The Factors Influencing a Construction Graduate in Deciding upon their Future Employer

Introduction

Even though the expansion of the construction industry is slowing, and will likely end in 2003, the demand for graduates from the nation’s construction programs appears to remain high (Grogan et al., 2002).  This is reflected in the following quotation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Handbook 2002-03 Edition.

“Excellent employment opportunities for construction managers are expected through 2010 because the number of job openings arising from job growth and replacement needs is expected to exceed the number of qualified managers seeking to enter the occupation. Because the construction industry often is seen as having dirty, strenuous, and hazardous working conditions, even for managers, many potential managers choose other types of careers”.

These excellent employment opportunities have led many academic institutions to report almost 100% placement of their construction graduates (Bilbo et al., 2000).  A survey of construction companies attending the spring and fall career fairs at Texas A&M University identified that there were approximately three jobs on offer for every graduating student (Burt, 2001).  It would appear that in an environment such as this, where graduates have flexibility when deciding which company they go to work for after graduation.

So, what are the reasons for taking a job with one company and not another?  There are obviously many factors that might influence a person taking a job.  Some of these might be unique to an individual, such as a family member working for the same company.  Others are more general in nature, such as salary package, location of employment etc.  Zingheim and Schuster (2001) argue that in order to attract the most talented people to an organization, a “Total Rewards” package is required that has four major components: compelling future; individual growth; positive workplace, and total pay.  They want to work for companies that have a positive vision, and a set of values they can support.  They also want to grow and develop themselves through meaningful training.  They want a pleasant place to work.  Where the physical environment is as important as the people one works with.  Finally, people want a total pay package that includes base pay, variable pay to reward positive results, benefits, recognition, and celebration.  A survey of over 2000 college students by WetFeet Inc. in 2001 identified challenging assignments, good colleagues and bosses, and training for future growth, as the most important factors in their employment decisions.  These were the same factors identified in 2000 (Anonymous, 2001).

In recent years, faculty have noted that signing bonuses are becoming more commonplace.  In construction, signing bonuses are considered necessary to attract employees at all levels, however, there is concern they as effective because everyone uses them (Poe, 1999).

The nature of the construction industry is such that graduates from 4-year degree programs are usually hired as assistants to project managers, field engineers, schedulers, or cost estimators (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).  The construction graduate, therefore, has a choice in the entry-level position they accept.  The construction industry is also a worldwide industry and students have some choice in the initial location where they will work.  Many of the top recruiters of construction graduates have projects and offices in a number of states.

Graduates from the nation’s construction programs have a number of different factors to consider when deciding with whom to take employment.  This study seeks to identify how much value graduates from the Construction Science program at Texas A&M University place on nine specific reasons for taking employment with a company.

Method

Study Population

 Graduating seniors from the Department of Construction Science program at Texas A&M University from the Fall of 2000, the Spring and Summer of 2001, and the Spring and Summer of 2002 were issued with exit surveys.  Of the total 212 students graduating, 182 students completed the surveys, a response rate of 86%.

Data Collection

The Department of Construction Science program at Texas A&M University has been surveying its graduates prior to graduation since the fall of 1997.  The exit surveys are very comprehensive and collect data on a vast range of issues such as the student’s perceptions of course suitability, internship programs, and faculty.  Information about the number of interviews and job offers the students had as well as the details of the job they accepted were requested.  The survey questions have been modified over the years, and in the fall of 2000, a series of questions were added to the survey to evaluate the reasons for taking employment with a company.  Table 1 shows the nine questions used to gain information about the reasons for taking employment with the chosen company.  Students were asked to rate their responses using a standard five point Likert scale. Information was also obtained on job offers that the students received as well as the starting salary of the job they accepted and any signing bonuses they were offered.

Variables of Interest

The variables of interest are the number of responses in each of the five Likert rating scales.  Values of 1 to 5 were assigned to the responses from strongly disagree to strongly agree.  This allows for a mean response to be calculated for each of the nine questions.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that students do not place equal value on all of the nine reasons for taking employment.  If this is the case, then at least one of the mean responses to the nine questions should be different.  The null hypothesis is that the mean responses to the nine questions are equal. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test this hypothesis.  ANOVA relies on the assumption that the data is normally distributed with an equal variance.  As the responses from Likert rating scales tend to be skewed, it is unlikely that the normality assumption would be met.  There are also concerns that using a measure of location such as the mean response may oversimplify the analysis (Clason & Dormody, 1994).  In order to compensate for non-normality, and provide greater rigor to the analysis, a non-parametric procedure was used to test the similar hypothesis that there is a statistical difference between the distributions across the 5 Likert rating scales for the 9 questions.  The null hypothesis is that the distributions are equal.  A Chi-Square test of independence was used to test this hypothesis.

Analysis & Interpretation

Descriptive Statistics

Not all of the 182 students that completed the surveys answered all of the nine questions.  A total of 1625 responses were analyzed.  The mean response of all 1625 responses was 3.96, indicating that the average response was “agree”.  This also confirms the concern that the responses are skewed toward the upper values.  Information was also obtained on the number of job offers that the student received.  The average number of written job offers was 3.00.  Approximately 62% of the graduating seniors received 2 or more written job offers.  Table 1 shows the students responses with percentages and mean response for the reasons for taking employment with the company.

Table 1.

Questions and responses with percentages and mean response on the reasons for taking employment with the company the student chose.

Hypothesis Tests

In order to test the null hypothesis that the mean responses to the nine questions were equal, an analysis of variance was conducted.  The results are shown in the table 2.  The results show that we can reject the null hypothesis that the mean responses are equal.  This shows that construction graduates do not place equal value on all of the reasons for taking employment.  The next step is to identify those reasons that construction graduates placed more or less value on.

Table 2

Results of the ANOVA procedure to test the null hypothesis that the mean responses to the nine questions are equal.

A further set of hypothesis tests was then carried out to see which of the mean responses to the nine questions were not equal to 3.96 (the mean of all 1625 responses).  A one-sample t-test was used to identify those reasons that had a mean response of greater or less than 3.96.  It is assumed that if greater or lesser value is placed on a reason then the mean response should be greater or less than the mean response for all 1625 responses.  The null hypothesis is that the mean response for each reason is equal to 3.96.

The results of the hypothesis tests are set out in table 3.  The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis that the mean response was greater than 3.96 was accepted for company culture, advancement and type of work.  The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis that the mean response was less than 3.96 was accepted for entry position and signing bonus.  The null hypothesis could not be rejected at a significance level of p = 0.5 for location, training, size of company and salary package.

Table 3

Results of hypothesis tests testing that the mean responses to the nine questions are equal to 3.96 (mean response of all 1625 responses).

A Chi-Square test of independence was used to test the null hypothesis that the distributions across the 5 Likert rating scales for the 9 questions are equal.  Table 4 shows the results of the test.  The null hypothesis is rejected and it is accepted that there is a difference in the distributions across the 9 questions.  This confirms the results of the ANOVA test.

Table 4

Results of the Chi-Square test of independence to test the null hypothesis that the distributions across the 5 Likert rating scales for the 9 questions are equal.

Discussion

The results of the ANOVA and the Chi-square test of independence suggest that there is not equal value placed on the nine reasons for taking employment with the company they chose.  The results of the t-test suggest that graduating seniors place greater value on the culture of the company they go to work for, and the potential for advancement within the company.  Less value is placed on the entry-level position the student is offered, and the offer of a signing bonus.

 The results support Zingheim and Schuster’s (2001) view that, to attract the best people, employers need to have a package that offers a compelling future with individual growth, and a positive workplace.  Construction graduates do not appear to place any greater value on the salary package they are offered.  This is supported by the fact that of the graduating seniors that received two or more offers, approximately 53% of those accepted the position that offered the higher salary.

 The literature suggests that the offer of signing bonuses is prevalent within the construction industry (Poe, 1999).  This study would seem to support this as approximately 50% of the graduates that accepted a job received a signing bonus ranging from $750 - $8,000.  The literature also suggests that the offer of a signing bonus is not an effective tool for recruiting.  This is reflected in the results of this study that show students place less value on the offer of a signing bonus.

The results of the study should aid recruiters of construction graduates during the recruitment process.  Recruiters should focus on those reasons that graduates place the greatest value.  Greater emphasis should be placed on promoting the culture of the company and the potential for advancement within the company.

The results of this study are from a survey data collected over a three-year period at one university and the findings may not be applicable to construction graduates as a whole.  Further studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if the findings are consistent.

References

Anonymous. (2001).  “College students’ job-hunting tactics change with the economy”.  HR Focus, July 2001.

Bilbo, D., Fetters, T., Burt, R. and Avant, J. (2000) “A Study of the Supply and Demand for Construction Education Graduates”.  Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction Annual Conference held at Purdue University, IN, March 29 – April 1 2000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Occupational Outlook Handbook 2002-03 Edition [WWW document] URL http://www.bls.gov/oco/home.htm.

Burt, R. (2001) “The Role of the Construction Career Fair in the Hiring of Graduates from Construction Education Programs – A Case Study”.  Proceedings of the Associated Schools of Construction Annual Conference held at University of Denver, CO, April 4 – 7 2001.

Clason, D.L. & Dormody, T.J. (1994).  “Analyzing Data Measured by Individual Likert-Type Items”.  Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 35, 4.

Grogan, T., Ichniowski, T. & Tulacz, G. (2002, November 18). A weak recovery won’t lift nonresidential construction.  Engineering News Record, 40-46.

Poe, A. (1999).  “Signing bonuses: A sign of the times.”  HR Magazine, September 1999.

Zingheim, P.K. & Schuster, J.R. (2001).  “Winning the Talent Game: Total Rewards and the Better Workforce Deal!”  Compensation and Benefit Management, Summer 2001 , 33-39.