WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING - ISPCS the... · WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING Women comprise more than...

Nadya A. Fouad, Ph.D. Romila Singh, Ph.D. Mary E. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D Jane P. Liu, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING

“ There is little to no RESPECT for women in male-dominated fields.”

“ Still getting asked if I can handle being in a mostly male work environment

in interviews in 2009 - I’ve been an engineer for 9 years, obviously I can.

I know when I’m asked that question, I HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE JOB. It

is nice they brought me in for equal opportunity survey points but don’t

waste my time if you don’t take females seriously.”

“ My current workplace is very

WOMAN ENGINEER FRIENDLY. Women get promoted and paid at the same rate as men.”

“I have to get OUTSIDE OF THE CUBICLE.”

“ My work for many years at a U.S. national laboratory has provided both the flexibility and scientific/ educational environment I need. In turn I give my professional best while at work. It is a WIN-WIN.”

“ Being a blonde, blue-eyed female

DOESN’T HELP when interviewing in

a manufacturing/plant setting.”

“ The lack of women in general, and the lack of women mentors makes it [engineering] a LONELY field for women to want to stay in.”

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5 Executive Summary

11 Chapter 1: Introduction

15 Chapter 2: Participants’ Profile and Study Procedures

17 Chapter 3: Women Who Never Entered the Field of Engineering after

Earning Their Undergraduate Degree in Engineering

23 Chapter 4: Women Engineers Who Left the Engineering Field Over Five

Years Ago

29 Chapter 5: Current and Former Women Engineers: Who Are They and

What Are They Doing?

35 Chapter 6: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How are They

Faring in their Jobs and Careers?

41 Chapter 7: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How are They

Managing Their Multiple Life Roles?

47 Chapter 8: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How Strong is

Their Bond to the Engineering Profession and to Their Organization?

51 Chapter 9: What Explains Women Engineers’ Desire to Leave the

Company and the Profession?

57 Chapter 10: Summary & Recommendations

62 References

A study of this scope is not possible without the help and cooperation of many individuals.

The study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) and funded

with a grant by the National Science Foundation.

We would first like to acknowledge and thank the many women

engineers who so generously volunteered their time to participate

in this study. They did so with enthusiasm and commitment, often

contributing many suggestions, ideas, and comments to help us

gain a better understanding of their decisions to stay in, or leave, an

engineering career. We couldn’t have done it without them!

We thank the members of our team who were doctoral students in counseling psychology:

Jane Liu, Michelle Parisot, Catia Figuereido, and Melissa Rico and, in particular, Mary

Fitzpatrick, a former engineer who provided us with invaluable insights and assistance

as we developed the study.

We thank the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and all of the partner universities for

their invaluable cooperation and support. We were remarkably fortunate to work with

a number of Deans, Associate Deans, and Women in Engineering (WIE) Program Directors

from 30 partner universities who dedicated many staff hours and resources to provide us

with mechanisms to reach out to their alumnae.

We thank the members of the UWM-ENTECH (Empowering Nonprofits in Technology)

team who helped to create our website and the database, and continued to help problem

solve the inevitable bugs and glitches.

We thank Gina Johnson, Communications Specialist at UWM, for her creative

conceptualization and design of all media associated with this project.

We thank Alfonzo Thurman, Dean of the School of Education at UWM, and Kanti Prasad,

former Dean of the Lubar School of Business at UWM, for their additional financial

support of the project.

We thank Patricia Arredondo, Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, and Sammis

White, Associate Dean, School of Continuing Education, at the UWM Center for the Study

of the Workplace, for their support and encouragement.

We thank the media relations team at UWM, particularly Tom Luljak, Vice Chancellor,

University Communications and Media Relations, Laura Glawe, Director, University

Communications and Media Relations, and Laura Hunt, Senior University Relations

Specialist, for their assistance with the project.

Finally, we thank our families who gave us advice, feedback, and support, especially

Dr. A. A. Fouad, who is still disappointed his daughter chose psychology over engineering.

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation (“Women’s Persistence in

Engineering Careers: Contextual Barriers/Supports”; NSF # 0827553). Any opinions, findings

conclusions, and recommendations are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the National Science Foundation.

AC

KNO

WLE

DG

EMEN

TS

© 2011-2012, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MILWAUKEE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSTEMMING THE TIDE: WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERINGWomen comprise more than 20% of engineering school graduates, yet only 11% of practicing engineers

are women, despite decades of academic, federal, and employer interventions to address this gender gap.

The Project on Women Engineers’ Retention (POWER) was designed to understand factors related to

women engineers’ career decisions. Over 5,500 women who had graduated with an engineering degree

responded to our survey and indicated that the workplace climate was a strong factor in their decisions to

not enter engineering after college or to leave the profession of engineering. However, workplace climate

also helped to explain current engineers’ satisfaction and intention to stay in engineering.

2012

6 WOMEN IN ENGINEERING 2012 REPORT

KEY FINDINGS: Some women left the field, some never entered and many are currently engineers:Those who left: • About11%saidtheyleftbecauseofworkingconditions,too

muchtravel,lackofadvancement,orlowsalary.

• Approximatelyone-in-fivewomenleftbecausetheydidnotliketheworkplaceclimate,theirbossortheculture.

• Eightpercentlefttospendtimewithfamily.

• Thosewholeftwerenotdifferentfromcurrentengineersintheirinterests,confidenceintheirabilitiesorthepositiveoutcomestheyexpectedfromperformingengineering-relatedtasks.

Those who didn’t enter engineering after graduation: • Athirdsaiditwasbecauseoftheirperceptionsofengineering

asbeinginflexibleortheengineeringworkplacecultureasbeingnon-supportiveofwomen.

• Thirtypercentsaidtheydidnotpursueengineeringaftergraduationbecausetheywerenolongerinterestedinengineeringorwereinterestedinanotherfield.

• Manysaidtheyareusingtheknowledgeandskillsgainedintheireducationinanumberofotherfields.

Work decisions of women currently working in engineering:• Women’sdecisionstostayinengineeringarebestpredictedbya

combinationofpsychologicalfactorsandfactorsrelatedtotheorganizationalclimate.

• Women’sdecisionstostayinengineeringcanbeinfluencedbykeysupportivepeopleintheorganization,suchassupervisorsandco-workers.Currentwomenengineerswhoworkedincompaniesthatvaluedandrecognizedtheircontributionsandinvestedsubstantiallyintheirtrainingandprofessionaldevelopment,expressedgreatestlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

• Womenengineerswhoweretreatedinacondescending,patronizingmanner,andwerebelittledandunderminedbytheirsupervisorsandco-workers,weremostlikelytowanttoleavetheirorganizations.

• Womenwhoconsideredleavingtheircompanieswerealsoverylikelytoconsiderleavingthefieldofengineeringaltogether.

7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY METHODS

In November 2009, we launched a national longitudinal study, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), to

investigate women engineers’ experiences in technical workplaces. To reach women who earned engineering undergraduate

degrees, we partnered with 30 universities and recruited their female engineering alumnae through e-mail and postcards.

Women recognized the importance of the study and responded enthusiastically to our survey. In fact, women from an

additional 200 universities have participated after hearing of the study in the media and through colleagues. As of August

2012, over 5,500 women have completed the survey and more than three quarters have agreed to be re-contacted in future

waves of the study.

THE PARTICIPANTS

The engineering alumnae who participated in the study consisted of 4 groups: those with an engineering undergraduate

degree who never entered the engineering field, those who left the field more than 5 years ago, those who left the engineering field

less than 5 years ago, and those who are currently working as engineers. We first report on what we learned from the first

two groups of women who are no longer working in engineering. Then, to help understand potential reasons why women left

the field, we compare current engineers with engineers who left less than 5 years ago on their perceptions of the supports

and barriers in the workplace and their perceptions of managing multiple work-nonwork roles. We only contrasted the current

engineers with those who left less than 5 years ago to provide similar time frames for comparison as well as to ensure that

recollections were recent enough to be accurate.


Women Who Left EngineeringSome alumnae never entered the engineering profession:

Tenpercent(N=554)ofourparticipantshadcompletedthe

rigoroustrainingrequiredtoearnabaccalaureatedegreein

engineeringbutchosenottoenterthefieldofengineering.

• What did they major in? Thethreemostfrequentlycitedmajorswere:IndustrialEngineering,ChemicalEngineeringandMechanicalEngineering.Nearlyhalfofthisgroupofengineersearnedanadditionaldegree,primarilymaster’sdegrees,although11%hadearnedanadditionalB.S.degree.

• Are they working?YES. Althoughtheydidnotenterengineer-ing,4out-of-5ofthemareworkinginanotherindustry.Two-thirdsofthewomenareworkinginamanagerialorexecutiveposition.Themostfrequentlycitedindustriesinwhichtheyworkare:InformationTechnology,EducationandGovern-ment/Non-profit.Aquarterofthewomenwhodidnotenterthefieldreportedthattheywereearninglessthan$50,000,whileanotherquarterreportedearningbetween$51,000and$100,000.Mostofthisgrouphadaspousewhowasalsoemployedfulltime,reflectedinthethirdofthemreportingafamilyincomegreaterthan$150,000.

• Why did the women not enter an engineering career? Thetopfivereasonswomenreportedfordecidingnottoenterengineeringwere:theywerenotinterestedinengineering,didn’tliketheengineeringculture,hadalwaysplannedtogointoanotherfield,didnotfindthecareerflexibleenough,orwantedtostarttheirownbusiness.Thesereasonsdidnotdiffersignificantlyacrossdifferentagegroupsoryearsofgraduation.

Some women left an engineering career more than five

years ago:

• One-in-fiveoftheparticipants(N=1185)startedinanengi-neeringcareerbutleftthefieldmorethanfiveyearsago.

• What did they major in? Similartothewomenengineerswhoneverenteredtheengineeringfield,thetopthreemajorsearnedbythisgroupofwomenengineerswere:IndustrialEngineering,MechanicalEngineering,andChemicalEngi-neering.Almosthalfhadearnedanadditionaldegree,mostoftenanM.S.orM.B.A.

• Are they working?YES. Allofthemarecurrentlyworkingatleastpart-time,athirdofthemareearningover$100,000,and54%ofthesewomenareinmanagementorexecu-tivelevelpositions.Morethanone-thirdreportedafamilyincomeofmorethan$100,000.Thetopthreeindustriesinwhichthesewomenareworkinginare:Education,Health-care,andConsulting.

• Why did they leave an engineering career?About10%ofthewomenreportedthattheyleftthefieldtospendmoretimewiththeirfamily.Otherwomenreportedthattheylostinterestinengineeringordevelopedinterestinanotherfield,theydidnotliketheengineeringculture,theydidnotlikeengineeringtasks,ortheywerenotofferedanyopportunitiesforadvancement.

“ At my last engineering job, women were fed up with the culture:

arrogant, inflexible, completely money-driven, sometimes unethical,

and intolerant of differences in values and priorities. I felt alienated,

in spite of spending my whole career TRYING TO ACT LIKE A MAN.”

9EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Profile of Women Currently Working in Engineering and Those Who Left Less Than Five Years Ago

POTENTIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING:Thewomenwholeftengineeringlessthanfiveyearsago

werecomparedtothosewhoarestillinanengineering

career.Currentengineerswerethelargestgroupinourstudy

(N=3.324)whilethosewholeftlessthanfiveyearsagowere

thesmallestgroup(N=279).Wefirstcomparedthegroups

onvariousdemographicandcareer-relatedvariables.

• Are current engineers less likely to be married?NO.Thegroupswerenotsignificantlydifferentinraceormaritalstatus.Bothgroupswereabout80%Caucasian,withtwo-thirdsmarried.Bothgroupsofwomenwererelativelyevenlydistributedacrossthedifferentagegroups.

• Are current engineers more likely to have majored in a particular area?NO.Thetwogroupsofengineers,forthemostpart,didnotdifferbydisciplinaryarea.ThetopthreemajorsforbothgroupswereChemical,MechanicalandCivilEngineering.

• Did women leave engineering to stay home with children?Athirdappeartohavedoneso,buttwothirdsofthewomenwholeftareworkingfulltimeinanotherfield,and76%ofthoseareworkinginmanagementorexecutivelevelpositions. Forthosewhoarecurrentlyworking,therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthosewholeftandthosewhostayedintheaveragerangeofsalary.

Wenextexaminedkeypsychologicalfactorsbetween

currentengineersandthosewholeftthefield.Itis

possiblethatcurrentengineersdifferedfromwomenwho

leftengineeringwithregardtotheirlevelsofself-confidence,

expectedoutcomesfromperformingcertaintasksor

underlyinginterests.Wespecificallyexaminedconfidence

andexpectedoutcomesinthreecriticalareasthatcomprise

asuccessfulengineeringcareerforwomen:performing

engineeringtasks,managingmultiplework-nonworkroles

andnavigatingthepoliticallandscapeatwork.

Are current engineers more likely than women who left

engineering less than five years ago to:

• beconfidentoftheirabilitiesasanengineerorwhattheyexpectfromperformingengineeringtasks?NO.

• beconfidentoftheirabilitiestonavigatethepoliticalclimateorwhattheyexpectfrommanagingthesedynamics?NO.

• beconfidentoftheirabilitiestomanagemultiplework-nonworkroledemandsorwhattheyexpectfrommanagingwork-nonworkmultipleroles?NO.

• haveinterestsinengineeringrelatedactivities?NO.

CURRENT ENGINEERS: MANAGING MULTIPLE WORK-NONWORKROLESArewomen’sperceptionsofmanagingmultiplework-

nonworkrolesinfluencedbypsychologicalvariables,

suchasself-confidence,orbytheirsupervisororother

workplacefactors?

• Theanswerwasboth.Thethreemostimportantcontributorstoacurrentengineer’sexperienceofconflictbetweenworkandnon-workroleswastheirlackofself-confidenceintheirabilitytomanagemultiplework-nonworkroles,beingoverloadedbytheircurrentworkrole(includingthefactthattheyweregiventoomanytasksandhadtoomuchresponsibilitywithoutcommensurateresources)andworkinginanuncivilworkenvironmentthattreatedwomeninacondescendingandpatronizingmanner.

• Theuseofacompany’swork-lifebenefitpoliciesexacerbatedtheconflictthatengineersexperiencedbetweentheirmultiplework-nonworkwork-liferoles.

• Thegreatertheconflictexperiencedbetweenworkandnon-workroles,thegreateristheintentiontoleavetheorganizationaswellastheprofession.

10

CURRENT ENGINEERS: PREDICTING SATISFACTION AND TURNOVERWealsoexaminedwomen’sperceptionsofthework

environmentandwhetherthoseperceptionsinfluenced

satisfactionorretention.Womenwholeftengineering

differedsignificantlyfromcurrentengineersonperceptions

oftheworkplaceclimate,bothintermsofsupportsand

barrierstheyencountered.Weexaminedworkplacesupport

attwolevels:first,theextenttowhichtheirorganizations

supportedtheirtraininganddevelopment,providedavenues

foradvancement,valuedtheircontributionsatwork,and

createdasupportiveclimateforfulfillingmultipleliferole

obligations.Second,supportwasassessedintermsofthe

extenttowhichthewomenengineersreportedhaving

amentor,andreceivedsupportfromtheirsupervisors

andco-workers.Wealsoexaminedtwotypesofworkplace-

relatedbarriersthatcouldimpacttheirlevelsofsatisfaction

aswellasthoughtsofleaving:workplaceclimatefactorswere

capturedbytheextenttowhichsupervisors,seniormanagers

andco-workersunderminedthemand/ortreatedthem

inacondescending,patronizingordiscourteousmanner.

Anothersetofworkplacebarriersfocusedontheextentto

whichwomenengineerslackedclarityintheirroles,

experiencedcontradictoryandconflictingworkrequests

andrequirementsandwereoverburdenedwithexcessive

workresponsibilitieswithoutcommensurateresources.

Are current engineers more likely than women who left

engineering less than five years ago to:

• experience different types of support? YES.Currentengineersweresignificantlymorelikelytoperceiveopportunitiesfortraininganddevelopment.Interestingly,thecurrentengi-neersreportedfewerwork-lifebenefitsavailabletothem,butweresignificantlymorelikelytohaveusedthosebenefits.

• have a mentoring relationship?NO.Onlyaboutone-quarterofeachgroupreportedhavingamentorandtherewerenodifferencesinsatisfactionwithmentoring.

• encounter supportive supervisors and co-workers?YES.

• encounter role related barriers in the work environment?NO.

• encounter organizational-level barriers in the work environment?YES.Currentengineersweresignificantlylesslikelytoperceiveorganizationalbarriers.Theywerelesslikelytoperceiveeithersupervisorsorco-workersasunderminingthem,perceivedlesssexismintheenvironment,andwerelesslikelytovieworganizationaltimedemandsasabarrier.

Finally,welookedatwhatpredictscurrentengineers’job

andcareersatisfactionandtheirintentiontoleavetheir

companiesaswellasthefieldofengineering.

• Do workplace barriers affect current women engineers’ satisfac-tion?YES.Thetwobarriersthatmostnegativelyinfluencedwomen’ssatisfactionlevelswerework-roleuncertainlyandaworkenvironmentthatconsistentlyunderminedthem.

• Do workplace supports affect current women engineers’ satisfaction?YES.Differentformsofsupport,suchastrain-inganddevelopmentopportunities,supportiveco-workers,supervisors,andcompaniesthatallowedemployeestimetobalancetheirmultiplework-nonworkroles,werepositivelyrelatedtosatisfaction.

• Do climate factors influence intention to leave their job? YES.Bothworkplaceclimateandpersonalfactorsinfluencedintentiontoleave.Beingunderminedbytheirsupervisors,perceivingthattheorganizationwasnotsupportiveofthemandthattheirmanagerswereunwillingtoaccommodatetheirdesiretobalancemultipleliferoles,predictedtheirintentiontoleavetheircurrentorganizations.

• What predicts intention to leave engineering as a career? Feelingalackofconfidenceintheirabilitytoperformengineeringtasksandmanagemultiplework-nonworkrolescombinedwithnotbeingpositiveabouttheoutcomestheyexpectedfromperformingengineeringtasksleadswomenengineerstoconsiderquittingtheengineeringfieldaltogether.Theothertwomostsignificantcontributorstowomen’sintentionstoquitengineeringwereexcessiveworkresponsi-bilitieswithoutcommensurateresourcesandalackofclarityregardingtheirworkroles.

• What predicts job and career satisfaction?Perceivingthattheorganizationissupportiveandprovidesopportunitiesforadvancementpredictssatisfaction.Personalfactorsalsowererelatedtojobandcareersatisfaction;womenwhoreportedhighlevelsofself-confidenceinnavigatingtheirorganization’spoliticallandscapeandjugglingmultiplework-nonworkrolesandwhoexpectedpositiveoutcomestoresultfromtheireffortstonavigatetheorganizationalclimateatwork,weremostlikelytoexpressbothjobandcareersatisfaction.

• Do psychological factors predict intention to stay better than work environment factors?NO.Women’sintentiontostayinengineeringasafieldandintheircurrentorganizationisbestpredictedbyacombinationofpsychologicalvariablesrelatedtoconfidence,expectedoutcomesandinterests,aswellassupportsandbarriersencounteredatwork.

11CHAPTER: ONE

1: INTRODUCTIONWhy Study Women Engineers? TheNationalAcademyofEngineeringhasclearlyshown

thattheU.S.needstechnologicalexpertisetobecompetitive

intheglobalmarketanditiscriticaltotrainengineersto

providethatexpertise.However,researchshowsthatwomen

aremuchmorelikelytoleaveanengineeringcareer,thus

losingmanyoftheengineersU.S.collegesaretraining.Wom-

enare,infact,underrepresentedinthefieldofengineering

ateverylevel.Mostoftheresearchoneffectiveinterventions

hassuccessfullyfocusedonincreasingwomen’schoice

ofengineeringmajor.Theresultisthatwomenarenow

nearly20%ofengineeringgraduates.However,only11%of

professionalengineersarewomen(NationalScienceFoundation,

2011),astatisticthathasnotchangedfornearly20years.

Infact,theproportionofwomenengineershasdeclined

slightlyinthepastdecade,suggestingthatwhilethepool

ofqualifiedwomenengineeringgraduateshasincreased,

theyarenotstayinginthefieldofengineering.Clearly,while

oureducationalsystemishavingsomesuccessatattracting

andgraduatingwomenfromengineeringprograms,women

whoearnengineeringdegreesaredisproportionatelychoosing

nottopersistinengineeringcareers,andresearchhasnot

systematicallyinvestigatedwhatfactorsmaycontributeto

theirdecisions.

Women’sdecisionsnottopersistmaybeduetotheir

ownconcernsaboutmanagingtheorganizationalclimate,

performingengineeringtasksorbalancingworkandfamily

roles(Smith,1993),orcouldbeduetoenvironmentalbarriers

suchasfacingachillyorganizationalclimate,particularly

duringparentingyears(SocietyofWomenEngineers,2007).

Womenmayalsoencounterorganizationalbarrierswhen

theyreachajuncturetomoveintomanagementfrom

engineeringroles.Itis,therefore,criticaltounderstand

thediversityoffactorsthatleadsomewomentopersistin

engineeringandotherstoleaveit,asoureducationalsystem

mayhavearoleinbetterpreparingwomenengineersfor

workforcechallenges.Inaddition,theorganizationsthat

employwomenengineershaveavitalroleincreatingwork

environmentsthatbothattractandretainwomenengineers.

Therearepersonalcoststochoosingtoleaveacareerfor

whichonehastrainedlongandhardfor.Thereisalsoa

societalcosttolosingthepotentialof,ortheinvestmentin,

atrainedworkforce,particularlyatatimewhenthereisa

shortageoftechnologicalemployeesintheU.S.Inshort,it

isimportanttounderstandthefactorsthatleadtowomen’s

choicestoleaveengineeringsothateducationalandorgani-

zationalinstitutionscanintervenetoshiftthosechoices.

Background on Engineering Labor ForceU.S.leadershipintechnicalinnovationhasbeenavigorous

forcebehindeconomicprosperityforatleastthelast50years.

RecentconcernaboutdecliningnumbersofU.S.citizens

choosingtoentertechnicalcareersandtheincrease

intechnologicaltalentandjobsoverseasledCongressto

asktheNationalAcademyofSciencestoanalyzetheU.S.

technicaltalentpoolandmakepolicyrecommendations

toadvanceU.S.competitivenessinglobalresearchand

developmentmarkets(CommitteeonScience,Engineering,

andPublicPolicy,2007).Thereporteffectivelyarguesforthe

increasedimportanceoftechnologytotheU.S.economy,

demonstratesglobaltrendsinresearchanddevelopment

thatfavorothercountriesandhighlightstheneedforconcrete

actiontoenhanceU.S.competitiveness.However,while

thereportbrieflynotesthatU.S.womenandminoritiesare

underrepresentedinscienceandtechnology,itdoesnot

addresstheadditionallossofwomenfromtechnology

careers,post-graduation,whichrepresentsasubstantial

lossoftalentfromthetechnicalworkforce.

Aswenoteabove,womenareveryunderrepresentedin

theengineeringdisciplines.Thelossofwomenfromthe

professionaftertheycompletetheirundergraduatedegreeis

particularlydishearteningaswellascostlytotheeducational

system,societyandtowomenpersonally,giventhelargetime,

effort,andmonetaryinvestmentintheireducation.Asnoted

inarecentreviewofresearchongirls’persistenceinscience

andengineering,littleisknownaboutwhathappenstowomen


oncetheyentertheengineeringworkforce(NationalScience

Foundation,2006).However,areportrecentlyreleasedbythe

SocietyofWomenEngineers(2007)suggeststhattheyleave

engineeringcareersinpartbecausetheyencounterachilly

organizationalclimatewhentheyreachchildbearingage

anddesiretobalanceworkandfamilyroles.

Factors Related to Employee TurnoverForanyindividual,thedecisiontopersistorchangecareers,

jobsororganizationsisoftenprecipitatedbyavarietyof

factorsthatinfluencethetrajectoryofthechoiceprocess.

Henceitisimportanttocaptureboththemoreimmediate

predictorsofthatchoice(suchaswithdrawalcognitions)

aswellasmoredistalpredictors(suchasattitudestowards

theircareerandotherbarriersandsupports)thatleadto

eitherpersistenceinacareerorthedecisiontoleave.By

examiningtheantecedentsofemployeeturnover,itispossible

togainanewunderstandingofsomeofthefactorsthat

influenceindividuals’decisionstostayorleaveagivencareer

field,jobororganization.

Employeeturnoverhasbeenthesubjectofintenseempirical

andtheoreticalscrutinyforseveraldecadesandhasgenerated

animpressivebodyofknowledgeaboutthewithdrawal

process(e.g.,Griffith,Hom,&Gaertner,2000;Lee,Mitchell,

Holtom,McDaniel,&Hill,1999;Mitchell,Holtom,Lee,Sablynski,

&Erez,2001).Turnoverdecisionresearchpointsoutthat

employeesengageinthinkingaboutquittingwhichmay

ormaynotresultinactualquitting;insteadthesethought

processes(withdrawalcognitions)maytriggeralternative

formsofwithdrawalsuchasplanstosearchforalternative

jobopportunities,generalthoughtsorconsiderationsof

quitting,andintentionstoquit(Hanisch,1995).Withdrawal

cognitionsalsoincludetheconceptofpsychological

withdrawal,whichreferstoadeliberatere-directionof

thoughtprocessesandpersonalplansawayfromone’s

currentposition.Thesecognitionsaremanifestedinabroad,

encompassingreductionofinputstoone’scurrentrolesuch

asabsenteeism,latenessandinattention,orbasicneglect

ofduties(Hanisch,1995;Shaffer&Harrison,1998).Employees

whoremainintheorganizationbutarepsychologically

withdrawnmayincurindirectcoststotheirorganizations

throughreducedproductivityandreducedstaffmorale.

Further,psychologicalwithdrawalmayalsobedamagingto

theemployeeintheformofdiminishedself-esteem,impaired

relationshipsatworkandhome,andinterruptedcareers.

Prevailingmodelsofvoluntaryturnoverandaccumulated

researchevidenceindicatethatwithdrawalcognitionsarethe

immediateprecursorstoactual,voluntaryturnoverdecisions

(Griffethetal.,2000;Hom&Kinicki,2001;Maertz&Campion,

2004).Withdrawalcognitions,inturn,areusuallyprecipitated

bynegativeevaluationsaboutone’sjob(i.e.,lowerjobsatis-

faction)andloweredcommitmenttotheorganization.This

isconsistentwithattitudetheory(Ajzen&Fishbein,1980)

whichpositsthatbehaviorisdeterminedbytheintention

toperformthebehaviorandthatthisintentionis,inturn,

afunctionoftheattitudetowardthebehavior.Researchon

voluntaryturnoverprocesshasshowngeneralsupportfor

thisunfoldingsequenceofexitbehavior:jobdissatisfaction

andloweredcommitmentprogressestowardwithdrawal

cognitions,andwithdrawalcognitionsinturn,leadto

turnover.Researchontherelationshipbetweenturnover

intentionsandattitudinalvariablessuchasjobsatisfaction

andorganizationalcommitmenthavefoundthatbothjob

satisfactionandcommitmentwerenegativelycorrelated

withwithdrawalcognitions(e.g.,George&Jones,1996;Hom&

Kinicki,2001;Rosin&Korabik,1995),andwithdrawalcognitions

predictedturnover(e.g.,Hom&Kinicki,2001).

Despitedifferencesinlabormarketbehaviorsbymen

andwomen,researchongenderdifferencesinvoluntary

turnoverhasbeensurprisinglylimited.Furthermore,

existingresearchhasproducedinconsistentfindings.For

example,somestudiesindicatethatwomenandpeopleof

colortendtoleavetheirjobsatahigherratethanCaucasian

males(e.g.,Cox&Blake,1991;Stuart,1992)whileotherstudies

reporttheoppositeeffect,turnoverformalesisgreaterthanthat

forfemales(e.g.,Barrick,Mount,&Strauss,1994;Blau&Lunz,1998).

Giventhatwithdrawalbehaviorprogressesintheseclearly

identifiablestages,itisimportanttounderstandabroad

rangeofbarriersandsupportsthatmayleadtopoorcareer

commitment,psychologicalwithdrawalandintentionsto

quittheorganizationandtheengineeringprofession.

Byunderstandingtheprocessthatleadstoturnover

fromengineeringcareers,wewillbebetterabletodesign

appropriateinterventionsthatfacilitatewomen’sdecision

topersistinengineeringcareers.

13

Women’s Preparation to Enter STEM FieldsWhileweknowlittleaboutthefactorsthatpredictthe

turnoverofemployedengineers,therehasbeenresearch

topredictinitialvocationalchoicesofengineeringasa

careerwithinK-16educationalsettings.Thisresearchhas

examinednotonlyengineeringasacareerchoice,butalso

thechoicestotakeSTEM(Science,Technology,Engineering,

andMathematics)classesthatarecriticaltoengineering

educationatthebaccalaureatelevel.

Researchhassuggestedinterventionsthatfocusonincreasing

girls’participationthatincludepromotingmath/science

interests(e.g.,O’Brien,1996),promotingthehuman-value

characteristicsofengineering(Eccles,2007),increasing

parentalsupportformathandadvancedclasses(e.g.,Burgard,

2000),promotingpositiveenvironments(e.g.,Dooley,2001),

focusingontheoutcomeexpectationsofmathandscience

(e.g.,Edwardson,1998;Nauta&Epperson,2003)andincreasing

math/scienceandengineeringself-efficacy(Mau,2003).

Collegeshavealsoinstitutedsystemicinterventions,such

astheModelInstitutesforExcellence,aNationalScience

Foundationprogram,thatincludementoring,tutoring,

targetedadvising,andfacultydevelopment.Andindeed,

therehasbeenasmallbutmeasurableimprovementin

women’sgraduationratesinengineeringoverthelastdecade.

Forexample,from1995to2010,thepercentageofwomen

whohaveearnedbachelor’sdegreesinengineeringhas

increasedfrom17.3%to20.1%(NationalScienceFoundation,

2011),andtheimpactofrecenteducationalinterventionef-

fortswilllikelybeseenincomingyears.

Womenwhodochooseengineeringandpersistthrough

theeducationalsystemtoachieveatechnicaldegreehave

demonstratedinterestintheirfield(Davey,2001),expect

positiveoutcomesfromtheirparticipation(Shaefers,Epperson

&Nauta,1997),possessthemath,science,andengineering

self-efficacysufficienttonavigaterequiredtechnicalcoursework

(Lentetal,2003),andvaluetheoccupationalcharacteristics

oftechnicaljobs(Eccles,2007).Thus,onewouldexpectthat

womenwhoearnengineeringdegreeswouldbelikelyto

persistandbesuccessfulintheircareers.However,women’s

representativenumbersinengineeringandthephysical

sciencesdeclinesignificantlypost-graduationandthe

occupationalpipelinecontinuestonarrowtothepointthat

womenarelessandlessrepresentedovertheircareerspan

(Preston,2004;SocietyofWomenEngineers,2007).

Women Leave Engineering Careers More Than Other FieldsPreston(2004)reportedthatallengineersleavethefieldat

aratefourtimesthatofdoctors,threeandahalftimesthat

oflawyersandjudges,and15-30%morethannursesorcol-

legeteachers.Specifictoengineering,theSocietyofWomen

Engineers(SWE)recentlyreportedthatone-in-fourwomen

whoenterengineeringhavelefttheprofessionafterage

30,comparedtoone-in-tenmaleengineers(SWE,2007).

However,whilethesestudieshavedocumentedthatwomen

haveleftthefieldofengineering,theyhavenotfocusedon

thepsychologicalprocessesinvolvedinmakingtheirdecision

toleavetheprofession.Theirdecisioncouldberelatedto

concernswithmanagingmultiplework-nonworkrolesor

lackofadvancementopportunities.Itcouldbebecause

theyreachajuncturewheretheyhavetodecidetoentera

managementcareer,orfacethepossiblylimitedopportuni-

tiesthatmaycomewithanexclusivelytechnicalengineer-

ingrole.Itcouldbethattheynolongerenjoytheworkof

anengineer.Itcouldbebecausetheyencounterachilly

organizationalclimate.Therearemanypossibilitiesthathave

surfacedfromanecdotalaccountsbutlittleresearchtooffer

sometangibleevidence.

“ ...I got to a certain point in

my engineering career when

I NO LONGER ADVANCED. I felt

I needed additional education

to move forward, but no topics

interested me as much as

computer programming, so I

changed my career to that.

It was a good change. I have

been more successful in the computer field than I was in

the engineering field.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

OUR STUDY

The problem we set out to investigate was why women choose to leave engineering careers. Much of the research

on career choices has been based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett 2002). The SCCT model

has been used to help explain the factors related to initial career choice, but has not yet been studied to explain career

persistence decisions in the workplace. We extended this model to predict women’s choices related to engineering

persistence in the workplace by incorporating research related to career attitudes (career satisfaction and commitment),

psychological withdrawal and turnover intentions.

We hope that this research can help us develop interventions (educational, organizational and/or personal) to possibly

STEM THE TIDE OF DEPARTURE AND INCREASE WOMEN’S PERSISTENCE IN ENGINEERING CAREERS. The results from this study may be useful to employers who seek to attract and retain talented women engineers, and in

doing so, realize their investment in their technical employees. Understanding the dynamics of women’s technical

career paths over their lifespan may also support development of interventions for university education for women, perhaps

to better prepare future engineers for challenges they will face in the workplace.


15WOMEN IN ENGINEERING 2012 REPORT

2:PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE AND STUDY PROCEDURESIn November of 2009, we launched POWER (Project on Women Engineers’ Retention), a national longitudinal

study funded by the National Science Foundation, to investigate women engineers’ experiences in technical

workplaces. In collaboration with ENTECH (Empowering Nonprofits in Technology) at the University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee, we developed a website for POWER, which includes information about the study

and a link to the survey. Data from the first phase of the longitudinal study have been collected and our

report is based on the findings from this first wave of participants.

Who Are The Participants?Atotalof5,562womenwhograduatedwithabachelor’s

degreeinengineeringparticipatedandcompletedthestudy.

Ofthis,554(10%)womenobtainedadegreebutnever

workedasanengineer,1,464(27%)womenpreviously

workedasanengineerbuthaveleftthefieldsince(279of

theseleftlessthanfiveyearsago),and3,324(60%)women

arecurrentlyworkinginengineering.

WOMEN WHO GRADUATED BUT DID NOT ENTER ENGINEERINGThisgroupofwomenearnedabachelor’sinengineering

butdidnotenterthefield.Thiswasaraciallyandethnically

diversegroup.Womeninthisgroupinclude:65%Caucasian,

18%Multi-racial,9%Asian/Asian-American,5%African

American,2%Latina,andlessthan1%AmericanIndian.

Ofthosewhoreportedtheirmaritalstatus,abouthalf

(46%)ofthewomenweremarried,athird(29%)werenot

married,andasmallpercentageindicatedthattheywere

eithernotmarriedbutinacommittedrelationship(4%),

divorced(3%),separated(<1%),orwidowed(<1%).

WOMEN WHO LEFT ENGINEERINGThewomeninthisgroupwereseparatedintothosewho

workedasengineersbutleftengineeringmorethanfive

yearsagoandthosewhoworkedinengineeringbutleft

withinthepastfiveyears.

Women Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago.

Thisgroupconsistedof1,185women,withthemajority

self-identifyingasWhite(62.4%),4.5%asAsian/Asian-

American,4%AfricanAmerican,2%Latina,26%Multi-racial,

1%other,andlessthan1%identifiedthemselvesasOther

andasAmericanIndian.Themajorityofwomeninthis

groupreportedbeingmarried(67%),22%ofwomenwere

notmarried,5%weredivorced,4%reportedbeingina

committedrelationship,1%indicatedtheywereseparated

fromtheirspouse,and1%reportedbeingwidowed.

Women Who Left Engineering Less Than Five Years Ago.

279womenfellinthisgroup,withthemajorityself-identifying

asWhite(78%),thenAsian/Asian-American(4%),

Multi-racial(5%),Latina(3%),AfricanAmerican(3%),

AmericanIndian(<1%),andother(2%).Abouttwo-thirds

ofwomeninthisgrouparemarried(63%),29%reported

notbeingmarried,4%indicatedtheywereinacommitted

relationship,3%weredivorced,andlessthan1%ofthe

groupwereeitherseparatedorwidowed.


CURRENT ENGINEERSWomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringrepresent

thelargestgroupinthestudy(3,324).Aswiththeothergroups,

morethanhalfofthewomenself-identifiedasWhite(56%),3%

wereAsian/Asian-American,38%indicatedMulti-racial

heritage,1%AfricanAmerican,2%Latina,andlessthan1%as

AmericanIndian.Abouttwo-thirdsofthewomenweremarried

(62%),23%reportednotbeingmarried,8%wereinacommit-

tedrelationship,4%weredivorced,lessthan1%wereseparated

andwerewidowed.

HOW WERE THE VARIABLES MEASURED? Thestudyincludedademographicsquestionnaireand26

differentmeasuresthatassessedfactorsthatwouldinfluence

women’sthoughtsaboutleavingthefieldofengineering.The

surveyusedwell-establishedandvalidatedmeasuresdesigned

toprobeavarietyofperceptions,attitudesandbehaviorsthat

couldpotentiallyinfluencewithdrawalandturnoverintentions.

Thesurveytopicsincluded:vocationalinterests,jobandcareer

satisfaction,managingmultiplework-nonworkroles,withdrawal

intentions,commitmenttothecurrentorganizationandthe

engineeringprofession,availabilityoftraininganddevelopment

opportunities,underminingbehaviorsintheworkenvironment,

andavarietyofworkplacesupportmechanismsandinitiatives.

Whenwell-establishedmeasureswerenotavailable,wecreated

newmeasuresforthisstudythataccuratelycapturedwomen

engineers’experiences.Specifically,wedevelopedsixnewmeasures:

threedomain-specificself-efficacymeasuresandthreeoutcome

expectationsmeasuresrelatedtoworkingandmanaginginthe

fieldofengineering.PriortolaunchingPOWER,eachnewly

developedscalewascarefullyvalidatedthroughapilottestona

separatepoolofwomenengineers.

HOW WERE THE WOMEN SURVEYED? Toreachwomenwhoearnedengineeringundergraduatedegrees,

POWERpartneredwith30universitiestorecruittheirfemale

engineeringalumnaethroughemailandpostcards.Women

interestedinparticipatinginthisstudyweredirectedtothe

POWERwebsiteandalinktotheonlinesurvey.Recognizingthe

importanceofthestudy,womennotonlyresponded

enthusiasticallybycompletingoursurvey,butalsocontacted

thePOWERteamtoexpresstheirinterestinthisprojectand

sharedtheirpersonalexperiences.Infact,womenfroman

additional200universitiesparticipatedinthisstudyafter

hearingaboutPOWERinthemediaandthroughcolleagues.

Over5,500womencompletedthefirstphaseandmorethan

three-quartersagreedtobere-contactedtoparticipateinfu-

turewavesofthestudy.

PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITIES

1. California Polytechnic State University, SLO

2. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

3. California State University, Northridge

4. Cornell University

5. Georgia Institute of Technology

6. Iowa State University

7. Marquette University

8. Michigan State University

9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

10. North Carolina State University

11. Ohio State University

12. Penn State University

13. Purdue University

14. Rutgers University

15. San Jose State University

16. Southern Illinois University

17. Stanford University

18. University of California, San Diego

19. University of Florida

20. University of Illinois

21. University of Maryland

22. University of Michigan

23. University of Missouri-Kansas City

24. University of New Mexico

25. University of Texas, El Paso

26. University of Washington

27. University of Wisconsin-Madison

28. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

29. University of Wisconsin-Platteville

30. Virginia Tech


3: WOMEN WHO NEVER ENTERED THE FIELD OF ENGINEERING AFTER EARNING THEIR UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN ENGINEERING

“ You have to be a bit TOUGHER when you are around the guys, you feel you have to do better than them to be accepted.” – Caucasian Operations & Research Engineering Graduate

“ I interviewed with a company where there were NO WOMEN working there, besides secretaries, NO MINORITIES and no one in the young adult age group.” – African American Chemical Engineering Graduate

“ I do not know why other women leave engineering. I got an engineering degree because I was very good at math & sciences and wanted a technical & CHALLENGING degree.” – Caucasian Electrical Engineering Graduate


WHO ARE THE WOMEN WHO NEVER ENTERED THE ENGINEERING FIELD?Tenpercentofengineeringalumnaewhopar-

ticipatedinthePOWERstudywerewomenwho

neverenteredanengineeringfieldafterreceiv-

ingadegreeinengineering.Ofthewomenwho

neverentered(n=554),themajority(n=260,

47%)graduatedbetweentheyears2000-2010.

MorethanhalfofthePOWERparticipants

(65%)whohaveneverenteredanengineering

fieldwereCaucasian.Thesecondlargestgroup

wasparticipantswhoidentifiedwithmore

thanonerace(18%).Theageofthewomen

intheNon-Entrantsgrouprangedfrom22-66

yearsold.Nearlyhalf(46%)ofthewomenwere

marriedand29%reportedneverbeingmarried.

Mostofthewomenreportedhavingaspouse

thatisemployedfull-time.Mostofthewomen

whohaveneverenteredanengineeringfield

arenotparents(61%)andthemajorityofthem

(98%)didnotcarefordependents.

25%20%15%10%5%0%

1983 & Prior

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

American Indian <1%

Asian/Asian-American Latina 2%

5%

Multi-racial 18%

Caucasian 65%

9%

African American

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Women Who Never Entered Engineer-ing Based on Graduation Year

Figure 3.2 Racial/Ethnic Background of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Note: All figures are rounded to the closest percentage point

19

Individual Contributor 37%

Executive 40%

Manager 23%

CHAPTER THREE

Mostwomen(64%)whohaveneverentered

anengineeringfieldreportedworkingatleast

40hoursperweekinacurrentnon-engineering

position.

Individualsalaryrangedfromlessthan$50,000

tomorethan$151,000.Twenty-sixpercentof

womenwhoneverenteredtheengineeringfield

reportedearninglessthan$50,000and25%

make$51,000-$100,000.

Thirtypercentofparticipantsinthisgroup

reportedafamilytotalincomeofmorethan

$151,000,15%earned$101,000-$150,000,

14%earnedbetween$51,000-$100,000,and

10%earnedlessthan50,000.

Thehighestpercentageofwomeninthe

Non-Entrantsgroup(40%)reportedhavingan

executivemanagementstatusposition.Other

womeninthegroup(23%)reportedeither

havingamanagerstatuspositionoranindividual

contributorposition(37%).

WHAT IS THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF WOMEN WHO NEVER ENTERED ENGINEERING?Thetopfivemajorareasofstudyreportedby

morethanhalfoftheNon-Entrantsincluded

thefollowing:IndustrialEngineering(22%),

ChemicalEngineering(13%),Mechanical

Engineering(13%),ElectricalEngineering(10%),

andBioengineering(9%).

Nearlyhalf(46%)oftheNon-Entrantshadan

additionaldegree.Ofthewomenwhoreceived

anadditionaldegree,18%earnedaM.S.,12%

earnedaM.B.A.,11%earnedaB.S.,and4%

earnedaPh.D.

25%

30%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Individual Salary

$ 151,000+$ 101,000- 150,000

$ 51,000- 100,000

$ 50,000 and less

Family Total Income

Figure 3.3 Individual and Family Income based on the Percentage of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Figure 3.4 Organizational Rank of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

“ At the time I graduated no one was hiring except for the computer consulting companies who also paid very well compared to engineering and valued our problem-solving skills. By the time I worked … for 5 years, I HAD SURPASSED my father’s salary who had worked in engineering for over 40 years.” – Caucasian Aerospace Engineering Graduate


WHAT ARE THESE WOMEN DOING NOW?

Table 3.1 Primary Activities of Women Who Never Entered Engineering (for Different Years of Graduation)

Primary Activity 1983 & Prior 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

Currently working (in non-engineering industry) 29 59 67 100 107 86 448

Family care 2 10 10 5 12 5 44

Retired 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

Volunteer 0 0 1 0 0 3 4

Other 0 2 2 3 15 39 61

Total Responses = 560

Figure 3.5 Primary Activities of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Currently Working(non-engineering industry) 80%

Other 11%

Family CareVolunteer 1%

8%

“ I chose to study engineering

and to pursue a Master’s in

Engineering even though I

knew that I did not want to

practice as a ‘traditional’

engineer. My first-class

education allowed me to pursue

EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITIES as a strategy consultant.” – Caucasian/Latina Chemical Engineering Graduate

21CHAPTER THREE

KEY FINDINGS:80% are working full time in another field

Organizational climate was a factor in not entering engineering

- lack of flexibility, didn’t like the culture, management not appealing

Lack of interest cited as a reason not to enter engineering

20% never planned to enter and pursued other post-graduate degrees

“ ENGINEERING SCHOOL WAS PURE HELL for me—my personality inspired

much sexist behavior from my male classmates and my T.A.s...

At some point, after many interviews, I decided that I wouldn’t

want to spend the majority of my waking hours with the type of

people interviewing me.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

WHY DID WOMEN WITH AN ENGINEERING DEGREE NEVER ENTER THE ENGINEERING FIELD?

Table 3.2 Reasons Why Women Never Entered Engineering for Different Years of Graduation

Reason For Not Entering 1983 & Prior 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

Couldn’t find position 1 11 3 8 13 14 50

Management not appealing 0 2 3 3 7 5 20

Too difficult 2 3 4 5 4 8 26

Low salary 1 2 8 17 11 8 47

No advancement 1 3 6 11 9 10 40

Not flexible enough 2 2 6 7 14 14 45

Never planned to enter 4 16 11 20 32 24 107

Wanted to start own business 7 14 16 21 29 36 123

Didn’t like culture 4 13 18 28 27 29 119

Not interested in engineering 9 25 24 34 46 32 170

Total Responses = 747 (Note: women could choose more than one reason)


“ In my experience, women leave

engineering for FAMILY REASONS. I left engineering when I had my first child. I decided to stay home with my children...we moved to an area with very few engineering jobs. So I decided to go back to school and become a

math teacher.” – Caucasian Electrical Engineering Graduate

“ [There is no] opportunity for advancement in a male-dominated field—the culture of engineering is male-centric with HIGH EXPECTATIONS for travel and little personal time.” – Caucasian Chemical Engineering Graduate

20% wanted to start their own business

4: WOMEN WHO LEFT THE ENGINEERING FIELD OVER FIVE YEARS AGO

“ There isn’t a strong network of females in engineering. You either need to learn to be “one of the guys” or BLAZE THE TRAIL YOURSELF, which is very difficult. I deviated from engineering... but work now in construction, where I am the only female executive officer.” – Caucasian Agricultural Engineering Graduate


Multi-racial 2%

4% 6%

Other 1%

American Indian <1%

Asian/Asian-American Latina 2%

Caucasian 85%

African American

WHO ARE THE WOMEN WHO LEFT OVER FIVE YEARS AGO?

Twentyonepercentofengineeringalumnae

whoparticipatedinthePOWERstudywere

womenwhoenteredanengineeringfieldafter

receivingadegreeinengineeringbutleftthe

fieldmorethanfiveyearsago.Ofthewomen

whodidnotpersistinengineeringandleftmore

thanfiveyearsago(n=1185),eighteenpercent

(n=212)graduatedpriorto1983andanaddi-

tional249graduatedbetween1984and1989.

Two-thirdsofthisgroupofwomenengineers

(62%)wasWhiteandreportedbeingmarried

(67%)with22%reportingneverbeingmarried.

Almosthalfofthemarriedwomenreportedhav-

ingaspousethatisemployedfull-time.Halfof

thewomenwhohavelefttheengineeringfield

overfiveyearsagoareparents.

25%20%15% 35%30%10%5%0%

1983 & Prior

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

Figure 4.2 Racial/Ethnic Background of Women Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago

Figure 4.1 Percentage of Women Who Left the Engineering Field More Than Five Years Ago Based on Graduation Year

Note: All figures are rounded to the closest percentage point

25CHAPTER FOUR

Morethantwo-thirds(67%)ofthewomen

wholefttheengineeringfieldoverfiveyearsago

reportedworkingatleast40hoursperweekina

currentnon-engineeringposition.

Individualsalariesrangedfromlessthan

$50,000tomorethan$151,000.Sixteen

percentofwomeninthisgroupreported

earningbetween$101,000-150,000and13%

earnmorethan$151,000.

Forty-twopercentofwomeninthisgroup

reportedearningafamilytotalincomeofmore

than$151,000.

Morethanhalfofthewomeninthisgroup

reportedbeinginanexecutivemanagementpo-

sition,15%wereinamanagerialposition,and

30%reportedbeingindividualcontributors.

WHAT IS THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF WOMEN ENGINEERS WHO LEFT ENGINEERING OVER FIVE YEARS AGO?

Thetopfivemajorareasofstudyreportedby

thisgroupincludedthefollowing:Industrial

Engineering(21%),MechanicalEngineering

(18%),ChemicalEngineering(15%),Electrical

Engineering(15%),andCivilEngineering(9%).

Almosthalf(41%)ofthisgroupearnedanad-

ditionaldegree:24%earnedaM.S.,15%earned

aMBA,9%earnedaB.S.,and4%earnedaM.A.,

and3%earnedaPhD.

Individual Contributor 30%Executive

55%

Manager 15%

0%

5%10%15%20%

25%30%35%40%45%50% Individual Salary

$ 151,000+$ 101,000- 150,000

$ 51,000- 100,000

$ 50,000 and less

Family Total Income

Figure 4.3 Individual and Family Income Based on the Percentage of Women Who Left Over Five Years Ago

Figure 4.4 Organizational Rank of Women Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago


WHAT ARE THESE WOMEN DOING NOW?

Table 4.1 Primary Activities of Women Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago (For Different Years of Graduation)

What are they currently doing? 1983 & Prior 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

Currently working (in non-engineering industry) 180 188 130 119 48 4 280

Family care 39 73 65 38 11 4 276

Retired 18 8 6 10 3 4 204

Volunteer 31 3 0 1 0 0 160

Other 12 4 3 1 0 1 62

Total Responses = 982

Figure 4.5 Primary Activities of Women Engineers Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago

Volunteer 2%

Other

Retired

Currently Working 68%

Family Care22% 4%

4%

“ I feel that most engineering jobs are VERY DISAPPOINTING, at least as compared to the high expectations I had going in to engineering school. School programs are advertised as “build cool stuff!”, and then you get a job and are put in a cubicle and go to boring meetings and are part of a team making a bracket...” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

“ TO ADVANCE, it seems as though you must be willing and able to work 50+ hours/week; and often be on-call 24/7.” – Caucasian Chemical Engineering Graduate

27CHAPTER FOUR

KEY FINDINGS:More than two-thirds are working in another field, half of those are in

executive positions

Nearly half of women left a career in engineering because of working conditions

- too much travel, lack of advancement, or low salary

Thirty percent left engineering because of organizational climate

A quarter left a career in engineering because they wanted more time with family

“ [I left because I wanted] more OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT in non-engineering positions.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR LEAVING ENGINEERING?

Table 4.2 Reasons Why Women Left Engineering (For Different Years of Graduation)

Reason Left 1983 & Prior 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

Too difficult 2 1 0 1 0 0 4

Couldn’t find position 1 2 5 4 1 0 13

Started own business 6 9 6 2 1 0 29

Didn’t like co-workers 2 4 5 4 4 1 24

Too much travel 9 7 9 10 1 0 36

Low salary 8 12 12 11 3 1 47

Too many hours 14 13 13 8 5 0 53

Conflict with family 22 17 8 4 0 0 51

Poor working conditions 14 10 14 18 6 1 63

Didn’t like boss 15 16 15 19 7 2 74

Didn’t like culture 18 16 19 15 11 1 80

Didn’t like daily tasks 21 25 19 34 12 1 112

No advancement 32 29 34 31 8 1 135

Lost interest 21 34 32 37 11 1 136

Wanted more time with family 42 35 25 10 1 0 113

Total Responses = 1116 (Note: women could choose more than one reason)

29

5: CURRENT AND FORMER WOMEN ENGINEERS: WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

“ …being a female minority, it was DIFFICULT to work with white men who were much older than me and did not share a similar background.” – Asian American Chemical Engineering Graduate

“ The pressure is intense, and with no viable part-time alternatives, a woman [engineer] is FORCED TO CHOOSE between work and family.” – Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate

“ Women leave engineering due to lack of job satisfaction, lack of reliable female role models, inflexible work schedules, workplace discrimination, WHITE MIDWESTERN MEN syndrome, and glass ceiling issues.” – Latina Civil Engineering Graduate


PROFILE OF WOMEN ENGINEERSThestudywasdesignedtounderstandwhywomen

engineersleavethefieldofengineering.Forthose

whoarecurrentlyworkinginengineering,wesought

togauge/assesstheirintentionstoleavethefieldand

toexplainfactorsrelatedtotheirsatisfactionwiththeir

jobandwithanengineeringcareer.Wefirstreporton

twogroupsofwomeninthischapter;thosewhoare

currentlyworkingasengineersandthosewholeft

recently,lessthanfiveyearsago.Wechosefiveyears

asacut-offforourcomparisonpointtoprovidesimilar

timeframesforcomparisonaswellastoensurethat

recollectionswererecentenoughtobeaccurate.

Thus,thewomenwholeftengineeringlessthanfive

yearsagowerecomparedtothosewhoarestillinan

engineeringcareer.Currentengineerswerethelargest

groupinourstudy(N=3,324),whilethosewholeft

lessthanfiveyearsagowerethesmallestgroup(N=

279).Ascanbeseenfromtheotherchaptersinthis

report,thewomenwhohadleftengineeringless

thanfiveyearsagowereoverallthesmallestgroup

inoursample.Wedonotknowwhythismightbe

thecase.Thisgroupwasdistributedacrossageand

cohortlevelssimilartotheothergroups,andwecan

assumethattheyreceivedtheemailinvitationto

takepartinthesurveyatthesamerateastheother

womeninthestudy.Itmaybethattheirdecision

toleaveengineeringleftanemotionallegacythat

theydidnotwanttorevisitbyparticipatinginthe

survey.Thisisahypothesis,however,andwereally

donotknowwhytheirrepresentationisthesmallest.

However,thisgroupofparticipantswaslargeenough

toallowustomakesomecomparisonswithwomen

whoarecurrentlyworkinginengineering.

Wefirstcomparedthetwogroupsonvarious

backgroundfactors.

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

25%20%15%10%5%0%

1983 & Prior

1983 & Prior

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

25% 30%20%15%10%5%0%

Figure 5.1 Graduation Year of Current Women Engineers

Figure 5.2 Graduation Year of Women Who Left Engineering in the Past Five Years

31CHAPTER FIVE

Mostofthewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringwork40hoursaweek,hadbeenwiththeir

organizationforabout8yearsandreportedearningsalariesrangingfrom$51,000to$100,000.This

groupofwomenwasverydiverseintermsoftheirundergraduateengineeringmajorswithmostofthem

representingChemical,Mechanical,CivilandElectricalEngineeringfields.

45

44

43

42

40

39

38

37

36

0 Current Engineers Former Engineers

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0Current Engineers Former Engineers

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Under 25K 25-50K 51-75K 76-100K 101-125K 126-150K 151-175K 17-200K Over 201K

Current Engineers Former Engineers

Figure 5.3 Hours Worked of Current Engineers and Former Engineers (per week)

Figure 5.5 Total Compensation for Current Engineers and Former Engineers (salary, bonuses, stocks, & commissions)

Figure 5.4 Tenure of Current Engineers and Former Engineers with Current Organization (years)


Abouthalfofthemareindividualcontributorsin

theirorganizationwhileone-thirdareinproject

managementpositions.Theleastcommonpositions

occupiedbytheseengineerswereinexecutiveroles

(16%).Consistentwiththepercentageofindividual

contributors,abouthalfoftheengineerswerenotin

asupervisoryrole.Forthoseinmanagementpositions,

amajorityofengineersinthisgroupsupervised

betweenonetofourindividuals.Mostworkedingroups

thatwerepredominantlymalewithasmallernumber

(15%)reportingworkingingenderbalancedgroups.

Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetween

womenwhoarecurrentlyworkingin

engineeringandthosewholeftengineering

lessthanfiveyearsagointermsofthehours

worked(39hours/week)orlengthoftenure

withtheircompany(10years),buttheywere

differentinaveragerangeofsalaryreported

(between$51,000and$75,000),andboth

groupswerelikewisemostlikelytohave

graduatedwithchemical,mechanical,civil,

andelectricalengineeringdegrees.

Unlikewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkingin

engineering,womenwholeftengineeringwere

morelikelytoreportbeinginmanagement

andexecutiveposition(53.8%)andproject

managementroles(21.9%).Theleastcommon

positionsoccupiedbytheseengineerswere

non-managementroles(24.4%).Unlike

womenwhoarecurrentlyinengineering,the

majorityofwomenwholeftlessthan5years

agowereinanexecutiverole.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%All Women Mostly Equal # Mostly All Men Women of Men & Men Women


“ It is hard to justify the long hours to go nowhere.” – Caucasian Industrial Engineering Graduate

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%IndividualContributor

Project orProgram Manager

Executive


Figure 5.6 Management Rank of Current Engineers and Former Engineers

Figure 5.7 Gender Make-up of Co-workers for Current Engineers and Former Engineers

33CHAPTER FIVE

Forthoseinmanagementpositions,themajorityindicatedthattheyhad1to4directreportsandwere

mostlikelytoworkingroupsthatwerepredominantlymale;however,alargernumberwholeftengineering

(26%)reportedworkingingenderbalancedgroups.

Currentwomenengineersinoursamplewerenolesslikelytobemarriedastheircounterpartswholeft

engineeringlessthanfiveyearsago,butlesslikelytobeparents.Neitherdidthetwogroupsofwomen

differintermsoftheirrace,whichwaspredominantlyCaucasian.Bothgroupsofwomenwererelatively

evenlydistributedacrossthedifferentcohort(orgraduationgroups).

50%

40%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 24 25 - 50 50 - 100 over 100


Other 2%

3% 8%

Multi-racialAsian/Asian-AmericanLatina

Caucasian 79%

African American

3%3% 8%

African American 2% Multi-racial

American Indian <1%

Asian/Asian-AmericanLatina

Caucasian 84%

Other 1%

3%3%

Note: All figures are rounded to the closest percentage point.

Figure 5.8 Number of Direct Reports for Current Engineers and Former Engineers

Figure 5.9 Racial/Ethnic Background of Current Engineers Figure 5.10 Racial/Ethnic Background of Former Engineers


“ [I] worked in a department for 4 years—in that time,

three people out of fifty got promotions—all men. Then

only the women and elders got laid off. Senior VP couldn’t

even handle saying hello to females in the hallway. His

AWKWARD OLD SCHOOL TENDENCIES made him unable to

consider females as equals. This was at a company with

90% female employees throughout the company; just a

lack of females in the engineering group.”

– Caucasian Industrial Engineering Graduate

“ Most of management is a male-dominated culture

(male conversation topics, long hours, demanding

lifestyle, career-focused expectations). … Women

usually choose to leave WITHOUT FIGHTING THE UPHILL BATTLE to make improvements. It is a self-sustaining cycle!”

– Asian-American Operations Research and Engineering Graduate

KEY FINDING:Current and former engineers do not differ in

marital or parental status, engineering major,

salary level, or number of direct reports.

35

6: WOMEN CURRENTLY WORKING IN ENGINEERING: HOW ARE THEY FARING IN THEIR JOBS AND CAREERS?

“ We are often executing other’s orders and decisions, and the OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT within the organization, to be a leader or impact business decision making, are slim.” – African American Mechanical Engineering Graduate

“ There’s still a bit of an “BOYS CLUB” mentality around, even with younger

engineers and non-engineer women. Some older male engineers certainly

think that females shouldn’t be engineers, or that it’s “cute” when they

are, like it’s an amusing phase she’s going through, instead of a career…”

– Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate

“ Engineering firms aren’t respectful of the work/home boundary. At the firm I worked for, engineers were EXPECTED TO take work home, work late or travel, often with little warning.” – Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate


Careersuccesscanbedefinedinmanyways.Oneofthe

mostcommonwaysofassessingcareersuccessisbylooking

attangiblesignssuchastotalcompensation,numberof

promotions,rankattainedandothersimilarobjective

indicatorsofsuccess.Othershaveconsideredmoresubjective

criteriasuchassatisfactionwithone’sjobandcareerand

haveusedtheseasbenchmarksforcareersuccess.Inthe

POWERstudy,wedefinedcareersuccessintermsofsubjective

criteriasuchassatisfactionwithone’sjobandcareer,and

objectivecriteriasuchastotalcompensation(includingsalary,

bonuses,stockoptions,etc.),numberofdirectreportsand

numberofrecentpromotions.

Understandingwhatcomprisescareersuccessisimportant

becauseresearchhaslinkedindividual’scareersuccessto

importantorganizationalandindividualoutcomessuch

asorganizationalcommitment,performance,andlackof

intentionstoleavethecompanyorthecareer.Moreimpor-

tantly,byexaminingthedifferentelementsthatcontributeto

careersuccess,wecanbegintoshedlightonhowsuccessful

womenengineersarefaringintheworkplaces.Todate,

there’sbeennoresearchthathasuncoveredthedifferent

dimensionsofcareersuccessforwomenengineersandthe

differentfactorsthatinfluenceit.

Inthischapter,wereportonthedifferentfactorsthatcon-

tributetothesubjectiveexperienceofcareersuccess:(i.e.,job,

career,satisfaction)ofcurrentengineers.Attheendofthis

chapter,webrieflycomparewomenwhoarecurrently

workinginengineeringwiththosewholeftthefieldon

someofthesalientfactorsrelatedtosatisfaction.

InthePOWERstudy,careersatisfactionwasmeasuredby

askingtheparticipantstoreporttheirlevelsofsatisfaction

withavarietyoffactorssuchaspay,progresstowardcareer

goals,advancement,anddevelopmentofnewskills.Job

satisfactionwascapturedbywomen’soverallfeelingstoward

theirjobs.

Thewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringex-

pressedaboveaveragelevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs

andcareers.Mostofthemreportedthattheirlastpromo-

tionwaswithinthepastfiveyears.Asnotedintheprevious

section,15%areinseniorexecutivepositionsandathirdin

projectmanagementpositionsand25%hadbothlineand

staffresponsibilities(16%hadonlystaffresponsibilities,

27%hadonlylineresponsibilities,9%didnotdisclose).

Typically,allthesedimensionsthatcomprisecareersuccess

arestronglyrelatedtooneanotherandwefoundthesame

tobetrueforcurrentwomenengineers.Specifically,women

whoreportedhigherlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs

andcareersalsotendedtobeinmoreseniorexecutiveroles,

withgreaternumberofdirectreports,andearninghigher

salariesthanthosewhowererelativelylesssatisfiedwith

theirjobsandcareers.Womenengineerswhoweresatisfied

withtheirjobsandcareersalsoindicatedthattheywere

satisfiedwiththenumberofhourstheyworkedperweek.

WHAT DRIVES THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF CAREER SUCCESS? Inthisstudy,weintegratedseveraldifferentstrandsofresearch

andlookedatavarietyofpersonalandorganizationalfactors

thathavethepotentialtoexplainthesubjectiveexperience

ofcareersuccessasreflectedinwomen’scareerandjob

satisfaction.Specifically,weexaminedtheeffectsofwomen’s

self-confidencewithregardtoperformingengineeringtasks,

navigatingthepoliticallandscapeandmanagingmultiple

work-nonworkroles,aswellastheoutcomeswomenexpected

fromperformingtheseactivities.

Workplacesupportisakeycomponentoftheoverallwork

environment.Itismanifestedinthemultipletypesand

layersofsupportthatemployeesexperienceatvariouslevels

intheirworkplaces.Ataverybroadlevel,workplacesupport

isreflectedintheextenttowhichacompanyvaluesthe

contributionsofitsemployeesandshowscareandconcern

towardtheiremployees’well-being.Onecanalsoinferthe

supportivenessofacompanybylookingattheprovision

oftraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesandclearand

tangibleavenuesforadvancement.Workplacesupportcan

alsobegaugedbylookingattheinterpersonalnatureof

relationshipswithone’ssupervisorandco-workers.

Inthisstudy,weexaminedemployees’perceptionsofwork-

placesupportattwolevelsthatcanimpacttheirlevelsof

satisfaction.First,theparticipantsreportedontheextent

towhichtheirorganizationssupportedtheirtrainingand

development,providedavenuesforpromotion,valuedand

recognizedtheircontributionsatwork,andcreatedasupportive

climateforfulfillingmultiplework-nonworkroleobligations.

Second,weexaminedtheextenttowhichthewomenengineers

receivedsupportfromtheirsupervisorsandco-workers.

“ As a Latina, I felt engineering

OPENED MANY DOORS for

me to work internationally.

I spent some time in Europe

and Central America due to my

work with prototype designs and

my ability to speak Spanish.” – Latina Chemical Engineering Graduate

37CHAPTER SIX

Wealsoexaminedtwosetsofworkplacerelatedbarriersthat

couldloweranengineer’ssatisfactionwithherjoband/or

career.Thefirstsetoffactorstappedintotheperceptionsof

incivilityintheworkplacethatwascapturedbytheextentto

whichsupervisors,seniormanagersandco-workerstreated

womeninacondescending,patronizingordiscourteous

manner.Wealsodirectlyassessedtheextenttowhichsupervisors

andco-workersengagedinunderminingbehaviorsatwork

suchasinsultingwomen,talkingbadlyaboutthembehind

theirbacks,belittlingthemortheirideas,makingthem

feelincompetent,and/ortalkingdowntothem.Thesecond

setoffactorsbelievedtolowersatisfactionfocusedonmore

role-levelbarrierssuchastheextenttowhichwomen

engineerslackedclarityintheirroles,experiencedcontradictory

andconflictingworkrequestsandrequirementsandfelt

overburdenedwithexcessiveworkresponsibilitieswithout

commensurateresources.

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT WOMEN ENGINEERS’ CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION? Weexaminedfactorsrelatedtowomenengineers’satisfaction

withtheircurrentjobandwiththecareerofengineeringin

general.Itisimportanttoexamineboth,becausewhilea

womanmightbedissatisfiedwithhercurrentjob,shemay

besatisfiedwiththeprofessionofengineering.Arriving

atconclusionsaboutawomanengineer’sjobsatisfaction

wouldthereforeonlycaptureaportionofthefactors

thatinfluenceheroverallsatisfactionofbeinganengineer

inanengineeringprofession.

Thustheanswertotheabovequestionisyes;personal

factors,suchaslevelsofself-confidenceinvariousareas,

domakeadifferenceinengineers’satisfactionwiththeir

careersandjobs.Currentwomenengineerswhopossessed

agreatdealofself-confidenceintheirabilitiestonavigate

theirorganization’spoliticallandscapeandjugglemultiple

work-nonworkrolesweremostlikelytoexpresssatisfaction

withtheircareersaswellastheirjobs.Further,engineers

whoexpectedpositiveoutcomestoresultfromtheireffortsto

navigatetheorganizationalclimateatworkwerealsomost

likelytoexpresssatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

Interestingly,themorewomenengineersexpectedpositive

resultsfromtheireffortstobalancemultiplework-nonwork

roles,thelesssatisfiedtheywerewiththeirjobsandcareers.

Itmaybethatexpectingtobalancemultiplework-nonwork

rolesleadstolesssatisfactioninjustoneofthoseroles.

KEY FINDING: Women who were self-confident in their abilities to navigate their organization’s political landscape and juggle multiple work-nonworkroles reported being highly satisfied with their jobs as well as their careers.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK PREDICT WOMEN ENGINEERS’ CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION? Womenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringhaveto

faceandcontendwithavarietyofbarriersthatdampentheir

satisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.Oneofthebiggest

barriersthatcurrentengineersfacedatworkwasthelackof

clarityinthegoals,objectivesandresponsibilitiesintheir

workroles.Theserole-relatedbarrierswererelatedtoa

diminishedsenseofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

Researchhasshownthatlackofclarityregardingjobrolesand

expectationscancreatetensionandstressforemployees

andnegativelyaffecttheirsatisfaction(Schaubroeck,Ganster,

Sime,&Ditman,1993).Currentengineerswhoreportedbeing

givenexcessiveworkloadwithoutcommensurateresources

alsoexperiencedlowlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs(but

nottheircareers).

Inadditiontothework-rolerelatedbarriers,currentwomen

engineerswhoreportedworkinginanenvironmentthat

belittledandtreatedwomeninacondescending,patronizing

mannerandweresystematicallyunderminedbytheir

supervisorsandco-workers,feltleastsatisfiedwiththeir

jobs.Wefoundcurrentengineers’careersatisfactionwas

mostdiminishedwhentheyreportedthattheirworkenvi-

ronmenttreatedwomeninacondescendingmannerand

theyexperiencedtheseuncivilandunderminingbehaviors

fromtheirsupervisorsratherthantheirco-workers.

“ It was hard without having

FEMALE MENTORS in the field. It would have helped to have someone to talk with about issues. Male mentors are helpful with career advice from a male per-spective, but it does not feel like they truly understand the burdens that women face, especially in such a male-dominated field as engineering.” – Asian American Chemical Engineering Graduate


Inessence,ofthedifferenttypesofworkplacebarriersthat

weexamined,thetwothatmostnegativelyinfluenced

women’ssatisfactionlevelswerework-roleuncertaintyand

aworkenvironmentthatconsistentlyunderminedand

belittledthem.

KEY FINDINGS: Women who reported facing excessive workload felt least satisfied with their jobs and those who contended with frequent ambiguity with their work roles and re-sponsibilities expressed greatest dissatisfaction with both their jobs and careers. Women who reported working in an uncivil work environment and were systematically undermined by their supervisors and co-workers, felt least satisfied with their jobs. Being undermined by their work supervisors also lowered women engineers’ overall satisfaction with their careers.

DOES SUPPORT AT WORK PREDICT WOMEN ENGINEERS’ CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION? Womenalsoreportedthattherewereseveralsupportive

elementsintheirworkplacethatinfluencedhowsatisfied

theyfeltwiththeirjobsandcareers.Forwomenwhowere

currentlyworkinginengineering,fivedifferenttypesofsupport

madeadifferencetotheirsatisfactionatwork.First,themost

satisfiedwomenworkedforcompaniesthatprovidedthem

withtangibletraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesby

assigningthemtoprojectsthathelpedthemdevelopand

strengthennewskills,givingthemchallengingassignments,

andinvestingintheirformaltraininganddevelopment.

Second,womenengineersexpressedgreatestsatisfactionwith

theirjobswhentheyreportedworkingforcompaniesthat

providedthemwithclearlyestablishedcriteriaandfair,viable,

andtrasparentpathstoadvancement.Third,womenengineers

whoworkedforcompaniesthatvaluedandrecognized

theircontributionsandcaredabouttheirwell-beingwere

mostsatisfiedwiththeirjobs.Fourth,womenengineerswho

workedforcompaniesthatvaluedandrecognizedtheir

contributionsandcaredabouttheirwell-beingweremost

statisfiedwiththeirjobs.Finally,theresultsrevealedthat

womenengineerswhoworkedincompanieswithsupportive

work-lifeculturesthatwereunderstandingoftheirneeds

forwork-lifebalanceanddidnotinsistontheiremployees

workingmorethan50hoursaweek,ortakingworkhome

atnightand/orweekends,orprioritizingtheirjobsbefore

theirfamilies—especiallytobeconsideredfavorablybytop

management—weremostsatisfiedwiththeirjobs.

Womenengineerswhoreportedtobethemostsatisfiedwith

theircareersworkedincompaniesthatnotonlyvaluedand

recognizedtheircontributionsbutalsoinvestedsubstantially

intheirtrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentandprovided

themwithclearandpredictableavenuesforadvancement.

Thesewomenalsoreceivedsubstantialsupportfromtheir

familyandfriendswhichelevatedtheirlevelsofcareer

satisfaction.

Insum,supportatworkmattersinshapingcurrentwomen

engineer’sfeelingsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsand

careers.Specifically,tangiblesupportintermsoftraining

anddevelopmentopportunities,clearandtransparentpaths

towardadvancement,supportivesupervisorsandco-workers

andcompaniesthatallowemployeestimetobalancetheir

multiplework-nonworkroles,allmakeforsatisfiedemployees.

CONCLUSION:Currentwomenengineers’careersuccesswasshapedbyboth

positiveandnegativeexperiencesatwork.Positiveexperiences

werecapturedbythetypeandamountofsupportreceivedat

workandnegativeexperienceswerereflectedintherole-related

pressuresandunderminingbehaviorsencounteredatwork.

Avarietyofpersonalandorganizationalfactorsliebehind

currentwomenengineers’careersuccess.Forexample,current

womenengineerswhoexpressedhighlevelsofsatisfaction

withtheircareerswerelikelytohavereceivedampleop-

portunitiesfortraininganddevelopment,feltsupported

bytheirsupervisors,co-workers,andtheirorganizations

“ [I am] Still getting asked if I can handle being in a mostly male work environment in interviews in 2009—I’ve been an engineer for 9 years, obviously I can. I know when I’m asked that question, I HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE JOB. It is nice they brought me in for equal opportunity survey points but don’t waste my time if you don’t take females seriously.” – Caucasian Industrial Engineering Graduate

39CHAPTER SIX

andperceivedavenuesforfurtheradvancementwithinthe

company.Thesewomenhadaclear,identifiablesetoftask

goals,responsibilities,andexpectationstoworkwith;they

alsofeltconfidentintheirabilitiestonavigatethepolitical

landscapeintheircompaniesandmanagemultiplework-

nonworkroleresponsibilities.Furthermore,successfulwomen

engineersreportedworkingincompaniesthatsupported

theireffortstobalancetheirwork-nonworkresponsibilities.

(workandfamilyconflictchangeisnotsignificantincarrer

andjobsatisfaction)

Thereisadifferentsidetothispictureaswell—onethat

highlightsthechallengesandnegativeexperiencesatwork

thathaveexercisedastronginfluenceonshapingthese

women’sperceptionsofsubjectivecareersuccess.Prominent

amongthesefactorswastheexperienceofincivilityatwork

thatwasreflectedintheextenttowhichthesupervisors,

seniormanagersandco-workersgenerallytreatedwomenin

acondescending,patronizingordiscourteousmannerand

specificallyunderminedtheireffortsatbeingsuccessfulat

work.Thisfindingisinlinewithotherrecentreportsthat

describehowwomeninSTEMcareersoftenfacebarriersto

theircareersuccessintheformofhostility,biasandlackof

respect.(e.g.,Hewlettetal.,2008;AAUW,2010).

KEY FINDINGS: The most satisfied women engineers were those who received support from supervisors and co-workers, ample opportunities for training and development and saw clear paths for advancement in the company.

The least satisfied women engineers were those who experienced excessive workloads and whose efforts by being successful were systematically undermined by their supervisors and co-workers.

Comparison of Women Engineers Currently Working in Engineering with Women Engineers Who Left Less Than Five Years Ago

DID THE TWO GROUPS OF WOMEN ENGINEERS DIFFER ON PERSONAL FACTORS? Wefoundthatwomencurrentlyworkinginengineeringdid

notdifferfromwomenengineerswholeftlessthanfiveyears

agoonanyofthepersonalfactorsrelatedtoself-confidence

andtheirexpectationsfromperformingengineeringtasks,

managingmultiplework-nonworkrolesornavigatingthepo-

liticalclimateatwork.Theyalsodidnotdifferintheirinterests.

KEY FINDING: Women currently working in engineering did not differ from women who left engineering in the past five years on the types of interests, levels of self-confidence and outcomes they expected from performing in certain tasks.

DID PERSONAL FACTORS INFLUENCE JOB AND CAREER SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT ENGINEERING WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS?

Forwomenwhohadleftengineeringwithinthepastfive

years,thosewhoweremanagingorganizationalclimate

self-confidenceinperformingengineeringtasksinmanaging

organizationalclimateandexpectedpositiveresultstoemerge

fromsuccessfullymanagingengineeringtasksandpolitical

climatefeltmostsatisfiedwiththeircareers.Eventhough

theywerenolongerworkinginengineering,womenwho

expectedpositiveoutcomesfromsuccessfullyperforming

theirengineeringtasksfeltagreatdealofsatisfactionwith

theirjobs.Forthisgroupofwomen,whatmatteredmost

fortheirjobsatisfactionwastheextenttowhichtheyfelt

confidentaboutnavigatingthepoliticalclimateintheir

organizationsandmanagingmultiplework-nonworkroles.

Thegreatertheirconfidence,themoresatisfiedtheyfelt

withtheirjobs.However,themorethesewomenexpected

frommanagingmultiplework-nonworkrolesandmanaging

theorganizationaldynamics,thelesssatisfiedtheyfeltwith

theirjobspositiverelationshipnow,themoretheyexpected

themoresatisfied.Itispossiblethatwhilewomenwere

highlyself-confidentoftheirabilitiestosuccessfullypursue

thesevarioustasks,theydidn’texpectalotofpositiveout-

comestoemergefromtheseeffortswhichreflectedintheir

dampenedlevelsofjobandcareersatisfaction.

“ …what ultimately led me to B-school and a non-engineering job was the LACK OF A VIABLE CAREER PATH (i.e. advancement) within the engineering organizations where I worked. In addition to that, most engineering organizations have promotion / leadership funnels that are very, very narrow.” – African American Mechanical Engineering Gradute


DID THE TWO GROUPS DIFFER IN THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS AND SUPPORTS? Wefoundthatcurrentengineersweresignificantlymorelikely

thanwomenwholeftengineeringtoperceiveopportunities

fortraininganddevelopmentthatwouldhelpthemadvance

tothenextlevel.Interestingly,thecurrentengineersreported

fewerwork-lifebenefitsavailabletothem,butweresignificantly

morelikelytohaveusedthosebenefits.Currentengineers

weresignificantlymorelikelytoreportbothsupervisorand

co-workersupport,andthattheclimatewassupportiveof

theirneedtobalanceworkandnon-workroles.Thetwo

groupsdidnotdifferinhavingamentor;however,only

aboutone-quarterofeachgroupreportedhavingamentor.

Wefoundthatwomenwholeftengineeringreportedexperi-

encingmoreunderminingbehaviorsfromtheirsupervisors,

moreincivilityintheirworkplaces(beingtalkedover,pa-

tronized,ortalkedaboutbehindtheirbacks),andindicated

thattheorganizationaltimedemands,toworklonghours,

onweekendsandevenings,wereexcessive.

KEY FINDINGS: Current engineers and engineers who left less than five years ago did differ both in perceptions of supports and barriers. Supervisors and co-workers were viewed as more supportive of current engineers and Supervisors were seen as undermining of engineers who had left.

DID WORK BARRIERS PREDICT CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT ENGINEERING WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS?Yes,theydid.Ascomparedtotheirco-workerswhoare

currentlyworkinginengineering,womenwholeftengineering

withinthepastfiveyearsreportedaverysimilarsetofwork

androlehindrancesthatdiminishedtheirlevelsofjob

andcareersatisfaction.Lackofclarityinone’sjobrolesand

expectationsalsomadethemfeeldissatisfiedwiththeirjobs

andcareers.

DID SUPPORT AT WORK PREDICT CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT ENGINEERING WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS? Yes,itdid.Ascomparedtotheirco-workerswhoarecurrently

workinginengineering,womenwholeftengineeringin

thelastfiveyearsreportedsomewhatsimilarsupportive

elementsthatmadethemfeelsatisfiedwiththeirjobs.Most

notably,womenwhoworkedforcompaniesthatvaluedtheir

contributions,receivedsubstantialtraininganddevelopment

opportunities,andperceivedclearadvancementpaths,

weremostsatisfiedwiththeirjobsandtheircareers.

“ I have left because I don’t like

working longer than 12 HOUR DAYS and have been made to feel

like a lazy employee unless I put

in 14 hours a day plus time on

weekends.

…Before leaving every night my

supervisor would consult with

every single male under his

management before me. He would

always wait to talk to me and the

status of my work last, thus many

times he would never get around

to me until 10 pm, thus resulting in

me not being able to leave the of-

fice until 11 pm... on a daily basis.” – Multi-racial Civil Engineering Graduate

41

7: WOMEN CURRENTLY WORKING IN ENGINEERING: HOW ARE THEY MANAGING THEIR MULTIPLE LIFE ROLES?

“ …once I STARTED MY FAMILY, my employer gave me the opportunity to take unpaid leave and work part time in order to meet the demands of my home. Because of the flexibility my employer has provided me, it has engendered a tremendous amount of loyalty to the organization that might not otherwise exist.”

– Asian Electrical Engineering Graduate

“ There is a lot of pressure to get things done and

LITTLE SYMPATHY for personal issues at work.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

“ Larger companies like mine technically offer part-time work, telecommuting,

etc., but individual managers DON’T ALWAYS APPROVE of these options or only offer them occasionally instead of as a permanent schedule option.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate


Workandnonworkrolesareintimatelyandinextricably

connectedinmostpeople’slives.Whathappensinone’sjob

andcareeraffectsone’spersonalandfamilylife.Forexample,

agood(orabad)dayatworkmayaffectone’smoodwhen

interactingwithfamilyandfriendsafterwork.Thethingsthat

happeninone’spersonallife–thefriendshipsandfamily

responsibilities—alsoaffectone’sjoborcareer.Forexample,a

spouse’s(orpartner’s)careermaypreventonefromaccepting

arelocationoffer.Giventhemultiple,competingandoften

simultaneousdemandsandpressuresthatemployeesface,

frictionbetweentheirwork-nonworkrolesisinevitable.

Indeed,somereportsestimatethat95%ofAmericanworkers

experiencework-familyconflict(Williams&Boushey,2010).

Work-nonworkroleconflictposesasignificantsourceof

stressinthelivesofmanyemployeesandhasbeenknown

toaffectavarietyofimportantpersonalandorganizational

outcomessuchasemployeewell-being,physicalhealth,

loyalty,performance,jobsatisfaction,absenteeism,turnover

intentions,andwithdrawalfromtheorganizationand

theprofession.Thereisacompellingneedtounderstand

work-noworkroleconflictamongengineersbecausethe

professionisalreadyfacingashortageoftalentedengineers

(NationalAcademyofSciences,2010).Indeed,asurveyofmale

andfemalescientistsrevealedthatwomenwhoexperienced

highlevelsofwork-familyconflictwerelesslikelytoberetained

bytheiremployerscomparedtotheirmaleco-workers

(NationalScienceBoard,S&EIndicators,2004).However,despite

decadesofresearchonwork-nonworkconflictamong

differentprofessionalgroupsofemployees,thereisinadequate

understandingofthedynamicsofwork-nonworkroleconflict

amongengineers.Itisthereforeimperativetotakesteps

towardfillingthisimportantgapinourunderstanding.

Althoughbeingengagedinmultipleroleshaswell-documented

salutaryeffectsonpeople’slivesintermsofimprovedwell-

being,greatercreativityandsocialsupport,inthischapter,we

describethewomenengineers’experienceofwork-nonwork

conflict,thedifferentpersonalandorganizationalfactorsthat

provokeandalleviateit.Indeed,thisisthefirststudyofits

kindtoexclusivelyfocusonengineersasadistinctclassof

professionalemployeesandnotclubbedinthesamecategory

asscientistsandengineers.

Inthisstudy,weadoptedabroaddefinitionofnon-work

rolestoincludeanykindofcare-givingresponsibilities,

involvementinpersonalrelationshipsorengagementinother

non-workactivities.Wedefinedwork-nonworkconflictasthe

extenttowhichworkandnonwork/homeresponsibilities

interferewithoneanother,i.e.,theextenttowhichemployees

experiencemutuallyincompatibledemandsandpressures

fromone’swork(ornonwork/home)rolesuchthatit

interfereswitheffectiveparticipationinthenonwork/home

(orwork)role.Workcaninterferewiththefulfillmentof

one’shome-relatedobligations(work-to-nonworkconflict/

interference)orviceversa,family/homeresponsibilitiescan

interferewiththefulfillmentofworktasks(nonwork-to-

workconflict/interference).Inadditiontolookingatboth

directionsofwork-nonworkconflictmentionedabove,this

studyalsoexaminedtwoformsofwork-nonworkconflict.

Work-nonworkconflictcanbeinstigatedwhenexcessive

timedemandsinoneroledonotallowonetofulfillthe

responsibilitiesassociatedwiththeotherrole(time-based

conflict),orwhenthestrainandpressuresassociatedwitha

particularrolemakeitdifficultfortheindividualstoparticipate

intheotherrole(strain-basedconflict).Inthisstudy,we

aggregatedtheresponsestotimeandstrain-baseddemands

andlookedatthecombinedeffectsofbothformsofconflict.

“ I feel that I have been very

LUCKY to find a company that supports balance between work & family through its flexible schedule and leave policies and the corporate culture—which was a strong benefit both before and after I had a child.” – Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT WOMEN ENGINEERS’ WORK-NONWORK CONFLICT? Yes,theydoandsomefactorsmorethantheothers.

Predictably,womenwithchildcareresponsibilitiesexperi-

encedgreaterinterferencebetweentheirworkandnon-work

rolesthanthosewithoutsuchresponsibilities.Forthisgroup,

theextenttowhichtheirhomelifeinterferedwiththeirwork

rolewasgreaterthantheotherwayaround.Only2%of

oursamplereportedprovidingcarefordependentsother

thantheirchildren.Therewerenodifferencesinwork-

familyconflictreportedbydifferentialracial/ethnicgroups.

Comparedtobaby-boomersorGenerationX-ers,millennial

womenreportedthelowestlevelsofinterferenceoriginating

fromtheirnon-workresponsibilitiesthatadverselyaffected

theirparticipationintheworkrole.

43CHAPTER SEVEN

Giventhatwomenareengagedinmultiplework-nonwork

roles,thequestionthatarisesishowconfidentaretheyin

managingthesemultiplerolesandhowtheirexpectations

ofmanagingtheserolesaffectstheirexperienceofwork-non-

workconflict.Weexaminedtheextenttowhichwomen’s

self-confidenceinperformingengineeringtasks,managing

multiplework-nonworkrolesandnavigatingorganizational

dynamicsmadeadifferenceintheirexperienceofwork-

nonworkconflict.Thegreatertheirself-confidenceinmanaging

multipleroles,thelessfrictiontheyexperiencedbetween

theirworkandnonworkroles.Unexpectedly,womenwith

highlevelsofconfidenceinperformingengineeringtasks

andnavigatingpoliticallandscapesreportedhighlevels

ofworkinterferingwiththeirnonworkrole.Onepossible

explanationforthiscounterintuitivefindingcouldbethat

women’shighlevelsofself-confidenceinaccomplishing

differenttasksmayservetoattractmoreworktheirwaywhich

wouldpreventthemfromfullyparticipatingintheirnon-

workrole.Indeed,ourresultsonwork-roleoverloadand

self-confidencesupportthislineofreasoning.

Surprisingly,womenwhoexpectedpositiveoutcomesfrom

managingmultiplerolesdidnotseeacommensuratedecrease

inlevelsofwork-nonworkconflict.However,theperceived

benefitsofsuccessfullynavigatingtheorganizationalland-

scapewereassociatedwithlowerlevelsofworkinterference

withfamily.

Overall,self-confidenceinmanagingmultiplework-nonwork

rolesemergedasoneofthemostsalientfactorsthatexplained

theexperienceofwork-nonworkconflictamongthisgroup

ofwomenengineers.Engineerswiththehighestlevelsof

self-confidenceinmanagingmultipleroleswerelikelyto

experiencethelowestlevelsofwork-nonworkconflict.

Interestingly,theseself-confidencebeliefswerenotalways

alignedwiththeanticipatedbenefitsfromperformingthis

managingact;womenwhoanticipatedpositiveoutcomes

toresultfrombalancingtheirmultiplework-nonworkroles

didnotexperiencelowerlevelsofwork-nonworkconflict.

KEY FINDING: Women engineers who are confident about managing multiple work-nonwork roles experience low levels of work-nonwork conflict.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK EXACERBATE WOMEN ENGINEERS’ WORK-NONWORK CONFLICT? Therearecertainbarriersthatwomenengineersexperienceat

workthatareassociatedwithheightenedlevelsofwork-non-

workconflict.Prominentamongthesebarriersiswomen’s

experienceofexcessiveworkloadwithoutcommensurate

resources.Suchroleoverloadheightenedthefrictionbetween

womenengineers’workandnon-workroles.Inaddition,

experiencingconflictingandsometimesincompatiblework

demandsalsocontributedtothefrictionbetweenworkand

non-workroles.Researchhasshownthatrolepressuresthat

involveextensivetimecommitmentsorproduceexcessive

strainexacerbatethedegreeofwork-nonworkconflict.We

alsofoundthatwomenengineerswhoreportedworkingin

environmentswherewomenweretreatedinapatronizing,

condescendingandrudemannerbytheirsupervisors,senior

managers,andco-workersindicatedthattheirworkrole

preventedthemfromeffectivelyfulfillingtheirnon-work

commitments,therebyexacerbatingtheexperienceofwork-

nonworkconflict.

Overall,role-relatedstressesandpressuresemergedasone

ofthebiggestinfluencesonwomenengineers’experienceof

work-nonworkconflict.Inaddition,encounteringanuncivil

workclimatecontributedtoheightenedlevelsofstress

betweenworkandnon-workrolesaswell.

KEY FINDING: Women engineers who handled excessive and con-flicting work-role demands, and worked in environments where women were treated in a condescending manner, experienced considerable work-nonwork conflict.


DOES SUPPORT AT WORK REDUCE THE OCCURRENCE OF WOMEN ENGINEERS’ WORK-NONWORK CONFLICT? Theansweris—itdepends.Certainsupportiveaspectsof

one’sworkenvironmentenablewomenengineerstobetter

fulfilltheirworkandnon-workroleresponsibilitiesthereby

reducingtheoccurrenceofwork-nonworkconflict,whereas,

therewerecertainsupportstructuresthatproducedjustthe

opposite,unintendedeffect.Whathelpstoreducethe

occurrenceofwork-to-familyconflict?Becauseourpurpose

wastounderstandwhatreduceswork-nonworkconflict,we

consideredavarietyofwork-nonworkinitiativesattheorga-

nizationallevelaswellasindividualsupportmechanismsthat

couldreducethisimportantstressorinthelivesofengineers.

Work-nonworkinitiativeshavebeentraditionallydefinedas

deliberateorganizationalchanges—inpolicies,practices,or

thetargetculture—toreducework–familyconflictand/or

supportemployees’livesoutsideofwork(Kellyetal.,2008).

Weexaminedwhetherformalwork-lifepolicies(suchaspart-

timework,job-sharing,paidandunpaidleavesofabsence,

andflexibleworkarrangements)providedtoemployeeshelps

reducework-nonworkconflict.Researchhasshownthatit

isnotthemereavailabilityofwork-nonworkinitiatives,but

theiractualusethatmakesadifferenceintheoccurrenceof

work-nonworkconflict.Hence,wealsoexaminedtheextent

towhichengineersuseddifferentwork-lifepoliciesaffected

theirexperienceofwork-nonworkconflict.Wealsotapped

intoengineers’perceptionsofthesupportivenessoftheir

organizationalculturetowardtheirneedforwork-familybal-

ance.Specifically,weexaminedtheextenttowhichsupervi-

sorsandmanagersareaccommodatingandresponsiveto

employees’non-workresponsibilitiesandtheextenttowhich

theorganizationimposestimedemandsandconstraintsthat

makefulfillmentofnon-workobligationsdifficult.Finally,

wealsoassessedwhethertheextenttowhichtheorganization

valuedandrecognizedtheengineers’contributionstothe

companyandcaredabouttheirwell-being,loweredtheoc-

currenceofwomen’swork-familyconflict.Attheindividual

level,weassessedwhetherhavingamentorandreceiving

supportfromsupervisors,co-workers,friendsandfamily,

canoffsettheoccurrenceofconflict.

Ourresultsrevealedthreekeysupportsthatreducedthe

occurrenceofoneformofwork-nonworkconflict—i.e.,the

extenttowhichworkinterferedwithfamilylife.First,how

muchtheorganizationvaluedandrecognizedtheengineers’

contributionstothecompanyandcaredabouttheirwell-be-

ingdidindeedlowerhowmuchtheirworktasksinterfered

withtheirinvolvementinnon-workroles.Second,women

engineerswhoreportedworkingfororganizationsthatwere

characterizedbyfamily-supportiveworkculturestendedto

experiencelessfrictionbetweentheirworkresponsibilities

andfamilycommitments.Specifically,themoreresponsive

andaccommodatingthemanagersweretoengineers’non-

workconcerns,thelessconflicttheyexperienced.Further,

thelesstheorganizationimposedexcessivetimedemands,

especiallydemandsthatrequiredface-time,weekendand

eveningwork,thelessconflictthesewomenexperiencedin

fulfillingtheirnon-workresponsibilities.Finally,havinga

supportivesupervisorhelpedtoreducetheextenttowhich

workroleinterferedwiththeirnon-workrole;however,the

presenceofasupportivementor,friendsandfamily,didnot

perceptiblyreducethedegreetowhichworkresponsibilities

intrudedintowomen’snon-worklives.

Asomewhatdifferentsetoffindingsemergedwhenwe

examinedthequestion—whatreducestheextenttowhich

familyresponsibilitiesinterferewithworkparticipation?

Whereasnoneoftheindividualsourcesofsupportmade

adifferencetowork-to-familyconflict,wefoundthat

womenwhocouldrelyonandelicitsupportfromfamily

andfriendswereleastlikelytoreportthattheirnon-work

responsibilitiesinterferedwiththeirinvolvementatwork.In

addition,thepresenceofasupportivementoralsoalleviated

thedegreeofinterferencebetweennon-workandworkroles.

Contrarytoexpectations,noneofthework-nonworkinitia-

tives—whetherintheformofavailabilityand/ortheuseof

work-lifepoliciesorthesupportivenessoforganizational

culture—reducedtheextenttowhichnon-workcommit-

mentsinterferedwithfulfillmentofworkresponsibilities.

Infact,boththeprovisionandactualuseofwork-life

benefitpoliciessignigicantlyincreasedtheleveloffamily-

to-workconflict.Similarresultshavebeenreportedamong

othergroupsofprofessionalemployees(cf.,Kellyetal.,2008).

Inaddition,evenwhenwomenengineersreportedworking

withmanagerswhowereunderstandingandsupportiveof

theirwork-lifechallenges,engineers’actualuseofwork-life

policieswasstillassociatedwithhighlevelsoffamily-to-

workconflict.

Thereareavarietyofexplanationsforthesecounterintuitive

findings.Itispossiblethatwomenwhoarecognizantofthe

availabilityofdifferentwork-lifebenefitpoliciesandactually

usethesepoliciesmayhaveextensivefamilydemandsto

beginwithandtheyexperiencehighlevelsoffamily-to-work

conflictregardlessofwhatthecompanyoffers.Itisalso

possiblethattheorganizationsdonotprovideavariety

ofdifferentwork-lifebenefitpoliciestochoosefrom,and

theone(orfew)option(s)thattheengineersreportbeing

45CHAPTER SEVEN

availabletothemmaynotbetheonethathelpstomeet

theirneeds.Forexample,severalcompaniesofferchildcare

andeldercarereferralservices,butiftheengineerseeksa

telecommutingarrangement,orajob-sharingoption,having

referralservicesmaydonothingtolessentheconflictfaced

betweennon-workandworkroles.Anotherlikelyexplanation

isthatdespitemanagerialsupportforwork-lifebalance,

engineersmaybefearfulofcareerpenaltiesassociatedwith

utilizingwork-lifebenefitpoliciesthusdoinglittletodent

theirlevelofstressinsimultaneouslyfulfillingtheirnon-

workandworkresponsibilities.Research(e.g.,Thompson,

Beauvais,&Lyness,1999)hasshownthatorganizational

culturescansubstantiallyaffectthedevelopment,effective-

ness,andutilizationofwork-lifebenefitsandthroughthat

affecttheperceptionandexperienceofwork-lifeconflict.

Inourstudy,wefoundmixedresultswithrespecttosupportive

work-lifeculture.Womenengineerswhoworkedinorganiza-

tionswithfamilysupportiveculturesthatwerecharacterized

bymanagerialsupportforwork-lifebalacedid notexperience

reducedlevelsoffamily-to-workconflict.Infact,they

experiencedheightenedconflictbetweentheirnon-workand

workroles.Thisfindingneedstobeconsideredinlightofthe

excessivelevelsofworkoverloadthatwomenengineersfaced.

Indeed,theresultsfurtherrevealedthatdespiteafamily-

supportiveworkculture,womenengineerswhoreported

beingoverloadedatworkexperiencedthehighestlevelof

conflictbetweentheirnon-workandfamilyroles.Thereare

severalpossibleexplanationsfortheseseeminglyperplexing

findings.Itispossiblethatafamily-supportiveworkculture

characterizedbyonlyatacitdisplayofunderstandingtoward

work-lifebalancemaybeoflimitedhelpunlessaccompa-

niedbysomerealtangiblechangestoone’sworkload.Itis

alsopossiblethatsincewomenshoulderthebulkofcare-

givingandhouseholdresponsibilities,havingasupportive

workculturedoesn’tdomuchtoreducetheactualsourceof

conflict—i.e.,non-workresponsibilities.

Whatwouldtrulymakeadifferenceisiforganizationsmoved

awayfromanemphasison“face-time”andworkinglong,

excessivehoursduringtheweekandweekend,toonethat

stressed“performancenorms.”Thisculturalshiftaround

“time”normswouldenableallemployeestoeffectively

fulfilltheirmultipleworkandnon-workresponsibilities

andexperiencelessrole-conflictwhiledoingso.Indeed

ourresultssupportthislineofreasoning.Specifically,the

lesstheorganizationimposedexcessivetimedemands,

especiallydemandsthatrequiredface-timeandweekend

andeveningwork,thelessinterferencewomenengineers

experiencedfromtheirnon-workliveswhilefulfillingtheir

workresponsibilities.Inaddition,ouranalysesrevealed

thatwomenengineers’whoworkedfororganizationswith

supportivework-lifecultures–i.e.,thosecharacterizedby

managerialsupportforwork-lifebalanceandlessintrusive

andexcessivetimedemandsreportedgreateruseofwork-

lifebenefitsavailabletothemthanthosewhoworkedfor

lesssupportiveorganizations.

Insum,avarietyoforganizationalsupportshelptoreduce

thedegreetowhichworkresponsibilitiesinterferewith

thefulfillmentoffamilycommitments.Theseandother

organizationalsupportsdidnothavetheintendedeffectof

reducingtheextenttowhichfamilyresponsibilitiesinterfered

withworkroleparticipation.Instead,thepatternofresults

revealsamixedbagwithrespecttotheroleofwork-life

cultureandinitiativesinreducingnon-workinterference

withworkrolefulfillment.Ononehand,supportive

work-lifeculturesintheformofmanagerialsupportfor

work-lifebalanceandlessextensivetimedemandsenable

womentoutilizethecompany’swork-lifebenefits.Onthe

otherhand,theprovisionandactualuseofthesebenefits

didnotalleviatetheconflictbetweennon-workandwork

rolesandinsteadexacerbatedthem.Likewise,onespecific

aspectoforganizationalculture–i.e.,managerialsensitivity

andsupporttowardemployees’familyresponsibilities–did

littletoamelioratetheconflictandinsteadheightenedthe

extenttowhichfamilyresponsibilitieshamperedworkrole

participation.Whatmadeadifferencetoareductionin

conflictwereorganizationaltimenormsthatdidnotcompel

itsemployeestoprioritizeworkoverfamilyinorderto

succeedatwork.

KEY FINDINGS: Women engineers experienced low levels of work-to-nonwork conflict when they worked for organizations that were supportive of, and accommodating toward, their employees’ concerns for work-life balance.

Women engineers experienced high levels of nonwork -to-work conflict when they reported working for organizations with family-friendly cultures and used some of the work-life benefits provided to them.


CONCLUSION: Giventhatwomenengineersarecombiningpaidworkwith

shoulderingnon-workresponsibilities,itwasimportantto

understandthefactorsthatinfluencethedegreeofconflict

theyfaceinmanagingthesemultiplework-nonworkroles

andobligations.Womenengineers’work-nonworkconflict

wasshapedbybothpersonalandorganizationalfactors.

Forexample,self-confidencemadeadifferencetotheextent

towhichwomenexperiencedwork-nonworkconflict,but

moreimportantlynotallconfidencebeliefswereassociated

withlowerconflict.Womenengineerswhowerehighlyconfi-

dentoftheirabilitiesinmanagingmultiplerolesexperienced

lowerlevelsofwork-nonworkconflict.However,whentheir

highlevelsofself-confidenceweredirectedtowardperforming

theirengineeringtasksand/ormanagingtheorganizational

dynamics,theyfeltagreatdealofconflict.

Twoprominentworkstressorsexacerbatedthelevelof

work-nonworkconflictreportedbythewomenengineers.

First,excessiveandconflictingwork-roledemandswere

associatedwithheightenedconflict.Second,engineerswho

workedinenvironmentscharacterizedbygeneralincivility

directedtowardwomenweremorelikelytoexperiencehigh

levelsofwork-nonworkconflict.

Ourresultsalsorevealedthatwomenengineersexperienced

alowerdegreeofworkinterferencewithfamilywhenthey

workedinorganizationsthatnotonlycaredaboutthegeneral

well-beingoftheiremployees,butwerealsoresponsiveand

accommodatingtowardtheiremployees’needtobalance

workandnon-workrolesbyrespectingtheirneedforwork-

lifebalanceandnotcompellingthemtoprioritizework

responsibilitiesoverfamilyneeds.However,work-nonwork

initiativesandafamily-friendlyworkculturedidnothave

theintendeddampeningeffectonwomenengineers’

family-to-workconflict,andinfact,servedtoexacerbateit.

Sincethewomenengineersinoursamplereportedfaced

excessiveworkloads,presumablyallthesework-lifesupports

weremeaningfulinreducingfamily-to-workinterference

onlywhenaccompaniedbysomerealtangiblechangesto

theworkrole.Overall,theresultssuggestthatalleviating

thestressesexperiencedfrommanagingmultiplework-non-

workrolesmaynotbesimplyamatterofprovidingand/or

encouragingemployeestousecertainwork-lifeinitiatives

ormakingtheorganizationmoreresponsivetoemployees’

needforwork-lifebalance.Avarietyoffactorsneedto

beinplaceforengineerstosuccessfullymanagetheir

multipleroleobligations.

“ I am lucky to work for an organization that has

FLEXIBLE LEAVE policies, in that I can take an hour off here or there if need be to deal with family issues.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering graduate

47

8: WOMEN CURRENTLY WORKING IN ENGINEERING: HOW STRONG IS THEIR BOND TO THE ENGINEER-ING PROFESSION AND TO THEIR ORGANIZATIONS? “ My current workplace is very WOMAN ENGINEER

FRIENDLY. Women get promoted and paid at the same rate as men. There are a lot of women in our group, it must be about 20%. The work atmosphere is very fair and the men who work here are not sexist for the most part.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

“ I LOVE MY JOB and feel successful at it but I can

pin that on one factor: I’ve had great mentorship. My mentors have been

older men who were encouraging and motivating and have been stubborn

advocates on my behalf—and they absolutely didn’t care that I was female.”

– Caucasian Chemical Engineering Graduate

“ I was fortunate to work with senior male engineering officers who gave me fantastic opportunities and provided outstanding

SUPPORT.” – Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate


Womenengineerswhoworkintheengineeringfielddoso

becausetheyfeelpassionateabouttheworktheydoandare

committedtotheprofession.Inattemptingtounderstand

whywomenleavethefieldofengineering,weexaminedthe

extenttowhichtheyfeelcommittedtotheprofessionandwhat

maybesomeofthereasonsfortheirintentionstoleavethe

profession.

Weknowlittleaboutwhatinfluencescareercommitment

amongwomenengineers.Whileprevioussurveyshave

assessedtherateofwomenengineers’departurefromthe

field,therehasbeennostudytodatethatsystematically

probedtheextenttowhichwomenengineersarecommit-

tedtostayinginthefieldandthereasons why theymay

contemplateleavingthefield.

InthePOWERstudy,welookedattwoformsofcommitment:

commitmenttotheorganizationandcommitmenttothe

profession.Awomanmightbecommittedtotheprofession

butnottohercurrentorganization.Lackofcommitmentto

theengineeringprofessionmightleadwomentoleavethe

fieldofengineeringcompletely,whilelackoforganizational

commitmentmightleadthemtolookforanewengineering

job,withadifferentcompany.Likewise,welookedattwo

formsofintentionstoleave:intentionstoleavetheorganiza-

tionandintentionstoleavetheprofession.Inthisstudy,we

examinetheinterplaybetweenthesetwoformsofcommitment

andintentionstoleavetheorganizationand/orprofession.

Consistentwithcommonlyaccepteddefinitionsofcommit-

ment,wedefinedemployeecommitmenttotheorganization

astheemotionalattachmentto,identificationwithand

involvementintheorganization.Similarly,commitment

totheengineeringprofessionwascapturedbytheextentto

whichwomenfeltattachedto,andidentifiedwithinthe

engineeringprofession.

Inourstudy,womenwhowerecurrentlyworkinginengi-

neeringreportedhigherthanaveragelevelsofcommitment

totheorganizationaswellastotheengineeringprofession.

WHAT EXPLAINS COMMITMENT TO THE COMPANY AND THE PROFESSION? Wefocusedonunderstandingthelevelofcommitment

onlyforwomenwhowerecurrentlyworkinginengineer-

ing.Itmightbeexpectedthatwomenwholeftengineering

hadalowlevelofcommitmenttothefield,butthereisno

waytoascertainthiswithourdata,.

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT CURRENT ENGINEERS’ COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION AND THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Yes,theydo.Womenwhofeelconfidentaboutmanaging

theirmultiplework-nonworkrolesandthepoliticalclimate

atworkexpressthehighestcommitmenttowardtheir

organizationsaswellastotheengineeringprofessionbut

nottowardthespecificcompanytheyworkedfor.Infact,this

particularattributedidn’tplayanyroleininfluencingthe

strengthofcommitmenttowardthecompanyandinstead

women’sself-confidenceintheirabilitiestosuccessfully

jugglemultiplerolesandnavigatethepoliticalclimateat

workstronglyandpositivelyinfluencedtheirloyaltytoward

thecompany.Further,engineerswhoexpectedpositive

outcomestoaccruefromperformingtheirengineeringroles

feltthegreatestlevelofcommitment.Butthesamewasn’t

trueabouttheirexpectationsregardingmanagingmultiple

work-nonworkroles.Thosewomenwhoexpectedthemost

outofjugglingtheirmultipleliferolesexhibitedtheleast

amountofcommitment,towardstheircompanyanditdid

notsignificantlyinfluencecommitmenttowardtheengi-

neeringprofession.

Insum,self-confidenceinperformingrelevanttasksaccom-

paniedbyexpectationsforpositiveoutcomes,exercisesa

potentinfluenceinstrengtheningengineers’bondstoward

theengineeringfieldaswellastheircompanies.

KEY FINDING: Women with highest levels of self-confidence and positive expectations felt the most committed to their organizations and the engineering profession.

“ In those rare cases where I felt I was not being treated appropriately, I have been able to go to HR and management and talk through the situations and always FELT I WAS BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND SUPPORTED.” – Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

49CHAPTER EIGHT

DO BARRIERS AT WORK PREDICT ONE’S COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION AND ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Yes,therearecertainbarriersthatwomenengineersfaceat

workthathurttheirattachmenttothecompanyaswellas

theprofession.Onceagain,lackofcertaintyintheengineers’

workroleobjectives,responsibilitiesandexpectationsemerged

asapowerfuldeterrenttothecommitmentandattachment

theyexpressedtowardtheirorganizationaswellastothe

profession.Excessiveworkoverloadwithoutadequatere-

sourcesalsolefttheengineersfeelinglesscommittedtothe

engineeringprofessionasawhole.However,clarityabout

theirworkroles,responsibilities,anddeadlinesstrength-

enedtheloyaltytheengineersfelttowardtheircompanies

aswellastheprofessionasawhole.Inaddition,theextent

towhichengineersexperiencedfrictionandconflictin

managingtheirworkandnon-workrolesdidinfluencetheir

levelofattachmenttowardtheirorganization.Thegreater

thefrictionexperiencedinjugglingtheseresponsibilities,the

lessstrongthebondsofattachmenttowardthecompany.

Commitmenttotheorganizationwasalsolargelyshaped

byhowtheparticipantsweretreatedbytheirsupervisors

andco-workers.Mostnotably,engineerswhoworkedin

environmentsinwhichthesupervisors,co-workersand

otherseniormanagerstreatedwomeninacondescending,

patronizinganddiscourteousmannerfeltlesscommitted

totheirorganization.Further,underminingbehaviors

instigatedbyco-workersweakenedone’scommitmentto

theorganization.Womenengineerswereleastlikelytofeel

attachedtotheircompanieswhentheirco-workersbelittled

andinsultedthem,madethemfeelincompetent,talked

aboutthembehindtheirbacks,putthemdownwhenthey

questionedworkprocedures,andunderminedwomen

engineersintheireffortstobesuccessfulonthejob.

“ MEN IN SUPERVISORY positions do not take their women subordinates out to lunch, or invite them to attend professional meetings and conferences with them…” – Caucasian Civil Engineering Graduate

Overall,womenengineerswhocontendwithsignificant

role-relatedbarriersexperiencethemosttenuousbonds

withtheirorganizationsaswellastheengineeringprofession.

Thisisnotsurprisingforthesimplereasonthatifemployees

donotknowwhatisexpectedofthem,theymaybe

workingonthewrongtasks.Prolongedexposuretorole

uncertaintyhasbeenfoundtobestressfulsinceitdeprives

employeesofvaluablecognitiveresourcesthatcouldbeused

foreffectivelyfulfillingtheirresponsibilities.However,what

isuniqueaboutthefindingthatroleuncertaintyerodesone’s

attachmenttotheprofessionisthis—whatwomenengineers

experienceonadailybasisatworkprofoundlyalterstheir

feelingstotheengineeringprofessionasawhole.These

feelingsarenotcontainedtotheworkplaceandinstead

spillovertoweakentheircommitmenttotheprofession.

Compoundingtheserole-relatedpressures,engineerswho

wereunderminedatworkbytheirco-workersandtreatedin

anuncivilmannerfeltleastattachedtotheirorganization.

KEY FINDINGS: Women who were tasked with jobs without clear expectations, responsibilities and objectives felt least committed to their organizations and the engineering profession as a whole.

Women who were undermined by their co-workers and reported working in cultures characterized by condescending, patronizing treatment of women expressed the least commitment to their organizations.

DOES SUPPORT AT WORK STRENGTHEN ONE’S COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION AND ENGINEERING PROFESSION?

Yes,itdoesandtoalargeextent.Thetypeofsupportthat

makesthemostdifferencetowomenengineers’commitment

totheorganizationaswellastotheprofessionistheextent

towhichtheorganizationmakesasubstantialinvestmentin

theirprofessionaldevelopmentbyprovidingthemwithchal-

lengingassignmentsandtrainingopportunitiestostrengthen

anddevelopnewskills.Commitmenttowardtheprofession

asawholeaswellastheorganizationwasalsoprofoundly

influencedbytheavailabilityoffair,regularandperformance-

basedpromotionopportunities.Inaddition,engineers

expressedthegreatestlevelsofcommitmenttotheprofession

whentheyfoundthemselvesworkingforcompaniesthatdid

notimposeexcessivetimedemandsonthembywayofinsis-

tenceonface-time,aswellasworkingweekendsandnights.

Employees’attachmenttowardtheircompanieswasalso

shapedbythemannerinwhichthecompanyandtheir

co-workerstreatedthemingeneral.Engineerswhoworked

forcompaniesthatvaluedandrecognizedtheircontributions


andexpressedcareabouttheirgeneralwell-beingreapedthe

rewardsintermsoftheseengineers’loyaltyandcommitment.

Similarly,womenwhoseco-workersweresupportiveofthem

feltmuchmorecommittedandattachedtowardtheircompa-

niesthanthosewhodidnothaveasimilarsupportstructure.

Insum,theextenttowhichengineersexperienceavariety

ofsupportiveactions,behaviors,systems,policies,and

evensymbolicgesturesintheirworkenvironmentsmakesa

differencetothestrengthoftheirtiestotheirorganization

aswellastheprofession.Onceagain,theresultsrevealed

thatwhathappensatworkonadailybasisdoesspillover

toaffectone’sfeelingstowardtheprofessionasawhole.

Thisconclusionisunderscoredbyourfindingthatahigh

levelofcommitmenttowardone’sorganizationisaccom-

paniedbyacorrespondinglyhighlevelofcommitment

towardtheengineeringprofession.

KEY FINDINGS: Women were more likely to be committed to the field of engineering if they received opportunities for training and development, opportunities for advancement and believed that time demands were reasonable.

Women were more likely to be committed to their engineering job when their companies valued their con-tributions and worked with supportive co-workers.

DO JOB ATTITUDES INFLUENCE ONE’S COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION AND THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Yes,theydo.Notsurprisingly,satisfactionwithone’sjob

madeahugedifferencetowardhowstronglyattachedand

committedengineers’felttowardtheirorganizationsand

theengineeringprofession.Overallcommitmenttoone’s

currentorganizationalsostrengthenedthebondswiththe


WHAT ARE THE BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS OF ONE’S COMMITMENT TO THE ORGANIZATION AND THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Notsurprisingly,womenwhoexpressedaverystrong

attachmentandcommitmenttowardtheirorganization

andprofessionwereleastlikelytosearchforalternative

jobs,followuponjobleadsandharborintentionstoleave

thecompanyandtheprofession.Theywerealsolesslikely

todisengagefromtheirworkorotherwisescalebacktheir

levelofworkinvolvement.

Inessence,thereareavarietyofpersonalandorganizational

factorsthatworkinconcerttostrengthenwomen’sbondto

theengineeringprofessionandtheirorganizations.

CONCLUSION:Womencurrentlyworkinginengineeringexpresseda

strongcommitmenttotheirorganizationsaswellastothe

profession.Avarietyofpersonalandorganizationalfactors

affectedthestrengthofthoseties.Womenwithhighlevels

ofself-confidence,whoweregivenclear,identifiablesetof

taskgoals,responsibilitiesandexpectationstoworkwith,

expressedstrongcommitmenttowardtheircompaniesandthe

engineeringprofession.Workingwithsupportivecolleagues

andco-workersalsohelpedtostrengthentheseengineers’

bondstothecompaniesandthefield.Organizationsthat

valuedandsupportedtheiremployeesandalsomade

substantialinvestmentsintraininganddevelopingtheir

womenengineerswerelikelytoexperiencehighlevelsof

employeeloyaltyinreturn.

Loyaltytotheorganizationwasalsoshapedbyhowpoorly

womenweretreated.Womenengineerswhowerebelittled,

madefunofandunderminedbytheirco-workersexpressed

lowlevelsofattachmenttotheircompanies.Finally,incivility

intheworkplace,characterizedbycondescendingand

patronizingtreatmentofwomen,diminishedthesenseof

loyaltythattheseengineersfelttowardtheircompanies.

“ I have spent many of my professional

years in management positions, which

have allowed me broader exposure to

work with women from other disciplines.

Because of that, I have been able to find

female co-workers for support.

…I personally think engineering is a

SATISFYING and CHALLENGING profession. I believe that my male

co-workers treat women with respect

and support them equal to their male

co-workers.” – Caucasian Industrial Engineering Graduate

51

“ In leaving the technically-

focused roles, I believe it’s because advancement and

money are not there. You can ONLY GO SO FAR before

you have to shift gears to more business-type roles.”

– Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

9: WHAT EXPLAINS WOMEN ENGINEERS’ DESIRE TO LEAVE THE COMPANY AND THE PROFESSION?

“ From my experience, women have left

engineering because they are PUSHED

to move into management. The female

engineers I’ve known have had great

technical skills as well as solid

leadership abilities.” – Caucasian Electrical Engineering Graduate

“ There are NOT ENOUGH opportunities for promotion. It’s easier to get promoted and accepted outside of engineering fields.” – Asian-American

Electrical Engineering Graduate


Whiletherehasbeenaconsiderableamountofanecdotal

evidenceonwomenengineers’rateofdeparturefrom

engineering,todate,noresearchhasassessedtheextent

towhichwomencurrently workinginengineeringexpress

desiretoleavetheprofession,aswellaswhatprovokesthat

desiretoleaveaprofessionforwhichtheyhavetrainedso

hardandlong.

ThePOWERstudyexaminedanumberofpersonaland

organizationalfactorsthathavebeentheoretically(and

empirically)linkedtodepartureintentionsamongother

groupsofprofessionalsbuthaveneverbeenstudiedamong

professionalengineers.Sowhatpredictscurrentwomen

engineers’intentionstoleavethefieldofengineering?

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT CURRENT ENGINEERS’ DESIRE TO LEAVE THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION?

Ourstudyrevealedthat,yes,personalfactorsdidmakea

differenceinpredictingcurrentengineers’desiretoleave

theprofession.Wefoundthatwomenwhowerehighly

confidentoftheirengineeringabilitiesaswellastheirability

tojugglemultiplework-nonworkroleswereleastlikely

towanttoleaveengineering.Inaddition,self-confident

womenwhoalsoexpectedpositiveresultstocometheir

wayfromsuccessfullyperformingtheirengineeringtasks

wereleastlikelytowanttoquitengineering.Soavarietyof

personalfactorsinfluencewomen’sintentionstoquitengi-

neering—thesefactorswereprimarilyrelatedtotheirlevelsof

self-confidenceinperformingengineeringtasksandmanag-

ingmultiplerolescombinedwithwhattheyexpectedto

resultfromsuchefforts.

KEY FINDING: Women who were highly confident of their engineering abilities as well as their ability to juggle multiple work-nonwork roles were the least likely to want to leave engineering. Similarly, women who expected positive outcomes from their efforts to successfully per-form engineering tasks had likewise weak intentions to leave the profession.

WHAT TYPE OF AN INTEREST PROFILE DRIVES ONE’S INTENTION TO QUIT THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Wefoundthatwomenengineerswhowereenterprisingand

expressedaninterestinthesocialdimensionsofworkwere

morelikelytowanttoleaveengineering.Notsurprisingly,

womenwhoweremoreinterestedindetail-oriented,hands-

onactivitiesweretheleastlikelytowanttoleaveengineering.

Thesethemesalsoechoedinthecommentsofferedbythe

participantsthatdescribedwhatfactorsprecipitatedtheir

desiretoleaveengineering.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK PREDICT ONE’S INTEN-TION TO LEAVE THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Yes,therearecertainbarriersthatwomenengineersfaceat

workthatleadthemtoconsiderleavingtheengineering

professionaltogether.Wefoundthatoneofthebiggest

contributorstowomen’sdecisiontoleavethefieldisthe

lackofinformationandclarityregardingtheirworkgoals,

objectivesandresponsibilities.Researchhasshownthat

clearjobrolestendtoempoweremployeeswithfeelingsof

competencybecausetheyunderstandwhatisrequiredof

themtofulfilltheirresponsibilities.Lackofclarityregarding

jobrolesandexpectationscancreatetensionandstressfor

employeesandaffecttheirattitudestowardtheirorganizations.

Thisisthefirststudytorevealthatthisroleuncertaintycan

alsostronglyinfluenceone’sdesiretoleavetheprofession.

Inaddition,workoverloadintermsofthesheermismatch

betweenthetasksdemandedandtheresourcesavailable

alsoinfluencedwomen’sintentiontoquitengineering.In

essence,ofthedifferenttypesofworkplacebarriersthatwe

examined,thetwomostsignificantcontributorstowomen’s

intentionstoquitengineeringwereexcessiveworkrespon-

sibilitieswithoutcommensurateresourcesandalackof

clarityregardingtheirworkroles.

KEY FINDING: Women are more likely to consider leaving the engineering field if they experience excessive workload and if they perceive a lack of clarity regarding their work goals, objectives and responsibilities.

53CHAPTER NINE

DOES SUPPORT AT WORK DAMPEN ONE’S INTENTION TO LEAVE ENGINEERING? Yes,itdoestoanextent—butitisthetangibleformsof

supportthatmatterthemost.Organizationallevelsupport

wascapturedthroughtheavailabilityoftraininganddevel-

opmentopportunitiesandtheextenttowhichtheorga-

nizationcaredforandvaluedthewomen’scontributions,

andtheavailabilityoffair,performance-basedpromotion

systems.Wealsoexaminedtheextenttowhichtheorgani-

zation’scultureandwork-lifepoliciessupportedandvalued

employees’integrationofworkandfamilylives.Atthe

individuallevel,supportwasassessedintermsoftheextent

towhichtheemployeesperceivedthattheirsupervisorsand

co-workersareeasytotalkto,arewillingtolisten,willgo

outoftheirwaytohelp,andcanbereliedonwhenthings

gettoughatwork.Wealsoassessedwhetherthepresenceof

amentorwouldmakeadifferenceintheengineer’sintention

toquittheprofession.

Ofallthesedifferenttypesofsupport,threefactorsstood

out.First,theextenttowhichthecompaniesprovided

tangibletraininganddevelopmentopportunitiessuchas

assigningtheprojectsthathelpdevelopandstrengthen

newskills,givingchallengingassignmentsandinvestingin

formaltraininganddevelopment,wasrelatedtoalower

intentiontoquitengineering.Inaddition,havingclear,

consistent,andtransparentpathstoadvancementwithin

thecompanyloweredtheirdesiretoquitengineering.

Second,thedegreetowhichwomenengineersperceived

theirco-workersassupportiveofthemmadeadifferenceto

theirdesiretoleaveengineering.Themoresupportiveone’s

co-workers,thelowerthedesiretoleavetheprofession.

Likewise,womenengineerswhoworkedinorganizations

whichrecognizedandvaluedtheircontributionswereless

likelytocontemplateleavingtheprofession.Finally,the

resultsrevealedthatthesymbolicnatureofacompany’s

culturetowardwork-lifeissuesdidnothaveanimpacton

theintentiontoleaveengineering.Insteadone’sdesireto

leaveengineeringwasinfluencedbytheextenttowhichthe

organizationaltimedemandsandexpectedemployeesto

consistentlyprioritizedworkresponsibilitiesoverfamily

obligations.Inotherwords,womenengineerswhoworked

incompaniesthatregularlyexpectedtheiremployeesto

workmorethan50hoursaweek,totakeworkhomeat

nightand/oronweekends,andregularlyputtheirjobs

beforetheirfamilies—especiallytobeconsideredfavorably

bytopmanagement—weremostlikelytoexpressadesire

toleaveengineering.Anotherfacetofthework-lifeculture

ofthecompanythatimpactedwomen’sdesiretoleave

engineeringwastheavailabilityofwork-lifepolicies.Inter-

estingly,itwasnottheusebutratherthemereavailability

ofwork-lifepoliciesthatdiscouragewomenfromthinking

aboutleavingtheengineeringprofession.

Insummary,supportatworkmattersindissuadingwomen

engineersfromcontemplatingquittingtheirprofession.

Specifically,havingsupportivecultureandpoliciesatwork,

intheformoftraininganddevelopmentopportunities,

fairandconsistentpromotionavenues,work-lifebenefits,

reasonabletimedemands,andsupportiveco-workers,allof

whichdampenedwomen’sdesiretoleaveengineering.

KEY FINDING: Women who had supportive co-workers and reported that their companies provided them with training and development opportunities were less likely to consider leaving engineering.

DO JOB ATTITUDES INFLUENCE INTENTIONS TO LEAVE THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION?

Yes,theydo.Surprisingly,satisfactionwithone’scareerdid

notmakeadifferenceinone’sintentiontoleaveengineering,

butsatisfactionwithone’sjobhadahugeimpact.This

suggeststhatwhathappensinone’simmediatejobtranscends

andspillsovertoaffecthowonefeelsabouttheprofession

asawhole.Notsurprisingly,theextenttowhichwomen

“ When I first began my engineering career, I was often the only female in the

organization other than secretaries. Now, I have many female co-workers. I think

the increase in women in the organization has IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS and

working relationships.” – Caucasian Chemical Engineering Graduate


feltcommittedtotheengineeringprofessionwasstrongly

reflectedintheirintentiontostayoninengineering.

KEY FINDING: The more women were satisfied with their current jobs the less likely they were to consider leaving the engineering profession.

WHAT ARE THE BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS OF ONE’S DESIRE TO THE LEAVE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Thisisoneoftheonlystudiesofitskindtoprobethe

behavioralsymptomsofone’sintentiontoleavethe

engineeringprofessionandwefoundsomeinteresting

patterns.Womenwhowereseriouslycontemplatingleaving

theprofessionwerelikelytoactivelypursuesearchingfor

alternativejobsorfollowuponjobleads.Theywerealso

likelytoscalebacktheirlevelofinvolvementatworkby

notworkinglateorforovertime,leavingworkearlyor

avoidingtakingabusinesstrip.Theseengineerswerealso

veryactivelyconsideringleavingtheircurrentorganization.

Inessence,itisnotjustonefactor,inandofitself,that

makesthedifferenceinprovokingwomentocontemplate

leavingtheengineeringprofession.Itisacomplexarrayof

personalandorganizationalfactorsthatworkinconcertto

fraythetiesthatbindthemtotheprofession.

WHAT, IF ANY, IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE’S DESIRE TO LEAVE THE COMPANY AND ONE’S DESIRE TO LEAVE THE PROFESSION? Theanswertothisquestionhastremendousimplications

fornotonlywomenengineers,butalsoforcompaniesthat

employthemandeducationalinstitutionsthattrainand

educatethem.Ourstudypointsoutthatwomen’sintentions

toleavetheirorganizationsareverycloselylinkedtotheir

desiretoleavetheprofessionaltogether.

WHAT EXPLAINS CURRENT ENGINEERS’ DESIRE TO LEAVE THE COMPANY?Wealsolookedatthesamefactorsthatexplainwomen

engineer’sintentiontoleavetheprofessionandexamined

whetherthesealsoinfluencedwomen’sintentiontoleave

theircompanies.Ourresultsrevealedasimilarmake-upof

factorsthatinfluencedthetwotypesofintentiontowithdraw

butwithimportantdifferences.

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT CURRENT ENGINEERS’ DESIRE TO LEAVE THEIR ORGANIZATION?Yes,theydo.Similartowhatwefoundforintentionsto

leavetheprofession,womenengineers’desiretoleavetheir

companieswasheavilyinfluencedbytheirlevelsofself-

confidencebutwithanimportantdifference.Women’s

self-confidenceinbalancingmultipleliferolesandnavigating

theorganizationalpoliticallandscapeprimarilyinfluenced

theirdesiretostayorleavethecompany.Womenwhowere

highlyconfidentoftheirperformanceinthesearenaswere

leastlikelytowanttoleavetheirorganizations.Surprisingly,

women’sself-confidenceinperformingengineeringtasks

didn’tmattermuchininfluencingtheirdesiretoleavethe

companywhileitmatteredsignificantlymoreforinfluencing

theirintentiontoleavetheprofession.Inaddition,women

whoexpectedpositiveresultstoaccruefromsuccessfully

performingengineeringtaskswereleastlikelytowant

tothinkaboutquittingtheircompaniesaswellasthe


Inessence,womenengineers’self-confidenceisvitalto

helpingthemfendoffintentionstoleavethecompany,and

itseemsforthemostpart,theyexpectpositiveoutcomesto

resultfromtheirvariousefforts.

“ I have encountered situations where a client does not want to work with me because I am a woman or I was mistaken for a secretary or someone is surprised that I am an engineer

(“ISN’T THAT CUTE”). I think that as women we need to know that this is going to happen and learn how to prepare for it.” – Caucasian Agricultural Engineering Graduate

KEY FINDING: Women who were highly confident of their abilities to manage multiple life roles and navigate the political climate at work were most likely to want to stay with their companies. Further, women who expected positive outcomes from their successful performance of engineering tasks were less likely to consider leaving their organization.

55CHAPTER NINE

WHAT TYPE OF AN INTEREST PROFILE DRIVES ONE’S INTENTION TO QUIT THE COMPANY? Wefoundthatwomenengineerswhopossessedenterprising

interestsweremorelikelytowanttoleavetheircurrentorga-

nizations.Incontrast,womenengineerswhocharacterized

theirinterestsasconventional(i.e.,interestedinactivities

thatrequirealotofattentiontodetailandstructure),were

theleastlikelytowanttoquit.Thispatternwassimilarto

whatwefoundforintentionstoquittheprofession.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK PREDICT ONE’S INTENTION TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION? Yes,theydobutsomewhatdifferenttypesofworkbarriers

influencewhetheronewantstoleavethecompanyorthe

profession.Similartoourfindingaboutwhatinfluences

engineers’desiretoleavetheprofession,wefoundthat

excessiveworkloadandunclearandconflictingjobgoals,

expectationsandresponsibilitiespromptedwomento

considerleavingtheircompanies.However,wefound

additionalbarriersatplayhere.Inadditiontothework-role

relatedbarriers,womenengineersweremostlikelytoharbor

strongintentionstoleavetheircompanieswhentheyreported

workinginorganizationsthattreatedwomeninaconde-

scending,patronizingmanneratworkandwhentheywere

systematicallyunderminedbytheirsupervisorsbybeingput

downwhentheyquestionedtheworkprocedures,talkedbe-

hindtheirbacksandmadetofeelincompetent.Althoughthis

maynotcomeasasurprisingfindingtosome,whatispar-

ticularlyrevealingaboutthisresultisthat,forthefirsttime,

wehaveanunderstandingoftheactualtypesofundermin-

ingbehaviorsdirectedatwomenengineersandhowthese

playoutbyaffectingtheirdesiretostayinthecompany.

KEY FINDING: Women engineers are more likely to consider leaving their companies if they experience excessive workload, unclear roles, conflicting demands and responsibilities and report that their supervisor undermines their efforts at being successful at work.

DOES SUPPORT AT WORK DAMPEN ONE’S INTENTION TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION? Yestosomeextent.Thetypesofsupportiveelementsthat

madeapositivedifferencetowomen’sintentionsnot to leave

thecompanyaresimilartowhatwefoundfortheirintentions

nottoleavetheprofessionasawhole.Forexample,inboth

cases,anorganization’sinvestmentinprofessionaltraining

anddevelopmentopportunitiesdampenedtheirdesireto

leavethecompanyasdidworkingforcompaniesthatdid

notexcessivelyemphasizelonghours,face-time,andwork-

ingweekendsandevenings.Whatwasdifferentintermsof

predictingintentionstoleavethecompanywasthe stronger

influenceofopportunitiesforpromotionwithinthecompany.

Womenwhobelievedtheyhadgoodopportunitiesforpromo-

tionandthatthosepromotiondecisionswerebasedonability

andfaircriteriawerelesslikelytowanttothinkaboutleaving.

Further,unlikethelimitedtypesofsupportthatinfluenced

departurefromtheprofession,wefoundafullspectrumof

supportivebehaviorsthatwererelatedtowomenengineers

notwantingtoleavetheircompanies.Specifically,working

withsupportivesupervisorsandco-workerslessenedtheir

desiretoleavethecompany.Further,theextenttowhichthe

organizationvaluedandrecognizedtheengineers’contribu-

tionstothecompanyandcaredabouttheirwell-beingmade

asubstantialdifferencetotheirdesiretoleavethecompany.

Theorganization’swork-lifeculturealsomadeasignificant

differenceindiscouragingwomenfromwantingtoleavethe

company.Specifically,engineerswhoworkedwithmanagers

thatwereunderstandingandsupportiveofwomen’sneed

forwork-lifebalanceanddidnotexpectthemtoworkweek-

endsandweeknights,wereleastlikelytowanttoleave.Once

again,theextenttowhichthecompaniesprovideddifferent

work-lifebenefitpolicies,butnottheextenttowhichthe

womenusedit,madeasignificantdifferencetotheirwith-

drawalintentions.Availabilityofwork-lifebenefitsseemed

todeterwomenfromwantingtoleavetheircompanies.

Overall,ourresultsrevealedthatavarietyofsupportive

actions,behaviors,systems,policies,andevensymbolic

gesturesneededtobeinplaceforwomennottoconsider

leavingtheirjobs.

KEY FINDINGS: Women engineers who had supportive supervisors and co-workers were the least likely to consider leaving their organizations.

Women engineers were less likely to consider leaving engineering when the companies invested in their training and development, provided them with opportunities for advancement and valued their contributions to the organization. Finally, family friendly work cultures and availability of work-life benefits played an instru-mental role in discouraging women from thinking about quitting their companies.


DO JOB ATTITUDES INFLUENCE INTENTIONS TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION? Yes,theydo.Moreover,thesametypesofjobattitudes

influencedintentionstoleavetheorganizationastheyin-

fluencedintentionstoleavetheprofession.Specifically,

satisfactionwiththeirjobhadahugeimpactoninfluencing

theextenttowhichoneconsideredleavingthecompany.

Themoresatisfiedtheengineerswerewiththeirjobs,the

lesslikelytheyweretothinkaboutleaving.Notsurprisingly,

theextenttowhichwomenfeltasenseofattachmentand

commitmenttothecompanywasstronglyreflectedintheir

intentiontostaywiththecompany.

KEY FINDING: The more women were satisfied with their current jobs the less likely they were to consider leaving their organizations.

WHAT ARE THE BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS OF ONE’S DESIRE TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION? Exactlythesamesetofbehaviorsinfluencedwomen’s

intentionstoleavetheorganizationaswhatwefoundfor

womencontemplatingleavingtheengineeringprofession.

Thatis,womenwhowerethinkingaboutleavingtheir

companiesweremorelikelytoactivelypursuesearching

foralternativejobsorfollowinguponjobleads.They

werealsolikelytoscalebacktheirlevelofinvolvementat

workbynotworkinglate,leavingworkearly,oravoiding

takingabusinesstrip.Whatwasdifferentinthecaseof

organizationaldepartureintentionswasthatinadditionto

activelylookingforotherjobsandscalingbacktheircurrent

involvementatwork,women’sexpectationsforfindingan

acceptablealternativejobshapedtheirdesiretoleavethe

company.Thegreatertheavailabilityofattractivejobsin

thelabormarket,thestrongerwastheirdesiretoleavethe

currentcompany.

DOES THE INTENTION TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION AFFECT WOMEN’S INTENTION TO LEAVE THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION? Yes,itdoes,andinatremendousway.Thiswasasurprising

finding—womenwhointendtoleavetheircompaniesare

alsoseriouslythinkingofleavingtheprofessionaltogether.

Itseemsthatgettingdisenchantedinone’sjobprovokesnot

justadesiretoleavethecompanyforadifferentengineering

firmbuttoleavetheprofessioncompletely.Thingsthat

happenatworkonadailybasis,theopportunitiesoffered

ordenied,theextenttowhichemployeesaresupportedor

undermined,allexerciseaprofoundinfluenceonwomen

engineer’sintentionstoremainintheprofession.Oneoften

doesnothearaboutdoctorsthinkingofleavingthemedical

professionaltogetheriftheirworkenvironmentisnot

supportiveand/oriftheyfaceconsistentbarriersatwork,

butwomenengineersarecertainlydoingthat.

CONCLUSION:Womenengineers’intentiontoleavetheirorganizationsand

theengineeringprofessionwasshapedbyamyriadoffactors,

bothattheindividualandorganizationallevel.Forthemost

part,highlyself-confidentwomenengineerswerenotlikely

towanttoleavetheirorganizationsortheengineeringfield.

Whattriggeredtheirthoughtsaboutleavinghadagreatdeal

todowiththeirworkenvironment.Boththepositiveand

negativeexperiencesencounteredintheworkenvironment

promptedwomennotonlytocontemplateleavingtheir

organizationsbutalsotheengineeringfieldaltogether.One

commonworkfactorthatemergedtoinfluenceengineers’

intentionstoleavethecompanyaswellastheprofession

wasexcessiveworkloadandunclearworkroles.Clearly,

thesesituationsarestressfulenoughfortheseengineers

tocontemplatewithdrawingfromnotonlytheircurrent

organizationsbuttheengineeringfieldaswell.

Inaddition,womenengineers’whowerebelittled,made

tofeelincompetentandotherwiseunderminedbytheir

supervisors,thoughtaboutleavingtheirorganizations.Our

resultspointoutthatunderminingbehaviorsbysupervisors

maytakeatollonorganizationalretentionplans.

Whatdissuadedwomenengineersfromwantingtoleave

theirorganizationsandtheengineeringprofessionwastheir

experienceofworkinginorganizationsthatrecognizedand

valuedtheircontributions,investedintheirtrainingand

professionaldevelopmentandprovidedthemwithopportu-

nitiesforadvancement.Havingsupportivesupervisorsand

co-workersatworkalsowentalongwayinloweringtheir

desiretoleave.

Ourresultspointoutthatwomen’sintentionstoleave

theirorganizationsareverycloselylinkedtotheirdesireto

leavetheprofessionaltogether,eventhoughtherearesome

differencesinthetriggersforthesetwotypesofwithdrawal

intentions.Becausethesetwoformsofwithdrawalintentions

aresocloselytiedtogether,whathappensinone’simmediate

workenvironmentmayinevitablyaffectone’sattachment

tothefield.

57

10: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONSRoughly 40% of the women engineers who responded to this study have left the field of engineering.

Many who are currently working in engineering have expressed intentions to leave the engineering field.

Why do women engineers leave (or want to leave)? What can we do to stem the tide? The findings from

the national Project on Women Engineers’ Retention (POWER) have practical implications both for

the organizations that employ women engineers and the educational institutions that educate and train

them. Our recommendations are drawn from the key themes that emerged from our findings that revealed

what’s working well and what needs to be done differently.


Recommendations for Organizations

CREATE CLEAR, VISIBLE AND TRANSPARENT PATHS TOWARD ADVANCEMENTWomenwhosawclearpathsandopportunitiestoadvance-

mentintheircompanyreportedfeelingmoresatisfiedand

committedwithlittleornointentionstoleaveengineeringor

theircurrentcompanies.Pastresearchhasshownthatwomen

andminoritiesoftenleaveorganizationsoutoffrustration

ofnotfindingclear,tangiblepathsforadvancement(Cox

&Nkomo,1991).Inourstudy,womenengineerswholeft

engineeringechoedsimilarsentiments.Thewomenwho

werecurrentlyworkinginengineeringexpressedthatlack

ofpromotionopportunitiesinfluencedthemtothinkabout

quittingtheirjobsand/orthefieldtogether.Thetakeaway

messagetoorganizationsisclear—companiescandoa

betterjobofretainingandoptimallyutilizingthetalents

oftheirwomenengineersiftheyprovideclear,visibleand

transparentpathstoadvancementbyarticulatingthe

criteriaforpromotion,implementingfair,performance-

basedsystemsforpromotionandbyofferingmultiple

opportunitiesformobility.

INVEST IN PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTOneofthekeythemesthatemergedfromthefindingswas

theimpactoftraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesona

widevarietyofoutcomesthatarerelevanttotheorganization.

Forexample,womenwhoworkedincompaniesthatprovided

themwithchallengingassignmentsthathelpedthemto

developand/orstrengthennewskillsaswellassubstan-

tiallyinvestedintheirformaltraininganddevelopment

weremoresatisfiedwiththeirjobsandcareers,morecom-

mittedtothefieldandtheircompaniesandalsolesslikely

towanttoleavetheircompaniesandtheengineeringfield.

Womenwhohadalreadyleftengineeringreportedthatlack

oftraininganddevelopmentwasinstrumentalintheir

decisiontoleave–theyhadsimplyreachedadead-end–

andwithoutfurthertraininganddevelopmentopportuni-

ties,theyfeltcompelledtoleave.Companiesthatinvestin

tailoredandspecifictraininganddevelopmentprograms

canreaprichpayoffswithregardtoproductivityandprofit-

abilitygains,reducedcosts,improvedquality,andfasterrates

ofinnovation.

Theresultsfromourstudyaddanotherperspectivebysug-

gestingthatthelackofinvestmentintraininganddevel-

opmentcanhurtthecompanybyincurringturnovercosts.

Theengineeringprofession,andlargersocietyasawhole,

doalsodirectlyandindirectlybearthesecosts.

Organizationsinterestedinretainingtheirwomenengi-

neersneedtooffertargetedtrainingprogramsaimedat

strengtheningnotonlytechnicalskillsbutalsodevelop-

ingoverallleadershipskillssuchasstrategicplanningand

performancemanagementskills.Lackofadequateortimely

traininganddevelopmentmayimposeastructuralbarrier

totheiradvancementandtaketheseengineersoutofthe

runningforpromotiontopositionswithgreaterauthority,

influenceandadvancement.

COMMUNICATE CLEAR WORK GOALS AND RELEVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL TASKS TO THE BIG PICTURE Oneofthekeyimpedimentsthatwomenengineersreported

encounteringintheworkplacewasexcessiveworkload

unclearandsometimesconflictinginformationonwork

goals,expectations,andresponsibilities.Clearly,thesework

role-relatedpressurestookaprofoundtollonallfacetsof

womenengineers’worklife—fromthesatisfactionand

commitmenttheyfelttowardtheirjobsandengineering

professiontothelevelofinterferencetheyexperienced

betweentheirworkandnon-workroles—promptingthem

toconsiderleavingtheirorganizationandtheengineering

profession.Ofallthedifferenttypesofstructuralbarriersthat

havebeendocumentedtohavehadaneffectonwomen

engineers’mobility,persistenceandattrition,role-related

structuralbarriershavereceivednegligibleattention.

Therearemultiplestrategiesthatcanease,ifnoteliminate,

suchrole-relatedstresses.Forstarters,takingsimplesteps

intermsofdefiningandclarifyingwhatisexpectedofthe

employees—whatneedstobedone,howandwhenitneeds

tobedone—canhelptheemployeesbemoreeffective

inusingtheirtalentsforaccomplishingtheirworkgoals.

Workrolesaredynamicandtheyareembeddedindynamic

organizationalenvironments.Thereforeitis,importantto

continuallyengageinthisprocessofroleclarificationand

redefinition,reducingoreliminatingwherepossible

conflictingdemands,expectationsandroledisruptions.

Settingclearworkboundariesisimportant,andjustas

importantislayingouthowthetasksandrolesare

connectedtothebroaderorganizationalmission.

Organizationsalsoneedtotakeactivestepstoreduce

excessivework-roleoverloadbyinfusingnewresourcesor

reallocatingexistingonestostreamlineworkprocedures.

Sometimes,itisaquestionoftoomuchtodointoolittle

timewithoutnecessaryresources.Forthosesituations,it

mightbeimperativetoreprioritizethetasksthatneedtobe

completed,setmorerealistictimelines,and/oraddmore

employeestocompletethetasks(sometimesevenincreasing

59CHAPTER TEN

administrativesupportcangoalongwayineasingthe

workload).Continuallytraininganddevelopingemployees

mightnotonlyresultinimmediateefficiencygains,butcan

alsoleadtoenhancedcreativityandinnovationatwork.

Allthesemeasurescallforasystematicexaminationof

workflowandworkprocesses,butitmaybeworththetime,

moneyandeffort.

Inshort,settingclearboundariesaroundworkrolegoals,

prioritizingimportantduties,allocatingnecessaryresources,

andcommunicatingtherelevanceoftaskscanaidinstream-

liningworkrolesandearnstrongloyaltyandsatisfaction

fromwomenengineers.

IT’S THE WORKPLACE CLIMATE!Workplaceclimateissues,bothpositiveandnegative,had

apervasiveinfluenceonavarietyofoutcomessuch

ascommitment,satisfaction,withdrawalbehaviorsand

intentions.Thisfindingisconsistentwithpastresearch

onwomeninSTEMfields.Womenengineersencountered

avarietyofsupportsandbarriersintheworkplacethat

werestructural,culturalandbehavioralinnature.Ourstudy

highlightedanumberofclimate-relatedaspectsrelatedto

women’sdecisiontostayinanengineeringpositionand

thesearesummarizedbelow.

CREATE AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE THAT VALUES EMPLOYEES’ CONTRIBUTIONSTheextenttowhichanorganizationvaluedtheirwomen

engineers’contributionsandcaredabouttheirwell-being

influencedanarrayofattitudesandbehaviors.Women

engineerswhoworkedinsuchsupportiveorganizations

reciprocatedtheirorganization’seffortsbyexpressing

greatersatisfactionandcommitmenttowardtheirjobs

andcareersandfewintentionstoleavetheorganization

orthefield.Suchpositiveorganizationalculturesempower

employeesandhelpthemflourish.Organizationscanestablish

employeerecognitionprogramsthatwelcomeandreward

positivecontributions.Theseprogramscanalsoprovide

womenengineerswithplatformsforreachingacrossfunctional

andhorizontallinesinthecompany,helpingthemfoster

meaningfulconnectionswiththeirco-workers,andpossibly

seniormanagers,inotherareasofthecompany.

ROOT OUT UNCIVIL AND UNDERMINING BEHAVIORS IN THE WORKPLACE; CREATE A CULTURE THAT RESPECTS ALLIncivilityandsocialunderminingintheworkplaceisonthe

riseasseeninrecentresearchstudies(Duffy,Ganster,&Pagon,

2002;Miner-Rubino&Cortina,2007;Pearson&Porath,2009)

anditistakingatollontheemployeesandtheorganizations

inwhichtheywork.Unfortunately,manyorganizationsare

ignorantorunawareoftheprevalenceand/ormagnitude

ofthisproblem.WhilepastresearchonwomeninSTEM

careershashighlightedthepresenceandeffectsofbiasand

hostilityintheworkplace,thisisthefirstempiricalstudy

thatsetouttodocumenttheeffectsoftwomajorformsof

negativebehaviorsintheworkplace–incivilityandunder-

miningbehaviors—onavarietyoforganizationallyrelevant

attitudes,behaviorsandcognitions.Asourstudypointsout,

thecostofincivilityandunderminingbehaviorscanbeseen

intermsofreducedsatisfactionandcommitment,increased

disengagementatworkandincreaseddesiretoleavethe

organizationaswellastheprofession.Wealsofoundavery

strongrelationshipbetweenincivilityandundermining

behaviors,perhapsnotsurprising,butonewithdisturbing

implications.Theconfluenceofuncivilandundermining

behaviorscanposeahostileandseeminglyinsurmountable

barriertowomen’spersistenceandprogressinengineering.

Organizationsneedtohaveazero-tolerancepolicyforany

formofincivilityandunderminingintheworkplace.From

creatinga“hotline”toreportsuchincidents,appointing

anombudspersontoaddressandresolvetheseissuesand

providingsystematictrainingthroughouttheorganization

thatteaches,forexample,conflictresolution,negotiationand

listeningskills,thereareseveralwaysthatanorganization

canshowthatsuchbehaviorisnottoleratedwithinthe

company.Whileeveryonecouldbenefitfromtraining,

supervisorsinparticularneedtobetrainedtorecognizeand

addresssignsofincivilityandunderminingandtoaddress

itevenwhentheinstigatorsarepowerfulindividualswithin

thecompany.Manyorganizationshavesucceededincreating

culturesthatareintolerantofsexualharassment.Thesame

needstobeextendedtocoverothertypesofhostileand

unacceptablebehaviorintheworkplace.Creatingaworkplace

thatishospitable,welcomingandrespectfulofallindividuals

isvitaliforganizationswanttoretainthetalentsofnotonly

theirwomenengineers,butalltheiremployees.

CREATE A SUPPORTIVE NETWORK AT WORK: SUPPORTIVE SUPERVISORS, CO-WORKERS, AND MENTORS MAKE A DIFFERENCEInpaststudiesonwomeninSTEMcareers,isolationand

exclusionfrominformalcommunicationandsupport

networkshavebeenidentifiedassomeofthekeyfactors

thatstallwomen’smobilityandtakeatollontheircareer

andjobsatisfaction(Mattis,2005;Hewlettetal;2008;NAE

2002,SWE,2009).Thefindingsfromourresearchcorroborate

theseresults;theneedtocreatesupportnetworksfor


womenengineerscannotbeoveremphasized.However,

whilethesemayinvolvedeeper,system-levelchanges,our

findingsparticularlysuggestthatimplementingchangesat

themoremicro-levelcanalsomakeahugedifferencetothe

satisfaction,commitmentandwithdrawallevelsofwomen

engineers.Inparticular,womenengineersreportedanarray

ofpositiveattitudesandbehaviorswhentheyworkedwith

supervisorsandco-workerswhocouldbereliedonwhen

thingsgottoughatwork,whoareeasytotalktoandactually

listenedtotheirproblemsatwork,andwhowentoutoftheir

waytomakethingseasierprofessionallyforthem.

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FORMAL AND INFORMAL MENTORING Theimportanceofhavingrolemodelsandmentorstoone’s

professionalgrowthandprogresscannotbeoveremphasized.

WomeninSTEMcareersareparticularlyatadisadvantage

becauseoftheabsenceofsuchsourcesofsupportfrom

otherseniormembers(Mattis,2005;NAE,2002;SWE,2009).

Manywomenengineersinourresearch—includingthose

wholeftandthosestillworkinginengineering—didnot

haveamentor.Forthewomenwhowerestillworkingin

engineeringanddidhaveamentor,wefoundhigherlevels

ofjobandcareersatisfactionandlowerintentionstoleave

theengineeringfieldorthecompany.Lackofmentorsand

rolemodelstakesatollnotonlyonwomenengineersbut

alsohurtsthecompaniesthatemploysthem.Organizations

needtoconsiderimplementingnotonlyformalmentoring

programs,butalsoprovideworkplaceforumsforinformal

mentoringandcoachingrelationshipstodevelop.Mentoring

isespeciallycriticalinthefirstfewyearsoftheemployee’s

tenureandshouldbeseenasanextensionoftheengineer’s

on-boardingprocess(NAE,2002).Anetworkofsupportive

seniormanagers(withinandoutsidethechainofauthority),

co-workers,coaches,andmentorswouldnotonlyhelpwomen

engineersgainabetterfitwiththeirworkgroupsand

organizationsbutalsohelpthembuildtheirorganizational

knowledgethatisvitalforadvancement.

OFFER WORK-LIFE INITIATIVES THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN FAMILY SUPPORTIVE CULTURESArecentsurveyconductedbytheAmericanAssociation

fortheAdvancementofScience(AAAS,2010)foundthatof

the1,300menandwomenscientiststhatweresurveyed,

61%womenreportedthatbalancingworkandfamilywas

aprominentbarrierforthem.Otherstudiesofwomenin

STEMfieldsrevealedsimilarfindings(SWE,2007).

InthePOWERstudy,theexperienceofwork-nonworkconflict

influencedengineers’satisfaction,commitmentand

withdrawalintentions.Womenengineerswhoexperienced

work-nonworkconflictwerelesssatisfiedwiththeirjobs

andtheircareers,lesscommittedtotheirorganizationand

theprofession,moredisengagedfromwork,andmore

likelytocontemplateleavingtheirorganizationaswell

astheprofession.Work-noworkconflictwasalsopositively

relatedtothegeneralexperienceofincivilityintheworkplace

aswellspecificincidentsofundermininginstigatedby

supervisorsandco-workers.

Organizationswithfamily-supportiveculturesthatdid

notimposeexcessivetimecommitmentsatworkandwere

characterizedbyempatheticmanagerswhounderstood

theiremployees’work-lifeconcernsbenefittedfromhaving

satisfiedandcommittedemployeeswhowerelesslikely

towanttoleave.Theseemployeesalsoexperiencedlower

work-nonworkconflictonthewhole,althoughtherewere

asymmetriceffectsforthetwotypesofconflict.Further,

womenengineerswhoworkedfororganizationsthatpro-

videdwork-lifeinitiatives(suchasjob-sharingorflexiblework

time)reportedlowerlevelsofworkinterferencewithfamily

andgreaterintentiontostaywiththeircurrentorganization

andintheprofessionthanthosewhodidnotworkforsuch

organizations.Theuseofwork-lifeinitiativesassociatedwith

highlevelsoffamily-to-workconflictsuggestsapossible

mismatchbetweenthebenefitsusedandthespecific

personal/familyneedsoftheperson.

Whatthesefindingsimplyisthatforcompaniestoreal-

izeoptimumresultsfromtheirwork-lifeinitiatives,they

needtodotwothings.First,understandthework-life(as

opposedtomerework-family)needsoftheiremployeesand

accordinglyofferspecific,tailoredinitiativestomeetthose

needs.Thework-lifepoliciesincludedinthisstudybroadly

covereddependentcareandflexibleworkarrangements.

Organizationsshouldbeproactiveandperiodicallyrevisit

theseinitiativesanddeterminewhethertheinitiativesare

stillworkingasintended,oriftheyneedtobechangedto

betteraddresstheiremployees’concerns.Suchaneffortwill

helporganizationsavoidthefamiliarwork-familybacklash

(Young,1999)thatmaybeexperiencedbyemployeeswho

feelleftoutbythescopeofthesebenefits.Thebottom-line

isthatnotonlydoesone-sizenotfitall,butevenifitdoes,

thefitchangesovertimeandneedstobeadjusted.

Second,work-lifebenefitsarenotlikelytobeusedeffectively

unlesstheyareembeddedinorganizationalculturesthat

trulyrecognizeandsupportemployees’needforwork-life

balance.Afamilyresponsiveworkculture,inandofitself,

islimitedinwhatitcanaccomplishunlessaccompaniedby

tangible,tailoredpolicesthatdonotpenalizepeopleforusing

them.Theuseofwork-lifeinitiativesmaybeaccompanied

61CHAPTER TEN

byunintendedconsequencessuchaslessfavorableperfor-

mancereviews,reducedopportunitiesforpromotionand

othercareerpenalties(Judiesch&Lyness,1999)unlessthese

policiesareembeddedinculturesthatrecognize,legitimize,

andrespecttheiremployees’familyandpersonallives.

Organizationscanbegintochangetheirwork-lifecultures

byconveyingthatitisthejobperformancethattrulymatters

andnotmerefacetimebytrainingtheirsupervisorsto

appropriatelyaddresstheirsubordinates’work-lifeconcerns,

byprovidingwork-lifesupportgroupsandredesigningwork

processesthatmaybemorecompatiblewithemployees’non-

worklives(Greenhaus,Callanan,&Godshalk,2010).Changingthe

work-lifecultureinanorganizationcanbeaslowandpains-

takingprocess,butthecostsofnotdoingsoaremuchhigher.

Insummary,thestudyrevealedthatwhileorganization’s

systems,policies,andactionsmatteredagreatdeal,the

micro-climatesatwork,characterizedbysupervisorsand

co-workerswhosupportedorundermined,alsoexerciseda

profoundinfluenceonwomenengineers’satisfaction,com-

mitmentandultimately,theirdesiretoleavethecompany

and/ortheprofession.Womenengineerswillbemorelikely

tofullyinvesttheirtalentsincompanieswheretheyseethey

arebeingtreatedwithfairnessandrespect,wheretheircontri-

butionsarerecognizedandvalued,wheretheirprofessional

skillsdevelopedandenhanced,andtheirwork-lifebalance

needsrespectedandaddressed.Keepingwomeninengineer-

ingwillrequireamulti-prongedapproachthatincludes

improvingtheinterpersonalandorganizationalclimate

alongwithtangiblechangestoworkrole,promotionand

opportunitystructureswithinthecompany.

Recommendations for Colleges of EngineeringSixteenpercentoftheparticipantsinthisstudygraduated

withabachelor’sdegreeinengineeringbutneverentered

thefield.Manyofthesewomenusedtheirtrainingand

knowledgetosucceedinotherfields.However,abouthalf

saidthattheydidnotenterengineeringbecauseoftheir

perceptionsoftheworkenvironment.Thus,thefindings

fromthisstudyalsohaveimplicationsforeducationalinsti-

tutionsthattrainandeducatewomenengineers.Giventhe

patternsoffindings,weofferthreekeyrecommendationsto

engineeringuniversitiesandprograms.

STRENGTHEN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS BY ALIGNING CURRICULUM WITH ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCESFirst,itisimperativethatwomenengineeringstudents

areprovidedwithnetworkingopportunitieswithcurrent

engineeringexecutivesinordertogetarealisticpreview

ofengineeringtasksandworkplacecultures.Thiscouldbe

accomplishedbydesigninginternships,externshipsand

co-opprogramsthatexposethemtoengineeringwork-

places.Suchexperiencescouldbeinstrumentalinnotonly

helpingfemaleengineeringstudentsgetanup-closeand

personalviewofwhattoexpectaftertheygraduate,but

couldalsosetthefoundationforimportantmentoringand

role-modelingrelationships.

CREATE CLIMATES THAT HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR INCIVILITYSimilartoourrecommendationthatorganizationsneedto

developpoliciesthatcreateacultureofcivility,educational

institutionsneedtohavezerotoleranceforrudeorhostile

behavior.Participantsinourstudyprovidedanumberof

examplesofclassroomclimatesthatwereunwelcomingor

hostile.Unfortunately,theirexamplesincludedbothfaculty

andfellowstudents’commentsandbehaviorsinandoutof

theclassroom.Universitiesneedtoconveytofacultythatit

istheirresponsibilitytocreatetheexpectationsthatsexist

behaviorsandcommentsintheclassroomaswellasoutside

theclassroom(e.g.,labs,outsidegroups,studentorganizations)

willnotbetolerated.

TEACH STUDENTS CAREER MANAGEMENT SKILLS Westronglyencourageengineeringprogramstoconsider

incorporatingcareermanagementcoursesthatfocusonwork-

placeskillsandbehaviorsforallstudents,andnotjustfor

women.Forexample,coursesthatfocusonhelpingstudents

learnhowtoworkaspartofateam,howtomanageprojects,

howtocommunicateeffectively,howtonegotiate,andhow

tomanageconflictandinterpersonaldifferences,willhelp

preparestudentstopursuesuccessfulcareersinengineering.


REFERENCESAjzen,I.,&Fishbein,M.(1980).Understanding attitudes and predict-

ing social behavior,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.(2010).Barriers for Women scientists survey report.AAAPublications.Availableat:http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/media/0928loreal_survey_report.pdf.

AmericanAssociationofUniversityWomen.(2010).Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Avail-ableat:http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf.

Bandura,A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.NewYork:Freeman.

Barrick,M.R.,Mount,M.K.,&Strauss,J.P.(1994).Antecedentsofinvoluntaryturnoverduetoareductioninforce.Personnel Psychology, 47,515-35.

Blau,G.,&Lunz,M.E.(1998).Testingtheincrementaleffectofprofessionalcommitmentonintenttoleaveone’sprofessionbe-yondtheeffectsofexternal,personalandworkrelatedvariables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52,260-269.

Burgard,B.N.(2000).Anexaminationofpsychologicalcharacter-isticsandenvironmentalinfluencesoffemalecollegestudentswhochoosetraditionalversusnontraditionalacademicmajors.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 61,396.

Cox,T.,&BlakeS.(1991),Managingculturaldiversity:Implicationsfororganizationalcompetitiveness.Academy of Management Executive, 5,45-56.

Cox,T.H.,&Nkomo,S.M.(1991).Araceandgender-groupanalysisoftheearlycareerexperienceofMBAs.Work and Occupations,18,431-446.

Davey,F.H.(2001).Therelationshipbetweenengineeringandyoungwomen’soccupationalpriorities.Canadian Journal of Counseling, 35,221-228.

Dooley,J.A.(2001).Thecontributionsofadvisingexperienceswithfacultyandclassroomsocialenvironmenttoundergradu-atestudents’persistenceinphysicalscience,mathematical,andengineeringmajors.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62,2989.

Duffy,M.K.,Ganster,D.C.,&Pagon,M.(2002).Socialunderminingintheworkplace.The Academy of Management Journal, 45,331–51.

Eccles,J.S.(2007).Whereareallthewomen?Genderdifferencesinparticipationinphysicalscienceandengineering.InCeci,S.J.&Williams,W.M.Why aren’t more women in science: Top research-ers debate the evidence (pp.199-210).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Eccles,J.S.,Adler,T.F.,Futterman,R.,Goff,S.B.,&Kaczala,C.M.(1983).Expectancies,valuesandacademicbehavior.InJ.T.Spencer(Ed.)Achievement and achievement motivation (pp.75-146).SanFrancisco:W.H.Freeman.

Edwardson,T.L.(1998).Thecontributionofmultipleroleself-efficacyandoutcomeexpectationstothemultiplerolegoalsandmultipleroleaccomplishmentsofwomeninengineeringandeducation.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humani-ties & Social Sciences, 59,0735.

George,J.M.,&Jones,G.R.(1996).Theexperienceofworkandturnoverintentions:Interactiveeffectsofvalueattainment,jobsatisfaction,andpositivemood.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318-25.

Greenhaus,J.H.,Callanan,G.A.,&Godshalk,V.M.(2010).Career management.Sage.

Griffeth,R.W.,Hom,P.W.,&Gaertner,S.(2000).Ameta-analysisofantecedentsandcorrelatesofemployeeturnover:Update,moderatortests,andresearchimplicationsforthenextmillennium. Journal of Management, 26,463-488.

Hanisch,K.A.(1995).Behavioralfamiliesandmultiplecauses:Matchingthecomplexityofresponsestothecomplexityofante-cedents.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4,156-162.

Hewlett,S.A.,Luce,C.B.,Servon,L.J.,Sherbin,L.,Shiller,P.,Sos-novich,E.,&Sumberg,K.(2008).TheAthenafactor:Reversingthebraindraininscience,engineeringandtechnology.Harvard Business Review Research Report.

Hom,P.W.,&Kinicki,A.J.(2001).Towardagreaterunderstand-ingofhowdissatisfactiondrivesemployeeturnover.Academy of Management Journal, 44,975-987.

Hom,P.W.,Caranikis-Walker,F.,Prussia,G.,&Griffeth,R.(1992).Ameta-analyticalstructuralequationsanalysisofamodelofemployeeturnover.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,890-909.

Judiesch,M.K.,&Lyness,K.S.(1999).Leftbehind?Theimpactofleavesofabsenceonmanagers’careersuccess.Academy of Man-agement Journal, 42, 641-651.

Kelly,E.L.,Kossek,E.E.,Hammer,L.B.,Durham,M.,Bray,J.,Chermack,K.,Murphy,L.A.,&Kaskubar,D.(2008).Gettingtherefromhere:Researchontheeffectsofwork-familyinitiativesonwork-familyconflictandbusinessoutcomes.The Academy of Management Annals,Vol.2,305–349.

Lee,T.W.,Mitchell,T.R.,Holtom,B.C.,McDaniel,L.S.,&Hill,J.W.(1999).Theunfoldingmodelofvoluntaryturnover:Areplicationandextension.Academy of Management Journal, 42,450-462.

Lent,R.W.,Brown,S.D.,&Hackett,G.(2002).Socialcognitivecareermodel.InD.Brown(Ed.)Career choice and development (4thed.)(pp.255-311).SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Lent,R.W.,Brown,S.D.,Schmidt,J.,Brenner,B.,Lyons,H.,&Treistman,D.(2003).Relationofcontextualsupportsandbarrierstochoicebehaviorinengineeringmajors:Testofalternativesocialcognitivemodels.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,458-465.

63REFERENCES

Maertz,C.,&Campion,M.(2004).Profilesinquitting:Integratingprocessandcontentturnovertheory.Academy of Management Journal vol. 47,566-582.

Mattis,M.C.(2005).Bestpracticesforsupportingwomenengineer’scareerdevelopmentinUScorporations.InR.J.BurkeandM.C.Mattis(Eds.)Supporting women’s career advancement: Challenges and opportunities(pp.243-265).EdwardElgarPublishing.

Mau,W.(2003).Factorsthatinfluencepersistenceinscienceandengineeringcareeraspirations.Career Development Quarterly, 51,234-243.

Miner-Rubino,K.,&Cortina,L.M.(2007).Beyondtargets:Con-sequencesofvicariousexposuretomisogynyatwork.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,1254-1269.

Mitchell,T.R.,Holtom,B.C.,Lee,T.W.,Sablynski,C.J.,&Erez,M.(2001).Whypeoplestay:Usingjobembeddednesstopredictvoluntaryturnover.Academy of Management Journal, 44,1102-1121.

NationalAcademyofEngineering.(2002).Diversity in engineer-ing: Managing the workforce of the future. Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPress.

NationalAcademyofSciences.(2010).Rising above the gathering storm revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

NationalScienceBoard.(2004).Science and engineering indicators 2004.Arlington,VA:Author.

NationalScienceBoard.(2006).Science and engineering indicators 2006.Twovolumes.Arlington,VA:NationalScienceFoundation(volume1,NSB06-01;volume2,NSB06-01A).Retrievedfromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/front.pdf.

Nauta,M.M.,&Epperson,D.L.(2003).Alongitudinalexamina-tionofthesocial-cognitivemodelappliedtohighschoolgirls’choicesofnontraditionalcollegemajorsandaspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,448-457.

O’Brien,V.(1996).Relationshipsofmathematicsself-efficacy,gender,andethnicidentitytoadolescents’math/sciencecareerinterests.Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 57,1964.

Pearson,C.,&Porath,C.(2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about it. PortfolioHardcoverPublications.

Preston,A.E.(2004).Pluggingtheleaksintothescientificworkforce.Scientific Workforce,69-74.

Rosin,H.,&Korabik,K.(1995).Organizationalexperiencesandpropensitytoleave:Amultivariateinvestigationofmenandwomenmanagers.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46,1-16.

Schaefers,K.G.,Epperson,D.L.,&Nauta,M.M.(1997).Women’scareerdevelopment:Cantheoreticallyderivedvariablespredictpersistenceinengineeringmajors?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44,173-183.

Schaubroeck,J.,Ganster,D.C.,Sime,W.E.,&Ditman,D.(1993).Afieldexperimenttestingsupervisoryroleclarification.Personnel Psychology, 46,1-25.

Shaffer,M.A.,&Harrison,D.A.(1998).Expatriates’psychologicalwithdrawalfrominternationalassignments:Work,nonwork,andfamilyinfluences.Personnel Psychology, 51,87-118.

Smith,C.A.(1993).Evaluationsofwhat’satstakeandwhatcanIdo.InLong,B.C.&Kahn,S.E.(Eds.),Women, work and coping : A multidisciplinary approach to workplace stress (pp.238-265).McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress:Montreal.

SocietyofWomenEngineers.(October18,2007).Where are all the women going? Pressrelease.Availableathttp://www.swe.org/stel-lent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=swe_007553&ssSourceNodeId=110.

SocietyofWomenEngineers.(2009).Womeninengineering:Areviewoftheliterature.SWE Summer 2010, pp.48-78.Availableat:http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=692&Itemid=207.

Stuart,P.(1992).Whatdoestheglassceilingcostyou?Personnel Journal, 71,70-8.

Williams,J.C.,&Boushey,H.(2010).The three faces of work-family conflict. The poor, the professionals, and the missing middle. Availableat:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/threefaces.pdf.

Young,M.B.(1999).Work-familybacklash:Beggingthequestion,what’sfair?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 562, 32-46.

THE AUTHORS Nadya A. Fouad, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and

Director of the Center for the Study of the Workplace, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee

NadyaA.FouadreceivedherdoctoratefromtheUniversityof

MinnesotainCounselingPsychology.Sheiscurrentlychairofthe

DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyattheUniversityofWisconsin-

MilwaukeeandfacultymemberintheCounselingPsychology

program.SheiseditorofTheCounselingPsychologistandserveson

theeditorialboardsoftheJournalofVocationalBehaviorand

theJournalofCareerAssessment.Shewasrecipientin2003ofthe

JohnHollandAwardforOutstandingAchievementinCareerand

PersonalityResearch,the2009AmericanPsychologicalAssociation

(APA)DistinguishedContributionstoEducationandTraining

Award,the2009JanetHelmsAwardforMentoringandScholarship,

andthe2010PaulNelsonAwardbytheCouncilofChairsofTraining

Councils.Atpresent,NadyaisChairoftheAPACompetenciesWork-

groupandVicechairoftheAPAEthicsCommittee.Shehasalsoserved

asPresidentofAPADivision17(CounselingPsychology),Chairofthe

CouncilofCounselingPsychologyTrainingPrograms,aswellasChair

andmemberoftheBoardofEducationalAffairs.Shehaspublished

articlesandchaptersoncross-culturalvocationalassessment,career

developmentofwomenandracial/ethnicminorities,interest

measurement,andcross-culturalcounseling.Sheiscurrentlyworking

onstudiestoexaminethepersistenceofwomeninengineeringcareers.

Romila Singh, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Lubar School of Business and Associate Director of the

Center for the Study of the Workplace, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

RomilaSinghreceivedherdoctoratefromDrexelUniversityin

OrganizationalSciences.SheisanAssociateProfessorinthe

UniversityofWisconsin-MilwaukeeLubarSchoolofBusiness.

Herresearchfocusesonunderstandingcareermanagementissues

relatedtocareerchoices,work-liferelationships,mentoringand

retention,andturnoverdecisionsofwomenandpeopleofcolor.

Romila’sresearchhasappearedinleadingjournalsonmanagement

andvocationalbehavior.Shehasalsoauthoredandco-authored

severalbookchapters.Romilateachescoursesinhumanresources

managementandhasbeenawardedtheSchoolofBusinessteaching

awardeverysemestersinceSpring2002.Sheiscurrentlyserving

astheFacultyAdvisorforthestudentchapterofSocietyforHuman

ResourceManagement(SHRM).

Nadya and Romila are co-principal investigators on a NSF-funded

national study on understanding women engineers’ decisions to leave

engineering.

Mary E. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. Counseling Psychology Doctoral Candidate, Department of

Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

MaryE.Fitzpatrickholdsanundergraduatedegreeinbiomedical

engineeringfromtheUniversityofIowa,andamastersdegree

inelectricalengineeringfromMarquetteUniversity.Shewasan

engineerandseniorproductmanagerfor15yearsatleading

technologycompaniesincludingGEHealthcareandMicrosoft.

Shereturnedtograduateschooltostudyvocationalpsychology

andissuesrelatedtowomenintechnologyworkplaces.Shehas

publishedarticlesinleadingcareerjournals,aswellasintheJournal

ofWomenandMinoritiesinScienceandEngineering.Mostrecently,

shepublishedanarticleintheJournalofCareerDevelopmentonadult

bullyingintheworkplace.In2011shewasawardedtheUniversityof

Wisconsin-MilwaukeeSchoolofEducationOutstandingDissertation

AwardinUrbanEducationforherdissertationonwomenengineers’

attitudestowardsex.Sheiscurrentlycompletingherclinical

internshipatUniversityofWisconsin-MadisonCounselingand

ConsultationservicesandwillbeawardedadoctorateofEducational

PsychologyinAugust,2011.

Jane P. Liu, Ph.D. Counseling Psychology Doctoral Candidate, Department of

Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

JaneP.LiureceivedherbachelorsinPsychologyandAfro-American

StudiesandhermastersinCommunityCounselingfromIndiana

University-Bloomington.Herresearchinterestsfocusonaddressingthe

needsofsociallymarginalizedandunderrepresentedgroupsincareer

professions,multiculturalcounseling,andculturalconsiderations

inmentalhealthoutcomes.SheteachesaMulticulturalPractice

courseintheDepartmentofEducationPsychology.Recently,she

publishedaqualitativestudyexaminingpersistenceofwomenin

engineeringcareersintheJournalofWomenandMinoritiesin

ScienceandEngineering.

2012

WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING - ISPCS the... · WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING Women comprise more than...

Documents

Transcript of WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING - ISPCS the... · WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING Women comprise more than...