Between a rock and a hard place: managers’ work–family issues in the construction industry and how they compare to workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Set in the construction industry, this study aims to better understand managers’ work–family conflict (WFC) and their challenges regarding work–family (WF) issues, and to compare site workers’ and managers’ perceptions of work–family balance (WFB) practices in this male-dominated industry. Design/methodology/approach Using a mixed-method participatory design (qual-QUAN), this study was conducted in Quebec’s (Canada’s) construction industry. Semi-structured interviews with managers (n = 17) and workers (n = 20) were conducted, along with a survey of managers (n = 692) and workers (n = 789). Findings Triangulation of results shows that managers have significantly higher levels of WFC than workers and that the factors contributing to their WFC are similar (e.g. heavy workload, unsupportive organizational culture). The results suggest a discrepancy between workers’ and managers’ perceptions. While managers report offering a wide variety of WF measures, many of which stem from collective agreements, workers report little use of those measures. Practical implications Results highlight the contrast between availability and accessibility of WF measures in the construction industry and question both managers’ and workers’ possible lack of awareness of WFB measures and practices. Originality/value These results contribute to the literature by characterizing issues managers themselves face in the construction industry. The study also discusses managers’ support of workers in the context of their own organizational, interpersonal and individual constraints. Finally, this study contributes by paralleling data from managers and workers in the industry regarding WFB measures and policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".