehill 2012). Table 2. Demographic trends in the civil engineering workforce by race
Despite the success of STEM education programs, and the increas- and gender (supervisor role)
ing number of women graduating from US colleges and universities
Private Public
with civil engineering degrees, low female workforce participation
rates persist (Keen and Salvatorelli 2016; Ohland et al. 2015; 2003 2013 2017 2003 2013 2017
Strachan et al. 2018). In 2018, 25.9% of all bachelor’s degrees Characteristic (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
in CE were awarded to women (Roy 2019). However, with the per- Women 7 9 8 11 14 12
centage of women participating in the CE workforce at only 13% in White 79 81 78 73 77 65
2018, there is significant attrition (approaching 50%) in the talent Black 3 2 3 5 2 3
pipeline. Asian 7 9 6 10 14 18
A 2018 study by the National Academy of Engineering found Hispanic 6 7 12 7 5 13
Other 5 1 0 5 3 0
that the primary reason women choose to exit the CE workforce is

© ASCE 04021028-2 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028

 the levels dipped again in 2017: 8% in the private sector, and 12%
in the public sector. The percentage of female CEs in supervisory
positions is lower than the overall percentage of women in this
workforce. Thus, whereas the proportion of female CEs in 2017
was at 14% in the private sector and 19% in the public sector, only
8% of supervisors in the private sector, and 13% in the public sector
(Table 1), were female in this same year (Table 2). These findings
show that women are not well-represented in supervisory positions
as compared to the percentage of women in the total CE workforce.
Hence, the findings presented in Tables 1 and 2, reveal that work-
force diversity issues persist for CEs.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses: Turnover in
the CE Workforce
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Managing Voluntary Turnover in the CE Workforce
The persistence of a male-dominated culture in the construction
industry, in particular, continues to serve as a barrier to the retention
and advancement of female CEs (Johnson 2013; Morello et al.
2018; Perrenoud et al. 2020). Meiksins et al. (2019) found that
female CEs identified harassment and being ignored as the greatest
challenges confronting them in their first year after joining the
workforce. Similarly, a 2019 survey of women engineers found
that growth potential and an empowering work environment are
two primary factors positively influencing decisions to stay (SWE
2019). Research conducted by the Society of Women Engineers
indicates that only 30% of women remain in the engineering work-
force 20 years after their initial hire, with 30% of those who have
left the profession citing organizational climate as the reason (SWE
2020).
Further evidence of this challenging workplace climate was re-
ported in a recent study examining the role of gender vis-à-vis
knowledge accessibility among US engineers (Poleacovschi et al.
2021). This research provides insight into how male and female
engineers interact with each other when they need job-related in-
formation. The study reported that women found other women to
be the most accessible group when it came to obtaining the knowl-
edge needed to perform their jobs. Conversely, men considered
women the least accessible group. These findings highlight the im-
portance of addressing differences between gender-based percep-
tions of knowledge accessibility. Given that the construction
industry is male-dominated, women are less likely to have female
coworkers and, therefore, they are more likely to find the knowl-
edge they require difficult to access—with potentially negative im-
pacts on job performance and career success. At the same time, if
men are less likely to seek out knowledge from female engineers,
the knowledge these women have will be less visible. The authors
recommend that mentoring programs in which male engineers
mentor their female counterparts would help women build a diverse
network, and would increase the likelihood that they would seek
knowledge from male engineers in the future. Similarly, senior fe-
male engineers mentoring males would increase male engineers’
comfort with seeking and obtaining information from their female
colleagues.
Given that workplace stress is a problem for many construction
professionals (Bowen et al. 2014), the added challenges women
face as a minority group exacerbate already difficult working con-
ditions (Sunindijo and Kamardeen 2017). Gaining a better under-
standing of these voluntary turnover dynamics can provide a fuller
understanding of the factors affecting the availability of talent to
meet the growing demand for CEs in all industry sectors, including
construction.
© ASCE
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
Voluntary turnover is considered an important human resource
management topic for both private- and public-sector employers
(Hausknecht 2017; Hausknecht and Trevor 2011; Hom et al. 2017;
Maertz and Griffeth 2004). When high rates of turnover occur in
organizations, there is a potential for both positive and negative
outcomes with respect to the organizations’ human capital (Lewis
and Stoycheva 2016; Moynihan and Pandey 2008; Park and Shaw
2013; Waldman et al. 2015). High turnover rates have been found
to negatively impact the performance and productivity of construc-
tion businesses (Ayodele et al. 2020). However, new employees
may offer fresh ideas and are often highly motivated, providing or-
ganizations with the opportunity to foster positive change and in-
novation (Abelson and Baysinger 1984; Dalton and Todor 1979;
Grusky 1960) and to realize increased labor market efficiencies
(Lewis and Stoycheva 2016). With the rapid pace of change in
our society, organizations can find it challenging to adopt new tech-
nologies; but new employees’ skills can support such innovation.
This dynamic is especially apparent in the construction engineering
industry, which relies heavily on the CE workforce, and the ever-
evolving technical skills and capabilities of its members. Employee
turnover may also provide an opportunity for organizations to adopt
new management strategies (Dalton and Todor 1979).
Unfortunately, turnover is associated, as well, with direct costs
from hiring, recruiting, and new employee training (Gaudet 1960;
Hancock et al. 2013; Meier and Hicklin 2008; Moffatt and Hill
1970; Tuchi and Carr 1971). Indirect costs from the loss of indi-
vidual and group knowledge, skills, and trust may also be experi-
enced (Dess and Shaw 2001; Leana and Van Buren 1999; Strober
1990). Generally, too much turnover is likely to negatively impact
organizational performance, because overall costs often outweigh
the benefits (Abelson and Baysinger 1984; Meier and Hicklin
2008; Siebert and Zubanov 2009).
Private and Public Sectors in the Construction
Industry
The construction industry employs CEs in both private and public
sectors. While construction projects in both sectors are related
to essential services for daily life (residential and nonresidential
work), the private sector is more focused on residential and com-
mercial construction. Public sector construction primarily consists
of government-funded, large-scale infrastructure projects, such as
bridges, highways, sewage and waste disposal, and water supply
construction (Francis et al. 2013; US Census Bureau 2020). CE
workforce turnover behaviors differ significantly between these
two sectors, with contrasting organizational cultures and work envi-
ronments influencing employees’ turnover decisions (Kim and
Wiggins 2011). The likelihood of retaining women in construction
industry jobs improves if their work environments, policies, and
programs support work-life balance and foster organizational com-
mitment (Malone and Issa 2014; Morello et al. 2018). Emphasis on
these elements differs significantly when it comes to public- versus
private-sector employers.
Private-sector construction work is generally more focused on
profit and cost control, resulting in firm work deadlines and budget
limitations (Barthorpe et al. 2000; Hwang et al. 2011). These fac-
tors impact the work environment directly, often leading to less
flexible schedules and longer hours (Watts 2009). Research by
Naoum et al. (2020) drew from existing literature and a comparative
survey of women and men’s self-perception in the same disciplines
and age groups in the construction consultancy industry in the United
Kingdom. They found that women’s career development paths zig-
zagged, rather than following a linear trajectory—particularly for
women between 35 and 44 years of age. They also discovered that
04021028-3 J. Manage. Eng.
 women over the age of 40 reported the lowest global self-worth
across all ages of women surveyed. Flexible work arrangements, re-
turn-to-work training, and transparent, merit-based promotion crite-
ria were identified as the most critical policies for improving female
retention rates in construction consultancies. Moreover, improved
mentoring and maternity benefits were identified as important mea-
sures in efforts to retain women.
The public sector is responsible for providing essential services
to the public, resulting in greater transparency and greater account-
ability (Dolcos and Daley 2009; Ingram and Simons 1995). While
salaries offered are typically lower for CEs employed in the public
sector, public sector organizations often offer increased pay equity,
pension benefits, family leave, and flexible work schedule policies
(Francis et al. 2013). In the US, Equal Employment Opportunity
policies have resulted in greater diversity across all workforce
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ranks, from entry level to management level positions. Generally,
the organizational culture and work environment norms of public-
sector employers (Wadsworth and Owens 2007) foster higher levels
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Allen 2001),
which reduce the rate of employee turnover (Boyar et al. 2003;
Griffeth et al. 2000). Recent research also suggests there may
be greater pay equity for women in public sector positions. Jafari
et al. (2020) examined wage inequities using a predictive analytics
framework. This study evaluated gender wage differences, as well
as existing wage gaps based on race, ethnicity, and disability status
at the USDOT. The results indicate that while females are under-
represented at the agency, there was no wage discrepancy by
gender.
Thus, sector-related differences in workforce environments can
affect voluntary turnover rates. This study considers the relation-
ship between these differences and turnover and hypothesizes that
CEs working in the private sector are more likely to leave their jobs
than their public sector counterparts.
H1: Civil engineers employed in the private sector have more
turnover than those working in the public sector.
Advancement Opportunities in the CE Workforce
Efforts to increase the number of women working in the construc-
tion industry have been underway for decades (Hatch 2008;
Johnson 2013; Menches and Abraham 2007). While there has
been progress toward increasing the representation of women
among CE graduates, workforce attrition continues to be a prob-
lem (US Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau 2020), and even
fewer women are successfully advancing to supervisor and man-
ager positions (NAE 2018). Arditi and Balci (2009) reported that
women were found to have the same managerial competencies as
men in construction management roles, yet they are far less likely
to hold these jobs. In the construction industry, a key strategy for
attracting and retaining women has been to increase the number of
female CEs in leadership roles (Yates 2001). Hickey and Cui
(2020) points to the low number of women entering the industry,
and the difficulty of retaining those who do, as major factors con-
tributing to women’s absence from top executive-suite leadership
positions. Unfortunately, progress toward gender parity in the en-
gineering and construction industry, as well as in the CE work-
force and broader engineering workforce, has been slow.
Organizational factors have been found to affect employees’
voluntary turnover rates. Employees experience various types of
workplace conflicts, both overt and subtle; these conflicts affect
their working relationships and job performance, and hence their
turnover behavior (Jehn 1995; Rahim 2010; Tekleab et al. 2009).
Organizational structure, work relationships, hostile work environ-
ments due to conflict, and invisible barriers to advancement are all
© ASCE 04021028-4
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
factors associated with a loss of motivation. Employees decide to
leave their jobs when they feel that they are not treated fairly, not
recognized by their employer, unable to achieve their career goals,
or uncomfortable with the workplace environment or organiza-
tional management (Kellough and Lu 1993).
According to organizational justice theory, employees are
less likely to stay in their jobs if they perceive unfairness or injus-
tice in employment processes and outcomes (Cho and Sai 2013;
Greenberg 1990; Potipiroon and Rubin 2018; Rubin 2009).
Voluntary turnover behavior in response to organizational manage-
ment factors can also be explained by social exchange theory.
Employees have low organizational commitment and high turnover
when there is low trust between workers and management, or
if they feel that they are treated unfairly by management (Aryee
et al. 2002; Gould-Williams and Davies 2005; Settoon et al.
1996; Wayne et al. 1997). In short, organizational factors play
an important role in employees’ decision-making processes regard-
ing voluntary turnover.
Social categorization theory further informs our understanding
of how gender and racial diversity within groups has a positive in-
fluence on innovative behavior because of the beneficial exchange
of different perspectives (Choi and Rainey 2010; Pitts and Towne
2015). However, these differences are also associated with conflict
among group members—conflict that may result in turnover behav-
ior (Moon 2018; Nishii and Mayer 2009; Pelled 1996). In the con-
struction industry, there are far fewer female CEs than male CEs.
Previous studies have shown that this gender imbalance negatively
influences the retention of female CEs (Shore et al. 2011). Women
are especially underrepresented in supervisory positions, compared
to their numbers in the overall CE workforce (Hickey and Cui
2020; Menches and Abraham 2007). Thus, because work environ-
ments affect the rate of turnover, this study hypothesizes that
women supervisors are more likely to leave the CE workforce than
male supervisors.
H2: Female supervisors have higher rates of turnover than male
supervisors in the civil engineering workforce.
Data and Methods
Our analysis uses the data from the National Science Foundation’s
NSCG from 2013 and 2015. The data sets are a nationally rep-
resentative sample of a population of college graduates with bach-
elor’s, master’s, doctoral, and professional degrees living in the
United States. It is a longitudinal survey intended to collect career-
history data as well as demographic information. The response
rate for the NSCG was around 74% in 2013, and 70% in 2015.
The NSCG is a biennial or triennial survey, so there is a time
gap. According to the US BLS, however, the median duration
for staying in a position is more than three years (Hipple and Sok
2013).
This data set includes employment data for respondents, includ-
ing job codes for their primary employment position. While there
is not a code specific to construction engineering, there is a code
for civil engineering, including architectural and sanitary engi-
neers. Given that a large proportion of engineers working in the
construction industry are civil engineers and, to a lesser degree,
architectural engineers, we selected this job code for our analysis.
Therefore, the sample used in this study includes, but is not limited
to, engineers employed in the construction industry. The observed
trends within the CE workforce, as we have defined it, are useful
for better understanding the characteristics and trends of the engi-
neering and construction industry workforce.
J. Manage. Eng.
 For this analysis, we utilize data focusing on individuals who Table 3. Descriptive statistics
were (1) employed as full-time workers in the CE workforce during Variables Response 2013–2015 Domain
the 2013 survey; and (2) employed as full-time workers in any job
Turnover: leaving Yes 15.2% 0–1
sector except CE during the 2015 survey. We define the CE work-
employer No 74.8%
force as people who are working as civil (including architectural Turnover: leaving Yes 24.1% —
and sanitary) engineers. After we excluded the employees who construction industry No 75.9% —
were not in the United States from 2013 to 2015, 65.9% of the Female Yes 21.7% 0–1
respondents appeared in both years. We only included full-time No 78.3%
workers who are bachelor’s and master’s degree holders and who Supervisor Yes 33.9% 0–1
work in the public (government) and private (for-profit industry/ No 66.1%
business) sectors. Doctoral degree holders are excluded from the Sector Private 63.9% 0–1
sample based on the assumption that these graduates are primarily Public 36.1%
employed within academia or other research-intensive contexts, Race White 70.4% 1–5
Black 4.0%
and thus have inherently different career paths than CEs with bach-
Asian 12.6%
elor’s and master’s degree credentials. To keep the study focused on Hispanic 10.7%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

voluntary turnover, we also excluded employees who retired or Other 2.3%

were laid off. Age Mean 37.8 23–70
This study considers employees’ actual turnover. NSCG pro- SD 11.6
vides employees working in both the 2013 and the 2015 survey Marriage Yes 69.0% 0–1
periods with the following question: “During these two time peri- No 31.0%
ods (from the previous survey date to the current survey), were you Children Yes 49.7% 0–1
working for : : : ” Respondents can choose whether they are work- No 50.3%
ing for the same employer or not, and whether they are working in Log salary Mean 11.2 7–12
SD 0.3
the CE workforce or not. The first dependent variable corresponds
Job satisfaction Mean 3.4 1–4
to whether or not an employee leaves his or her employer within the SD 0.6
CE workforce; it is measured by a dummy variable (one if the re- Work term (months) Mean 89.9 0–512
spondents are working for a different employer within the CE SD 90.5
workforce, and zero if the respondents are working for the same Job-education mismatch Closely related 85.0% 1–3
employer). The second dependent variable corresponds to whether Somewhat related 13.3%
or not an employee leaves the CE workforce; it, too, is measured by Not related 1.7%
a dummy variable (one if the respondents are not working in the CE Education level Bachelor 58.6% 0–1
workforce, and zero if they are working in the CE workforce). Master 41.4%
To analyze which factors affect voluntary turnover, we consider Employer size Employees 1–99 25.2% 1–3
Employees 100–4,999 42.6%
gender and supervisory status as important components. First, the
Employees Over 5,000 32.2%
gender variable is measured by respondents’ replies to the follow- Government level Federal government 63.9% 0–1
ing question: “What is your gender?” Respondents identify their State/local government 36.1%
gender as male or female. Second, supervisory status is measured
by whether employees are supervisors or not. Respondents are
asked to answer the following question: “Did you supervise the
work of others as part of the principal job?” In addition, we con- of demographic, socioeconomic, and organizational characteristics
sidered several demographic, socioeconomic, and organizational of individual i at time t − 1 (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, job field, work
factors as control variables for this study; these control variables duration, job satisfaction, wage, marital status, parental status, and
included age, race (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and others), employer size).
work duration, job satisfaction, wage (while employed in the CE
workforce), marital status, parental status (i.e., did the employee
have children), job field, and employer size. Descriptive statistics Findings
for all variables are reported in Table 3.
For this study, we first measured whether or not an employee Tables 4 and 5 show, respectively, a logistic regression estimate for
has left his or her employer within the CE workforce. Second, changing employers while remaining in the CE workforce, and for
we measured whether an employee has left the CE workforce or leaving the CE workforce altogether. In each table, we present the
not. We perform logistic regression analysis, since the dependent regression coefficient and the odds ratio for each variable. This
variable is binary. The analysis models can be expressed as follows: study examines CEs’ demographic characteristics, with an empha-
sis on gender. Model 1 of Table 4 provides a summary of CEs leav-
Y it ¼ α þ β 1 Femaleit−1 þ β 2 Supervisorit−1 ing their employer but remaining within the CE workforce in both
þ β 3 ðFemaleit−1 × Supervisorit−1 Þ þ β 4 kit−1 þ εit ð1Þ public and private sectors. We find that private-sector employees’
odds of changing employers are 2.282 times higher (p < 0.01)
where Y it = individual i’s turnover status at time t (first model: 1 = when compared to public sector employees (Model 1). This result
employee left his or her employer within the CE workforce and 0 = is consistent with hypothesis 1: Civil engineers employed in the
employee remained with his or her employer within the CE work- private sector have more turnover than those working in the public
force; second model: 1 = the respondents are no longer working in sector.
the CE workforce and 0 = the respondents are still working in the Based on our review of the literature, the turnover rate is ex-
CE workforce); Femaleit−1 = individual i’s gender (1 = female; pected to differ for private- and public-sector employees. Model
0 = male); Supervisorit−1 = individual i’s supervisory status 1 confirms this difference, as well. Models 2 and 3 provide estima-
(1 = supervisor; 0 = nonsupervisor); and kit−1 consists of a vector tion results for each of these sectors taken alone. In Model 2, we

© ASCE 04021028-5 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028

 Table 4. Leaving the employer and remaining in civil engineering workforce (2013–2015)
All Private Public
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B Odds ratio B Odds ratio B Odds ratio
Female −0.285 (0.286) 0.752 −0.016 (0.330) 0.984 −1.383* (0.741) 0.251
Supervisor −0.098 (0.222) 0.907 −0.118 (0.256) 0.889 −0.039 (0.496) 0.962
Female × supervisor −0.071 (0.498) 0.931 −0.204 (0.552) 0.815 −0.018 (1.393) 0.982
Private sector 0.825*** (0.255) 2.282 — — — —
Race
Black −0.216 (0.481) 0.805 0.309 (0.526) 1.363 — —
(ref: white)
Asian −0.780** (0.342) 0.458 −0.710* (0.378) 0.492 −1.739 (1.093) 0.176
Hispanic −0.080 (0.301) 0.923 −0.067 (0.356) 0.935 −0.371 (0.639) 0.690
Other −1.254 (0.827) 0.285 −0.978 (0.870) 0.376 — —
Age 0.039 (0.092) 1.040 −0.011 (0.105) 0.990 0.074 (0.210) 1.077
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Age squared −0.001 (0.001) 0.999 0.000 (0.001) 1.000 −0.002 (0.003) 0.998
Married 0.500** (0.230) 1.648 0.483* (0.266) 1.621 0.599 (0.541) 1.820
Child −0.379 (0.253) 0.685 −0.173 (0.298) 0.841 −1.074* (0.575) 0.342
Log salary −0.140 (0.347) 0.869 −0.220 (0.391) 0.802 0.762 (0.918) 2.143
Job satisfaction −0.761*** (0.140) 0.467 −1.079*** (0.170) 0.340 0.533 (0.384) 1.704
Work duration −0.014*** (0.004) 0.986 −0.013*** (0.004) 0.987 −0.012 (0.012) 0.988
Work duration squared 0.000*** (0.000) 0.000 0.000* (0.000) 1.000 0.000 (0.000) 1.000
Mismatch
Somewhat related −0.248 (0.293) 0.781 −0.308 (0.357) 0.735 0.038 (0.582) 1.039
(ref: closely related)
Not related 0.846 (0.728) 2.330 −0.052 (1.305) 0.949 3.258*** (1.136) 26.01
Master degree 0.360* (0.196) 1.434* 0.238 (0.228) 1.268 0.952** (0.469) 2.591
Employer size
100–4999 (ref: 1–99) −0.001 (0.233) 0.999 0.180 (0.251) 1.197 −1.740** (0.794) 0.175
5000+ 0.009 (0.279) 1.009 0.313 (0.312) 1.367 −1.894** (0.864) 0.151
State/local government — — — — 0.556 (0.653) 1.743
Constant 1.962 (3.725) 7.117 5.091 (4.253) 162.5 −10.570 (9.903) 0.000
Observations 1,015 — 649 — 340 —
Pseudo R2 0.1259 — 0.1147 — 0.2578 —
Note: Logistic regression is used to estimate the models. B = unstandardized regression coefficient. Standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01;
**p < 0.05; and *p < 0.1.

find that there is no observed difference with respect to gender for
the odds of CEs leaving private-sector employers. In Model 3, how-
ever, we find that the odds of changing employers for female CEs in
the public sector are smaller than they are for male CEs in the same
sector by a factor of 0.251, which represents a 74.9% decrease in
the odds (p < 0.1).
Table 5 provides the results for employees leaving the CE work-
force in all sectors. We find that private-sector employees’ odds of
leaving the CE workforce are 1.384 times higher (p < 0.1) as com-
pared to public sector employees’ odds (Model 1). We also find that
the odds of leaving the CE workforce for female employees are
smaller than they are for males by a factor of 0.621, representing
a 27.9% decrease (p < 0.1). The odds of leaving the CE workforce
for employees in supervisory positions are 1.492 times higher than
they are for nonsupervisors (p < 0.05). And the odds of leaving the
CE workforce for female supervisors are 3.073 times higher than
they are for male supervisors (p < 0.01). These results are also con-
sistent with hypothesis 1.
Based on these results, we ran separate models for each sector to
learn more about how CE workforce retention differs. Our analysis
found heterogeneous effects for each group of employees. In the
private sector (Model 2), the odds of leaving the CE workforce
for female supervisors are 3.481 times higher than they are for male
supervisors (p < 0.05). In the public sector (Model 3), the odds of
leaving the CE workforce for female supervisors are 3.576 times
higher than they are for male supervisors (p < 0.1). These results
are consistent with hypotheses 1 and 2: Female supervisors have
higher rates of turnover than male supervisors in the civil engi-
neering workforce.
These results indicate that CEs employed in the private sector
have more turnover than those working in the public sector. Our re-
sults also show that there is a positive relationship between female
CEs’ supervisory status and turnover. We analyzed workers’ mobility
using two concepts: (1) employees leaving their current employer
but remaining in the civil engineering workforce (Table 4); and
(2) employees leaving the CE workforce altogether (Table 5). We
found that gender and supervisory status do not affect the rates at
which CEs leave their current employer, but they do affect rates
of leaving the CE workforce altogether. Our results also show that
the rate of CEs leaving their current employers for other CE jobs
differs from the rate of CEs leaving for non-CE jobs. More precisely,
there was no difference in internal mobility rates (staying within
the CE workforce) between females and males. Further, there
was no difference in internal mobility rates between supervisors
and nonsupervisors. However, there was a difference in external
mobility rates (leaving the CE workforce). Men and women leave
their current employers for non-CE jobs at different rates. More-
over, the external mobility rates are different for supervisors and
nonsupervisors.
These results suggest the presence of barriers to advancement
for women in the civil engineering workforce. Successful retention
of women in supervisory positions ensures a more diverse pool

© ASCE 04021028-6 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028

 Table 5. Leaving employer and the civil engineering workforce (2013–2015)
All Private Public
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B Odds ratio B Odds ratio B Odds ratio
Female −0.477* (0.279) 0.621 −0.510 (0.373) 0.600 −0.581 (0.444) 0.559
Supervisor 0.400** (0.181) 1.492 0.583*** (0.223) 1.791 0.025 (0.334) 1.025
Female × supervisor 1.123*** (0.388) 3.073 1.247** (0.496) 3.481 1.274* (0.701) 3.576
Private sector 0.325* (0.197) 1.384 — — — —
Race
Black (ref: white) 0.002 (0.420) 1.002 0.002 (0.562) 1.001 0.089 (0.686) 1.093
Asian −0.348 (0.263) 0.706 −0.337 (0.339) 0.714 −0.194 (0.446) 0.824
Hispanic 0.440* (0.240) 1.553 0.409 (0.295) 1.505 0.532 (0.430) 1.703
Other 1.076** (0.454) 2.933 0.589 (0.589) 1.802 1.800** (0.766) 6.052
Age −0.037 (0.066) 0.964 −0.111 (0.082) 0.895 0.148 (0.121) 1.159
Age squared 0.001 (0.001) 1.001 0.001 (0.001) 1.001 −0.001 (0.001) 0.999
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Married −0.404** (0.203) 0.668 −0.252 (0.248) 0.777 −0.650* (0.380) 0.522
Child 0.267 (0.202) 1.306 0.235 (0.258) 1.265 0.222 (0.355) 1.249
Log salary 0.929*** (0.330) 2.531 0.709* (0.388) 2.033 1.200* (0.686) 3.319
Job satisfaction −0.084 (0.123) 0.919 −0.121 (0.152) 0.886 −0.024 (0.222) 0.977
Work duration −0.007** (0.003) 0.993 −0.005 (0.003) 0.995 −0.008 (0.005) 0.992
Work duration squared 0.000** (0.000) 1.000 0.000* (0.000) 1.000 0.000 (0.000) 1.000
Mismatch
Somewhat related (ref: closely related) 0.646*** (0.217) 1.909 0.624** (0.295) 1.867 0.691** (0.339) 1.996
Not related 1.209** (0.546) 3.351 2.528** (1.205) 12.530 0.901 (0.692) 2.463
Master degree −0.097 (0.164) 0.908 −0.135 (0.203) 0.874 −0.203 (0.304) 0.816
Employer size
100–4999 (ref: 1–99) 0.018 (0.199) 1.018 0.123 (0.217) 1.131 −0.240 (0.659) 0.786
5000+ −0.302 (0.239) 0.739 −0.320 (0.291) 0.726 −0.577 (0.688) 0.561
State/city government — — — — −0.522 (0.407) 0.593
Constant −10.73*** (3.375) 0.000 −6.670* (3.954) 0.001 −16.73** (7.365) 0.000
Observations 1,015 — 649 — 366 —
Pseudo R2 0.0745 — 0.0824 — 0.0927 —
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; and *p < 0.1.

of candidates to fill higher-level management roles. The higher like- Discussion

lihood of voluntary turnover within the ranks of female supervisors
signals a gap in their career path to higher-level leadership posi-
tions. This gap, if not bridged, will perpetuate structural barriers
existing within public and private CE workforce environments.
Our exploration of variation in turnover behavior revealed dif-
ferences linked to marital status. Married employees are more
likely to leave their current employer (Model 1, Table 4), and
are less likely to leave the CE workforce (Model 1, Table 5), than
unmarried employees. The odds of married employees leaving their
current employer in the private sector are 1.621 times higher than
they are for unmarried employees (p < 0.05). In the public sector,
the odds of leaving the CE workforce for married employees are
smaller than they are for those who are unmarried by a factor of
0.522, or 47.8% lower (p < 0.05). This study also finds that em-
ployees who have higher salaries are more likely to leave the CE
workforce (Model 1, Table 5), suggesting that factors other than
earnings influence voluntary turnover decisions. Moreover, em-
ployees in supervisory positions are more likely to leave the CE
workforce than nonsupervisors.
Overall, our results show that voluntary turnover rates differ by
gender and supervisory status, and that gender diversity is increasing
over time in the CE workforce. Women who are successfully re-
tained in the CE workforce are more likely to seek new jobs. Women
are especially underrepresented in supervisory positions as compared
to their representation within the overall CE workforce. Female
supervisors are also much more likely to leave the CE workforce
than male supervisors.
This study sheds light on how gender and supervisory status affect
the voluntary turnover behavior in the CE workforce and, in turn,
the engineering and construction industry. These dynamics are an
indicator of the opportunities for progressive career advancement
for all CEs, including those in underrepresented groups. From
workforce development and human resource management perspec-
tives, it is important to provide this snapshot of the current CE
workforce environment to better understand the underlying dynam-
ics driving trends in gender diversity.
Achieving a more gender-diverse engineering workforce has
long been recognized as a key strategy for meeting growing labor
market demand. However, although significant progress has been
made, the problem of the underrepresentation of women (especially
in supervisory roles) persists. Past studies have identified the con-
struction industry as being particularly challenged when it comes to
attracting and retaining female engineers (Menches and Abraham
2007). Achieving gender diversity within the CE workforce, espe-
cially in leadership roles, will help to attract women to (and retain
them within) CE degree programs; it will also help female graduates
of these programs gain entry-level jobs (Johnson 2013; Keen and
Salvatorelli 2016; Ohland et al. 2015). In turn, increasing the diver-
sity of the CE workforce overall, including its supervisors, will pro-
vide a larger talent pool to meet growing demand in the construction
industry. It has been well-documented that organizations benefit
from the increased productivity of diverse teams overall, especially
when they are led by women. In fact, female managers outperform
their male counterparts in building collaborative, highly effective

© ASCE 04021028-7 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028

 teams (Cheruvelil et al. 2014; Eagly and Carli 2003; Menches and
Abraham 2007).
CEs’ turnover behavior differed by sector, gender, and supervi-
sory status. We found no difference between genders in the likeli-
hood that supervisors will change employers. However, female
supervisors are more likely than male supervisors to leave the CE
workforce. We also found that CEs in the private sector are more
likely to experience voluntary turnover than their public sector coun-
terparts. These findings suggest that employers in both sectors will
benefit from policies and practices that enhance their retention of
supervisors in the leadership pipelines, regardless of gender, and that
minimize the costs incurred from voluntary turnover.
Turnover is an important management issue in the construction
industry, particularly since the industry faces future challenges to
meeting growing demand for CEs. Knowledge gained from this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
study has significant implications for efforts to create a larger and
more diverse CE workforce. First, our results provide empirical con-
firmation of the advancement challenges female CEs encounter on
their career paths, and the consequences of these barriers–namely,
less gender diversity in the CE workforce, and fewer women in lead-
ership positions. The persistent absence of diversity in the CE work-
force acts as a deterrent for young women making career decisions;
these women base their decisions on assumptions about their ability
to achieve their full potential—assumptions that are shaped by the
presence or lack of role models and mentors. A void is left by the
absence of female CEs in leadership roles, especially in the construc-
tion industry, creating a reinforcing feedback loop that strengthens
the field’s reputation for being dominated by white males. Similarly,
there are implications for attracting and retaining female CEs when
voluntary turnover is high within the ranks of female supervisors.
Such turnover signals limited opportunities for advancement within
the existing workplace culture.
Second, this study emphasizes the importance of removing bar-
riers to advancement for women in the CE workforce, recognizing
that an organization’s positive image serves as a primary factor for
success in attracting top talent (Asseburg et al. 2020). Third, super-
visor turnover cost is higher than costs associated with nonsupervisor
turnover, meaning that increased turnover among female supervisors
impacts organizational leadership in a manner that threatens optimal
performance (Boyne et al. 2011; Rutherford and Lozano 2018).
In this connection, several strategies may help reduce voluntary
turnover in the CE workforce employed in the construction indus-
try. Project managers, human resource managers, and other leaders
within organizations must develop and implement worker-focused
human resource management policies (Gould-Williams and Davies
2005; Shaw et al. 1998) to positively influence CEs’ turnover de-
cisions. The quality of programs and policies, such as those pro-
viding development opportunities and pathways to promotions,
will reduce individual, organizational, and societal costs and in-
crease CEs’ productivity and profitability (Caillier 2016; Morello
et al. 2018; Perrenoud et al. 2020; Spreen et al. 2020). Given that
there is evidence of lower turnover of female CEs in the public
sector, private-sector employers seeking to retain women in their
CE workforce will benefit from adopting best practices and imple-
menting similar policies.
The data shown in Tables 1 and 2 confirm that female CEs are
underrepresented in supervisory positions, as compared to their
overall numbers in the CE workforce. Improving the advancement
of women on their career paths will have beneficial effects on CE
workforce diversity overall. Employers also benefit from increased
innovation and productivity when their employees feel their values
are respected (Ferdman et al. 2010; Shalley et al. 2004; Shore et al.
2011). To increase the diversity of leaders in the construction in-
dustry, employers must implement strategies designed to mitigate
© ASCE 04021028-8
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
the departure rate of female CE supervisors and to support their
advancement into management positions. One such strategy is fos-
tering inclusive work environments by ensuring that supervisors are
engaged in decision-making processes (Mor Barak 2015; Perry-
Smith and Shalley 2003). Mentoring programs, professional devel-
opment opportunities, and family-friendly benefits have also been
shown to improve retention rates for women CEs (Hatch 2008;
Johnson 2013; Morello et al. 2018).
Conclusion
This study provides insights into issues of gender diversity and the
labor market experiences of female CEs, including those employed
in the construction industry. Our findings are significant for project
managers, human resource managers, supervisors, and other stake-
holders seeking to diversify the construction industry workforce.
As with all research, there were some limitations to this study.
First, the survey sample analyzed is not limited to civil engineers
employed in the construction industry. All respondents with bach-
elor’s and master’s degrees in CE employed in the CE workforce
(including architectural and sanitary engineers) are included in our
analysis. This broader population, however, includes CEs em-
ployed in the construction industry; therefore, we assume that
the observed trends and turnover dynamics hold true for this sub-
group of our sample. Accordingly, we assume that this study’s find-
ings can inform strategies for improving the attraction of female
students to (and their retention within) the CE education pipeline
that supplies the construction industry. Second, a time gap exists in
data used to analyze turnover that prevents measuring actual turn-
over. Our study uses 2013 and 2015 NSCG data, which are collected
from a biennial survey. Nonetheless, given that, on average, employ-
ees remain in the same position more than three years, we believe
that these results are relevant and useful (Hipple and Sok 2013).
Despite these limitations, this study sheds light on voluntary turn-
over behavior and female CEs’ career advancement to leadership po-
sitions. Female CEs face barriers to career advancement, as
evidenced by their higher incidence of turnover in both public
and private-sector organizations. In addition, female supervisors
are at higher risk than their male counterparts of leaving the CE
workforce altogether. Historically, researchers have found evidence
of female CEs experiencing lower pay, more discrimination, and less
adequate training than male workers in the construction industry
(Court and Moralee 1995; Dainty et al. 2000b; Fielden et al. 2000;
Sommerville et al. 1993). Our study extends this knowledge by ana-
lyzing empirical data and focusing specifically on the CE segment of
the construction workforce. Our results confirm that, even though
some progress has been made since the 1970s, gender parity—at
the supervisory level, in particular—has yet to be achieved.
Future research is needed to explore how other factors, such as
wages and professional development, affect CEs’ voluntary turn-
over behavior. We hope to extend this research to include additional
data for engineers employed in the construction industry, allowing
for a more focused evaluation of their unique career outcomes. We
are also interested in learning more about the voluntary turnover
behavior of CEs by conducting comparative analyses with other
disciplines of engineering employed in the construction industry,
as well as in other sectors.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Acknowledgments
The present research was supported by the research fund of Dan-
kook University in 2020.
References
Abelson, M. A., and B. D. Baysinger. 1984. “Optimal and dysfunctional
turnover: Toward an organizational level model.” Acad. Manage. Rev.
9 (2): 331–341. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277675.
Allen, T. D. 2001. “Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions.” J. Vocational Behav. 58 (3): 414–435.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.
Arditi, D., and G. Balci. 2009. “Managerial competencies of female and
male construction managers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (11):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1275–1278. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000100.
Aryee, S., P. S. Budhwar, and Z. X. Chen. 2002. “Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of
a social exchange model.” J. Organ. Behav. 23 (3): 267–285. https://doi
.org/10.1002/job.138.
Asseburg, J., J. Hattke, D. Hensel, F. Homberg, and R. Vogel. 2020. “The
tacit dimension of public sector attraction in multi-incentive settings.”
J. Public Administration Res. Theory 30 (1): 41–59. https://doi.org/10
.1093/jopart/muz004.
Ayodele, O. A., A. Chang-Richards, and V. Gonzalez. 2020. “Factors af-
fecting workforce turnover in the construction sector: A systematic re-
view.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (2): 03119010. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001725.
Barthorpe, S., R. Duncan, and C. Miller. 2000. “The pluralistic facets of
culture and its impact on construction.” Property Manage. 18 (5): 335–
351. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470010360632.
Bowen, P., P. Edwards, H. Lingard, and K. Cattell. 2014. “Workplace stress,
stress effects, and coping mechanisms in the construction industry.” J.
Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (3): 04013059. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000807.
Boyar, S. L., C. P. Maertz, Jr., A. W. Pearson, and S. Keough. 2003. “Work-
family conflict: A model of linkages between work and family domain
variables and turnover intentions.” J. Manage. Issues 15 (2): 175–190.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e518712013-302.
Boyne, G. A., O. James, P. John, and N. Petrovsky. 2011. “Top manage-
ment turnover and organizational performance: A test of a contingency
model.” Public Administration Rev. 71 (4): 572–581. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02389.x.
Bureau of Labor Economics. 2020. “Gross domestic product by industry:
Fourth quarter and year 2019.” Accessed May 1, 2020. https://www.bea
.gov/system/files/2020-04/gdpind419.pdf.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020a. “Economic news release: Table 13. An-
nual hires levels by industry and region.” Accessed May 1, 2020. https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t13.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020b. “Economic news release: Table 18. An-
nual quits rates industry and region.” Accessed May 1, 2020. https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t18.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020c. “Employment projections, national em-
ployment matrix: 17-2051 civil engineers, employment by industry,
occupation, and percent distribution, 2019 and projected 2029.”
Accessed May 1, 2020. https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix
?queryParams=17-2051&ioType=o.
Buse, K., D. Bilimoria, and S. Perelli. 2013. “Why they stay: Women per-
sisting in US engineering careers.” Career Dev. Int. 18 (2): 139–154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2012-0108.
Caillier, J. G. 2016. “Do transformational leaders affect turnover inten-
tions and extra-role behaviors through mission valence?” Am. Rev.
Public Administration 46 (2): 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0275074014551751.
Cech, E. 2015. “Engineers and engineeresses? Self-conceptions and the
development of gendered professional identities.” Sociol. Perspect.
58 (1): 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121414556543.
© ASCE 04021028-9
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
Cech, E., B. Rubineau, S. Silbey, and C. Seron. 2011. “Professional role
confidence and gendered persistence in engineering.” Am. Sociol. Rev.
76 (5): 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420815.
Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, K. C. Weathers, P. C. Hanson, S. J.
Goring, C. T. Filstrup, and E. K. Read. 2014. “Creating and maintaining
high-performing collaborative research teams: The importance of diver-
sity and interpersonal skills.” Front. Ecol. Environ. 12 (1): 31–38.
https://doi.org/10.1890/130001.
Cho, Y. J., and N. Sai. 2013. “Does organizational justice matter in the
federal workplace?” Rev. Public Personnel Administration 33 (3):
227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12458126.
Choi, S., and H. G. Rainey. 2010. “Managing diversity in US federal agen-
cies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee
perceptions of organizational performance.” Public Administration Rev.
70 (1): 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x.
Court, G., and J. Moralee. 1995. Balancing the building team: Gender
issues in the building professions. Rep. Institute for Employment
Studies. Brighton, UK: Univ. of Sussex.
Dainty, A. R., B. M. Bagilhole, and R. H. Neale. 2000a. “A grounded
theory of women’s career under-achievement in large UK construction
companies.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 18 (2): 239–250. https://doi.org/10
.1080/014461900370861.
Dainty, A. R., R. H. Neale, and B. M. Bagilhole. 2000b. “Comparison of
men’s and women’s careers in UK construction industry.” J. Civ. Eng.
Educ. 126 (3): 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928
(2000)126:3(110).
Dalton, D. R., and W. D. Todor. 1979. “Turnover turned over: An expanded
and positive perspective.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 4 (2): 225–235. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4289021.
Davidson, M., and C. L. Cooper. 1983. Stress and the woman manager.
London: Martin Robertson.
Dess, G. G., and J. D. Shaw. 2001. “Voluntary turnover, social capital, and
organizational performance.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 26 (3): 446–456.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845830.
Dolcos, S. M., and D. Daley. 2009. “Work pressure, workplace social
resources, and work–family conflict: The tale of two sectors.” Int. J.
Stress Manage. 16 (4): 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017319.
Eagly, A. H., and L. L. Carli. 2003. “The female leadership advantage: An
evaluation of the evidence.” Leadersh. Q. 14 (6): 807–834. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.
Ferdman, B. M., A. Avigdor, D. Braun, J. Konkin, and D. Kuzmycz. 2010.
“Collective experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work
groups.” RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 11 (3): 6–26.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712010000300003.
Fielden, S. L., M. J. Davidson, A. W. Gale, and C. L. Davey. 2000. “Women
in construction: The untapped resource.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 18 (1):
113–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900371004.
Francis, V., H. Lingard, A. Prosser, and M. Turner. 2013. “Work-family
and construction: Public and private sector differences.” J. Manage.
Eng. 29 (4): 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000154.
Frehill, L. M. 2012. “Gender and career outcomes of US engineers.” Int. J.
Gender Sci. Technol. 4 (2): 148–166.
Gaudet, F. J. 1960. Labor turnover: Calculation and cost. New York:
American Management Association.
Gould-Williams, J., and F. Davies. 2005. “Using social exchange theory to
predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis
of public sector workers.” Public Manage. Rev. 7 (1): 1–24. https://doi
.org/10.1080/1471903042000339392.
Greenberg, J. 1990. “Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomor-
row.” J. Manage. 16 (2): 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206
39001600208.
Griffeth, R. W., P. W. Hom, and S. Gaertner. 2000. “A meta-analysis of
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator
tests, and research implications for the next millennium.” J. Manage.
26 (3): 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305.
Grigg, N. S. 2018. “Civil engineering workforce and education: Twenty
years of change.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 04018010. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000387.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Grusky, O. 1960. “Administrative succession in formal organizations.”
Social Forces 39 (2): 105–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/2574148.
Hancock, J. I., D. G. Allen, F. A. Bosco, K. R. McDaniel, and C. A. Pierce.
2013. “Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm
performance.” J. Manage. 39 (3): 573–603. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0149206311424943.
Hatch, S. 2008. Diversity by design: Guide to fostering diversity in the civil
engineering workforce. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Hatmaker, D. M. 2013. “Engineering identity: Gender and professional
identity negotiation among women engineers.” Gender Work Organ.
20 (4): 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00589.x.
Hausknecht, J. P. 2017. “Collective turnover.” Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol.
Organ. Behav. 4 (1): 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych
-032516-113139.
Hausknecht, J. P., and C. O. Trevor. 2011. “Collective turnover at the group,
unit, and organizational levels: Evidence, issues, and implications.” J.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Manage. 37 (1): 352–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310383910.
Hickey, P. J., and Q. Cui. 2020. “Gender diversity in US construction in-
dustry leaders.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (5): 04020069. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000838.
Hipple, S., and E. Sok. 2013. Tenure of American workers: Spotlight on
statistics. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hom, P. W., T. W. Lee, J. D. Shaw, and J. P. Hausknecht. 2017. “One hun-
dred years of employee turnover theory and research.” J. Appl. Psychol.
102 (3): 530. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103.
Hwang, B.-G., P.-C. Liao, and M. P. Leonard. 2011. “Performance and
practice use comparisons: Public vs. Private owner projects.” KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 15 (6): 957–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-1115-y.
Ingram, P., and T. Simons. 1995. “Institutional and resource dependence
determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues.” Acad. Manage.
J. 38 (5): 1466–1482. https://doi.org/10.2307/256866.
Jafari, A., B. Rouhanizadeh, S. Kermanshachi, and M. Murrieum. 2020.
“Predictive analytics approach to evaluate wage inequality in engineer-
ing organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (6): 04020072. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000841.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detri-
ments of intragroup conflict.” Administration Sci. Q. 40 (2): 256–282.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638.
Johnson, P. A. 2013. “State of women in civil engineering in the United
States and the role of ASCE.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 139 (4): 275–280.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000159.
Keen, J., and A. Salvatorelli. 2016. “Discrepancies between female student
perception and reality of the engineering industry.” J. Archit. Eng.
22 (3): 04016011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568
.0000221.
Kellough, J. E., and H. Lu. 1993. “The paradox of merit pay in the
public sector: Persistence of a problematic procedure.” Rev. Public
Personnel Administration 13 (2): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0734371X9301300204.
Kim, J., and M. E. Wiggins. 2011. “Family-friendly human resource policy:
is it still working in the public sector?” Public Administration Rev.
71 (5): 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02412.x.
Leana, C. R., III, and H. J. Van Buren. 1999. “Organizational social capital
and employment practices.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 24 (3): 538–555.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202136.
Lewis, G. B., and R. L. Stoycheva. 2016. “Does pension plan structure
affect turnover patterns?” J. Public Administration Res. Theory 26 (4):
787–799. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw035.
Loosemore, M., and T. Waters. 2004. “Gender differences in occupational
stress among professionals in the construction industry.” J. Manage.
Eng. 20 (3): 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)
20:3(126).
Maertz, C. P., Jr., and R. W. Griffeth. 2004. “Eight motivational forces
and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for
research.” J. Manage. 30 (5): 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm
.2004.04.001.
Malone, E. K., and R. R. A. Issa. 2014. “Predictive models for work-life
balance and organizational commitment of women in the US construc-
tion industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (3): 04013064. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000809.
© ASCE 04021028-10
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
McDonald, L. M., and K. Korabik. 1991. “Sources of stress and ways of
coping among male and female managers.” J. Social Behav. Pers. 6 (7):
185–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum028.
Meier, K. J., and A. Hicklin. 2008. “Employee turnover and organizational
performance: Testing a hypothesis from classical public administration.”
J. Public Administration Res. Theory 18 (4): 573–590. https://doi.org/10
.1093/jopart/mum028.
Meiksins, P., P. Layne, K. Beddoes, and J. Deters. 2019. “Women in en-
gineering: A review of the 2019 literature.” Accessed April 23, 2020.
https://research.swe.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/03/FINAL
_2019LitReview.pdf.
Menches, C. L., and D. M. Abraham. 2007. “Women in construction—
Tapping the untapped resource to meet future demands.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 133 (9): 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2007)133:9(701).
Moffatt, G., and K. Hill. 1970. “Labor turnover in Australia: A review of
research.” Personnel Pract. Bull. 26 (3): 142–149.
Moon, K.-K. 2018. “Examining the relationships between diversity and
work behaviors in US federal agencies: Does inclusive management
make a difference?” Rev. Public Personnel Administration 38 (2):
218–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16660157.
Mor Barak, M. E. 2015. “Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but
what is inclusion?” Hum. Serv. Organ.: Manage. Leadersh. Gov. 39 (2):
83–88.
Morello, A., R. R. A. Issa, and B. Franz. 2018. “Exploratory study of re-
cruitment and retention of women in the construction industry.” J. Civ.
Eng. Educ. 144 (2): 04018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943
-5541.0000359.
Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 2008. “The ties that bind: Social net-
works, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention.” J. Public
Administration Res. Theory 18 (2): 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1093
/jopart/mum013.
NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2018. Understanding the educa-
tional and career pathways of engineers. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Naoum, S. G., J. Harris, J. Rizzuto, and C. Egbu. 2020. “Gender in the
construction industry: Literature review and comparative survey of
men’s and women’s perceptions in UK construction Consultancies.”
J. Manage. Eng. 36 (2): 04019042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000731.
Nikkhah Manesh, S., J. Ouk Choi, K. Kumar Shrestha, J. Lim, and P. P.
Shrestha. 2020. “Spatial analysis of the gender wage gap in architecture,
civil engineering, and construction occupations in the United States.”
J. Manage. Eng. 36 (4): 04020023. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE
%29ME.1943-5479.0000780.
Nishii, L. H., and D. M. Mayer. 2009. “Do inclusive leaders help to reduce
turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member ex-
change in the diversity to turnover relationship.” J. Appl. Psychol.
94 (6): 1412–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190.
Ohland, M. W., S. M. Lord, and R. A. Layton. 2015. “Student demo-
graphics and outcomes in civil engineering in the United States.” J. Civ.
Eng. Educ. 141 (4): 04015003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943
-5541.0000244.
Park, T.-Y., and J. D. Shaw. 2013. “Turnover rates and organizational per-
formance: A meta-analysis.” J. Appl. Psychol. 98 (2): 268–309. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0030723.
Pelled, L. H. 1996. “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group
outcomes: An intervening process theory.” Organization Sci. 7 (6):
615–631. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.6.615.
Perrenoud, A. J., B. F. Bigelow, and E. M. Perkins. 2020. “Advancing
women in construction: Gender differences in attraction and retention
factors with managers in the electrical construction industry.” J. Man-
age. Eng. 36 (5): 04020043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943
-5479.0000808.
Perry-Smith, J. E., and C. E. Shalley. 2003. “The social side of creativity:
A static and dynamic social network perspective.” Acad. Manage. Rev.
28 (1): 89–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925236.
Piatek-Jimenez, K., J. Cribbs, and N. Gill. 2018. “College students’ percep-
tions of gender stereotypes: Making connections to the
J. Manage. Eng.
 underrepresentation of women in STEM fields.” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
40 (12): 1432–1454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1482027.
Pitts, D. W., and S. E. Towne. 2015. “Realizing the promise of diversity.” In
Handbook of public administration, edited by G. P. J. Pierre, 366–381.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Poleacovschi, C., A. Javernick-Will, S. Wang, and T. Tong. 2021. “Gendered
knowledge accessibility: Evaluating the role of gender in knowledge
seeking among engineers in the US.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (1):
04020094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000865.
Potipiroon, W., and E. V. Rubin. 2018. “Who is most influenced by justice
perceptions? Assessing the role of occupational status.” Rev. Public
Personnel Administration 38 (3): 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0734371X16660156.
Rahim, M. A. 2010. Managing conflict in organizations. Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Roy, J. 2019. “Engineering by the numbers.” Accessed April 21, 2020.
https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/09/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-profiles.
Rubin, E. V. 2009. “The role of procedural justice in public personnel man-
agement: Empirical results from the department of defense.” J. Public
Administration Res. Theory 19 (1): 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1093
/jopart/mum035.
Rutherford, A., and J. Lozano. 2018. “Top management turnover: The
role of governing board structures.” Public Administration Rev. 78 (1):
104–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12838.
Servon, L. J., and M. A. Visser. 2011. “Progress hindered: the retention
and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology
careers.” Hum. Resour. Manage. J. 21 (3): 272–284. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00152.x.
Settoon, R. P., N. Bennett, and R. C. Liden. 1996. “Social exchange in
organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member ex-
change, and employee reciprocity.” J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (3): 219–227.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219.
Seymour, D., and J. Rooke. 1995. “The culture of the industry and the cul-
ture of research.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 13 (6): 511–523. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01446199500000059.
Shalley, C. E., J. Zhou, and G. R. Oldham. 2004. “The effects of personal
and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from
here?” J. Manage. 30 (6): 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004
.06.007.
Shaw, J. D., J. E. Delery, G. D. Jenkins, Jr., and N. Gupta. 1998. “An
organization-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover.”
Acad. Manage. J. 41 (5): 511–525.
Shore, L. M., A. E. Randel, B. G. Chung, M. A. Dean, K. Holcombe
Ehrhart, and G. Singh. 2011. “Inclusion and diversity in work groups:
A review and model for future research.” J. Manage. 37 (4): 1262–
1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943.
Siebert, W. S., and N. Zubanov. 2009. “Searching for the optimal level
of employee turnover: A study of a large UK retail organization.”
Acad. Manage. J. 52 (2): 294–313. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009
.37308149.
© ASCE 04021028-11
J. Manage. Eng., 2021, 37(4): 04021028
Sommerville, J., P. Kennedy, and L. Orr. 1993. “Women in the UK con-
struction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 11 (4): 285–291. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01446199300000028.
Spreen, T. L., W. Afonso, and E. Gerrish. 2020. “Can employee training
influence local fiscal outcomes?” Am. Rev. Public Administration
50 (4–5): 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020911717.
Strachan, R., A. Peixoto, I. Emembolu, and M. T. Restivo. 2018. “Women
in engineering: Addressing the gender gap, exploring trust and our un-
conscious bias.” In Proc., IEEE Global Engineering Education Conf.,
2088–2093. New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018
.8363497.
Strober, M. H. 1990. “Human capital theory: Implications for HR manag-
ers.” Ind. Relat.: J. Econ. Soc. 29 (2): 214–239. https://doi.org/10.1111
/j.1468-232X.1990.tb00752.x.
Sunindijo, R. Y., and I. Kamardeen. 2017. “Work stress is a threat to gender
diversity in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (10):
04017073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001387.
SWE (Society of Women Engineers). 2019. “Women in engineering talent
pulse report 2019.” Accessed April 23, 2020. https://research.swe.org
/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/Compressed-People-At-Work_SWE
_Talent-Pulse-Report.pdf.
SWE (Society of Women Engineers). 2020. Fast facts infographic.
Chicago: SWE.
Tekleab, A. G., N. R. Quigley, and P. E. Tesluk. 2009. “A longitudinal study
of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effective-
ness.” Group Organ. Manage. 34 (2): 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1059601108331218.
Tuchi, B. J., and B. E. Carr. 1971. “Labor turnover.” Hospitals 45 (11):
88–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a046284.
US Census Bureau. 2020. “Total construction spending.” https://www.dol
.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations.
US Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. 2020. “Employment and earn-
ings by occupation.” Accessed April 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov
/agencies/wb/data/occupations.
Wadsworth, L. L., and B. P. Owens. 2007. “The effects of social support
on work–family enhancement and work–family conflict in the public
sector.” Public Administration Rev. 67 (1): 75–87. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00698.x.
Waldman, D. A., M. Z. Carter, and P. W. Hom. 2015. “A multilevel inves-
tigation of leadership and turnover behavior.” J. Manage. 41 (6): 1724–
1744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312460679.
Watts, J. 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 Organ. 16 (1): 37–57. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00352.x.
Wayne, S. J., L. M. Shore, and R. C. Liden. 1997. “Perceived organizational
support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective.”
Acad. Manage. J. 40 (1): 82–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/257021.
Yates, J. K. 2001. “Retention of nontraditional engineering and construc-
tion professionals.” J. Manage. Eng. 17 (1): 41–48. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2001)17:1(41).
J. Manage. Eng.