Culture in Construction: Final Report

Culture in Construction: Final Report 2025 i RMIT University Centre for Construction Work Health and Safety Research Published by Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Copyright © 2025 RMIT University Except external referenced documents and images All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsoever without the prior written permission of the publisher. Authors Helen Lingard, Michelle Turner, Payam Pirzadeh, Jack Clarke, Katy Chan, Chenjunyan (Yan) Sun, Lyndall Strazdins, Christine LaBond, Natalie Galea & Anna Wilson. Suggested Citation Lingard, H., Turner, M., Pirzadeh, P., Clarke, J., Chan, K., Sun, C., Strazdins, L., LaBond, C., Galea, N., & Wilson, A. (2025). Culture in Construction: Final Report. RMIT University, Melbourne. Funding This research was funded by the Construction Industry Leadership Forum. Contact for further information Distinguished Professor Helen Lingard: [email protected] About Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT provides leading-edge, applied research to the construction and property industries. Our members are able to work with organisations to analyse health and safety (H&S) performance and identify opportunities for improvement. We can develop and evaluate innovative solutions, provide specialised H&S programs or undertake other research-based consulting activities. Our work addresses real-world H&S challenges, and our strong international linkages provide a global perspective to our research. www.rmit.edu.au/research/health-safety-research Support the future of construction health and safety research through SHINe. Established in 2024, Safety and Health Innovation Network (SHINe) brings together industry leaders and experienced academics who are committed to driving innovation and improvements in safety, health and wellbeing research in construction. The first-of-its-kind industry forum allows its members to decide what research to fund, to maximise its impact. Philanthropic at heart, the findings of research delivered by SHINe will be made publicly available, with the aim of finding new ways to improve workplace health and safety across the industry. Members are encouraged to participate on the research teams, helping us strengthen the relationship between research and practice through evidencebased ideals. By providing a donation, you’re also supporting the future of a world-class, multi-disciplinary research team based in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. www.rmit.edu.au/shine Culture in Construction: Final Report ii RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Foreword The Construction Industry Culture Taskforce was established in 2018 and is a unique collaboration between the Australian Constructors’ Association and others in the industry, the NSW and Victorian Governments and Australia’s leading construction workplace academics. Our genesis is in the Construction Industry Leadership Forum (CILF), which brought together government and industry to share knowledge and set a collaborative program to try to resolve the interwoven issues facing the industry - commercial and contractual, capability and capacity constraints and thirdly, industry culture. Our Taskforce was set up to apply a focus on the latter set of challengeshow to transform the workplace culture of the construction industry. Initial research we commissioned identified the significant cultural issues holding back the productivity and performance of the sector - excessive work hours and fatigue, mental ill health and low levels of wellbeing, and the failure to attract a diverse workforce. Our report by BIS Oxford Economics found these cultural issues cost the Australian economy around $8 billion annually. The construction industry statistics in these areas are among the poorest of any industry in Australia and it’s no coincidence that industry productivity is also significantly lower than most other sectors. Clearly, a step change is vitally important. To help achieve it, the Taskforce has developed a Culture Standard, aimed at becoming part of the procurement process for government infrastructure works, so client agencies, contractors, unions and supply chain can transform construction workplaces together. The Culture Standard provides a framework through which all parties can work in partnership to drive change across three key areas of industry culture - time for life, wellbeing and diversity and inclusion. As part of procurement, the Culture Standard provides a level playing field for contractors and government clients to buy in, project by project, to creating better, safer, and more equitable work environments and support construction to become an industry of choice. An important aspect of our work has been the adoption of an evidence-based approach. We have drawn on existing data and undertaken comprehensive new research to investigate the impact of the Culture Standard when applied on the ground. Our research program, led by Distinguished Professor Helen Lingard, has tracked the implementation of the Culture Standard on five pilot projects, developed a cost benefit analysis to determine the time and cost implications of the Standard, and engaged with key decision makers across industry. Pilot Projects have provided us with extensive data sets and expressions of overwhelming support for the Culture Standard, demonstrating that a shift towards a more balanced and inclusive industry is not only necessary, but achievable, productive, desired by workers and their families, and yielding benefits for contractors, through the supply chain, and for client agencies. Results from these pilot projects are showing strong support for a five-day work week, with 93% of salaried respondents and 71% of waged respondents favouring this schedule. Moreover, these changes have not adversely affected site productivity, challenging the industry's long-held belief that longer hours equate to more output. Culture in Construction: Final Report iii RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Instead, they have highlighted the benefits of a rested, respectful and diverse workforce, including improved safety, industry attractiveness and job satisfaction. This approach aligns with the broader goals of the CICT to foster a culture that values wellbeing, diversity, and sustainability alongside productivity and efficiency and, importantly, in the face of acute labour shortages, the attractiveness of the industry to workers and to and efficiency. The journey towards cultural transformation is not without its challenges. It requires a collective effort from all stakeholders, including government, industry leaders, and workers themselves. The collaborative nature of the CICT exemplifies the kind of multi-faceted approach needed to drive meaningful change. For these efforts to be successful, it needs a widespread adoption of the Culture Standard, ensuring that the actions to implement principles of diversity, wellbeing, and time for life become part of the fabric of the industry. Since the establishment of the Taskforce, we have welcomed other state and territory jurisdictions to join us in our work on the Taskforce. Sceptics are now converts and momentum is strong. The Culture Standard works. Now that our pilot projects have demonstrated results, more projects are now applying the Standard in procurement, such as Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 and the Melbourne Arts Precinct. We have good reasons, including the support of the Commonwealth in its land transport funding agreements with the states and territories, to think this groundswell will continue. There will always be more to do, and improving workplace culture cannot solve all the challenges facing the industry, but it is an essential and significant head start. It is a fundamental piece to reposition and make more productive Australia’s largest industry, on which our quality of life depends. I thank all those who have committed extraordinary energy and expertise to the development and implementation of the Standard, especially the contractors, sub-contractors, unions, and client agencies and researchers involved in the pilots. And, of course, I thank the NSW and Victorian governments and the Australian Constructors Association, and all the representatives around the Taskforce table from 2018 for their vision and unwavering support. Gabrielle Trainor AO Chair Construction Industry Culture Taskforce April 2025 Culture in Construction: Final Report iv RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Contents Executive summary 1 Part 1: Introduction 7 1.1 Background to the Culture Standard 7 1.2 Aim of the research 8 1.3 Purpose of this report 11 1.4 Report structure 11 1.5 Glossary 12 Part 2: Methods 13 2.1 Research process overview 13 2.2 Key decision-maker interview method 13 2.3 Pilot Project method 15 2.4 Cost benefit analysis method 18 2.4.1 Overview of approach 18 2.4.2 Key steps 18 2.4.3 Challenges associated with identifying and isolating impacts 21 Part 3: Results 22 3.1 Key decision-maker interviews - Stage One 22 3.1.1 Sample 22 3.1.2 Stakeholder views on the Culture Standard 23 3.1.3 Anticipated costs and benefits 23 3.1.4 Anticipated barriers to adoption 24 3.1.5 Questions arising from the key decision-maker interviews – Stage One 24 3.2 Pilot Project survey findings 26 3.2.1 Project type and work schedule 26 3.2.2 Overall findings 27 3.2.3 Examining participants’ experiences over the life of the Pilot Projects 46 3.2.4 Comparison with Non-Culture Standard projects 52 3.3 Pilot Project interview findings 63 3.3.1 Time for life 63 3.3.2 Health and wellbeing 73 3.3.3 Gender diversity and inclusion 79 3.3.4 Changing perceptions about the 5-day week 86 3.3.5 Future of the Culture Standard 89 3.4 Analysis of costs and benefits associated with implementing the Culture Standard 91 3.4.1 Project cost and time 92 3.4.2 Quality of life 92 3.4.3 Turnover and absenteeism 93 3.4.4 Worker renumeration 94 3.4.5 Health and safety impacts 95 3.4.6 Women’s representation 95 3.4.7 Travel cost savings 96 3.5 Questions arising from key decision-maker Stage One interviews 97 Culture in Construction: Final Report v RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.5.1 Were the expected benefits associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard observed at the Pilot Projects? 97 3.5.2 Were the expected costs associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard observed in the Pilot Projects? 104 3.5.3 Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in horizontal projects? 108 3.5.4 Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in current commercial conditions? 110 3.5.5 Do current procurement and tendering practices impact the viability of the Culture Standard? 111 3.5.6 What happened to RDOs? 113 3.6 Key decision-maker interviews – Stage Two 115 3.6.1 Sample 115 3.6.2 The changed political and economic context 116 3.6.3 Polarised views on the Culture Standard 117 3.6.4 The importance of procurement as an implementation mechanism 118 3.6.5 Attracting more women into the industry 118 3.6.6 Concerns remaining about work hour reductions and pay 118 3.6.7 Next steps 119 Part 4: Discussion 120 4.1 Addressing excessive work hours 120 4.2 Women’s participation 122 4.3 Perception versus experience 123 4.4 Future workforce 124 4.5 Culture of care 126 Part 5: References 127 Part 6: Appendices 131 Appendix A – KDM interview guide 131 Stage One Interview questions 131 Stage Two Interview questions 131 Appendix B – Pilot Project survey questions 132 Appendix C – Description of statistical procedures 134 Internal consistency reliability check 134 One-way ANOVA procedure 134 Independent-samples t-test 134 Chi-square test 134 Regression analysis 135 Appendix D – Pilot Projects interview participant sampling frame 136 Appendix E – Pilot Projects interview schedule 137 Appendix F – Statistical analysis results 140 Culture in Construction: Final Report vi RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Table of tables Table 1.1: Research program overview 8 Table 2.1: Summary of surveys conducted at the Pilot Projects 15 Table 2.2: Summary of interviews conducted at the Pilot Projects 17 Table 3.1: Key decision-maker interview sample – Stage One 22 Table 3.2: Survey administration across project duration 46 Table 3.3: Characteristics of samples at Project B and the Non-Culture Standard project 53 Table 3.4: Characteristics of samples at Project E and the Non-Culture Standard project 58 Table 3.5: Summary of themes relating to time for life 71 Table 3.6: Summary of themes relating to health and wellbeing 78 Table 3.7: Summary of themes relating to gender diversity and inclusion 85 Table 3.8: Key decision-maker interview sample – Stage Two 115 Table 6.1: Survey questions 132 Table 6.2: Interview participant sampling frame 136 Table 6.3: Interview questions and their associated prompts 137 Table 6.4: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing in different age groups 140 Table 6.5: Bonferroni post hoc tests for between group differences 140 Table 6.6: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing between salaried and waged workers 141 Table 6.7: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing by gender 141 Table 6.8: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences in different mental wellbeing groups 142 Table 6.9: Bonferroni post hoc tests for between group differences 142 Table 6.10: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing between vertical and horizontal projects 143 Table 6.11: The effects of work experiences on mental wellbeing 144 Table 6.12: The effects of work experiences on work engagement 144 Table 6.13: The effects of work experiences and work engagement on mental wellbeing 144 Table 6.14: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences between Project B and the Non-Culture Standard project 145 Table 6.15: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences between Project E and the Non-Culture Standard project 145 Culture in Construction: Final Report vii RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Table of figures Figure 1.1: Overview of research program components 10 Figure 2.1: Summary of key steps in the CBA process Source: Frontier Economics. 19 Figure 3.1: Comparison of work hours per week by gender 27 Figure 3.2: Comparison of work hours per week between salaried and waged workers 28 Figure 3.3: Comparison of work hours per week between vertical and horizontal projects 29 Figure 3.4: Comparison of preferred work hours among different family structures 30 Figure 3.5: Comparison of preferred work schedule among different family structures 31 Figure 3.6: Comparison of preferred work hours among waged workers with different family structures 31 Figure 3.7: Comparison of preferred work schedule among waged workers with different family structures 32 Figure 3.8: Comparison of preferred work hours between salaried and waged workers 33 Figure 3.9: Comparison of preferred work schedule between salaried and waged workers 33 Figure 3.10: Comparison of preferred work hours by age and pay type 34 Figure 3.11: Comparison of preferred work schedule by age and pay type 35 Figure 3.12: Comparison of preferred work hours between participants engaged in vertical and horizontal Pilot Projects 36 Figure 3.13: Comparison of preferred work schedule between participants engaged in vertical and horizontal Pilot Projects 36 Figure 3.14: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing by age group 38 Figure 3.15: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing between salaried and waged workers 40 Figure 3.16: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences in different mental wellbeing groups 42 Figure 3.17: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing by gender 44 Figure 3.18: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing between vertical and horizontal projects 45 Figure 3.19: Relationships between work experiences, work engagement and mental wellbeing 46 Figure 3.20: Changes in work hours at Project A over time 47 Figure 3.21: Changes in work hours at Project C over time 47 Figure 3.22: Changes in work hours at Project D over time 48 Figure 3.23: Perceptions of work demand over time 48 Figure 3.24: Perceptions of managerial work-family support over time 49 Figure 3.25: Perceptions of work-life balance over time 49 Figure 3.26: Perceptions of organisational fairness over time 50 Figure 3.27: Perceptions of inappropriate banter over time 50 Figure 3.28: Perceptions of respect at work over time 51 Figure 3.29: Self-reported work engagement over time 51 Figure 3.30: Mental wellbeing scores over time 52 Figure 3.31: Comparison of work hours per week between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project 53 Culture in Construction: Final Report viii RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.32: Comparison of work hours per week between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project 54 Figure 3.33: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (salaried participants) 54 Figure 3.34: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (waged participants) 55 Figure 3.35: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (salaried participants) 56 Figure 3.36: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (waged participants) 56 Figure 3.37: Comparison of work experiences between Project B and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project 57 Figure 3.38: Comparison of mental wellbeing between Project B and the comparison NonCulture Standard project 57 Figure 3.39: Comparison of work hours per week between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project 58 Figure 3.40: Comparison of work hours per week between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project 59 Figure 3.41: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (salaried participants) 60 Figure 3.42: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (waged participants) 60 Figure 3.43: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (salaried participants) 61 Figure 3.44: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (waged participants) 61 Figure 3.45: Comparison of work experiences between Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project 62 Figure 3.46: Comparison of mental wellbeing between Project E and the comparison NonCulture Standard project 62 Figure 3.47: Annual average turnover rates amongst staff employed on the pilot project vs the wider applicable organisation 94 Culture in Construction: Final Report 7 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Background to the Culture Standard The Construction Industry Culture Taskforce (CICT) - comprising the Australian Constructors Association and the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria - was established in 2018. The CICT was established to secure the long-term sustainability of the construction industry through addressing cultural issues in the industry. The CICT developed a draft Culture Standard (hereafter referred to as the Culture Standard) which is expected to be incorporated into public sector procurement processes relating to infrastructure construction. It is expected that the Culture Standard will help to create positive change throughout the construction industry’s supply chain. To inform the development of the Culture Standard, the CICT invested in research to quantify the problem, and findings are outlined in the Cost of Doing Nothing report. The CICT also engaged a university-based research team to undertake a literature review of work hour reduction trials and their impacts on wellbeing, diversity, and productivity in construction and other industries. The literature review suggested that a ‘triple win’ may be achieved whereby workers’ health, safety and wellbeing and the industry’s gender diversity profile could be improved by addressing the issue of long and inflexible work hours and rigid adherence to a 6-day working week. The Cost of Doing Nothing Report and the Triple Wins Literature Review can be downloaded from the CICT website. In response to the Cost of Doing Nothing Report and the Triple Wins Literature Review, the Culture Standard established requirements relating to three major issues impacting the construction industry’s performance and sustainability (CICT, 2021, p.8): • long working hours - hours of work in the industry are excessive, resulting in high rates of turnover, absenteeism, and stress-related leave. • lack of gender diversity – the failure to attract and retain women narrows the industry’s talent pool and reduces its capacity to deliver projects, and • wellbeing - stress levels are high and the suicide rate amongst construction workers is considerably higher than the national average. In their Culture in Construction Consultation Paper, the CICT (2021) acknowledged that “the challenges of working hours, wellbeing and gender diversity in the industry have entirely interwoven causes and effects. Addressing one will not deliver the change the industry needs. The Standard is an integrated way to make a step change in the way construction works in partnership with our clients, to the benefit of all” (p.8). It is therefore important to note that, while the Culture Standard addresses each of the three areas of separately, it is acknowledged that they are inherently interrelated. The interrelation between the three focus areas has a strong evidence base and is well documented in the academic literature. More information on the development and content of the Culture Standard is available at the CICT website. Culture in Construction: Final Report 8 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 1.2 Aim of the research The development and implementation of a Culture Standard for the construction industry is a worldleading initiative. Consequently, a robust and rigorous program of research was supported by the CICT to understand the industry’s response to and impact of the Culture Standard. The research program aims to: • canvas the perspectives of key industry stakeholders relating to the need for and implementation of cultural change, and • evaluate the effects of implementing the Culture Standard at five Pilot Projects (CICT, 2021). A multidisciplinary team of researchers from RMIT University, the University of Melbourne/University of Sydney and the Australian National University was engaged to understand the response to and impact of the Culture Standard. Frontier Economics was engaged to work alongside the research team to undertake an analysis of the costs and benefits associated with implementing the Culture Standard. To achieve the research aims a multi-method research program was developed consisting of five key elements. Table 1.1 outlines the outcomes and outputs associated with each element of the research program. Table 1.1: Research program overview Research element Outcome Outputs Literature review exploring the relationships between work hours, health, safety, and gender equality. The literature review findings informed the development of the Culture Standard. Triple Wins Literature Review Examination of NSW Government Infrastructure Trainees’ intention to pursue a career in construction. This component explored the factors considered important to new entrants to the construction industry in making career decisions. It found that issues relating to time for life, having a healthy lifestyle and working in a diverse, fair and inclusive workplace are important job characteristics to young workers. This evidence supports the focus on the three pillars of the Culture Standard. NSW Infrastructure Trainee Research Reports NSW Infrastructure Trainees Research to Practice Paper Longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of the Culture Standard at five Pilot Projects. Data collected at the Pilot Projects included both survey and interview data. Data was collected from waged and salaried workers. Workers’ experiences and opinions about the impact and outcomes associated with the Culture Standard were CICT Interim Report CICT Interim Report Research to Practice Paper Culture in Construction: Final Report 9 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Research element Outcome Outputs explored as projects progressed from early stages to completion. Examination of key decisionmakers’ perceptions of the Culture Standard. Key construction industry decision-makers (representing the Australian Government, state government agencies, industry peak bodies and trade unions) were identified and interviewed at the beginning and towards the end of the research program. This provided rich insights into stakeholders’ level of support for the Culture Standard and/or areas of concern. Incorporated into this report. Cost benefit analysis of the Culture Standard. This provided evidence of monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with adoption of the Culture Standard. Incorporated into this report. Accompanying Table 1.1 is Figure 1.1 which summarises the research elements and where they fit in the research program. Figure 1.1 shows that the final research report incorporates three elements: i) longitudinal evaluation of the implementation of the Culture Standard at five Pilot Projects (note that data was collected at five time points, however Pilot Projects did not participate in all data collection time points – see section 2.3) ii) examination of key decision-makers’ perceptions of the Culture Standard, and iii) cost benefit analysis of the Culture Standard. Part 2 of this report describes the methods used in each of the research elements incorporated into the final report. Methods, key findings, and implications of the literature review and examination of NSW Government Infrastructure Trainees’ intention to pursue a career in construction are outlined in the reports hyperlinked in Table 1.1. Culture in Construction: Final Report 10 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 1.1: Overview of research program components Culture in Construction: Final Report 11 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 1.3 Purpose of this report This report brings together the findings from each of the research program elements. It is intended to provide an overview of the methods used to collect and analyse data, describe key findings from the Pilot Project evaluations, key decision-maker interviews and cost benefit analysis and discuss key findings of the research program. 1.4 Report structure The report comprises the following sections: Report section Overview Executive summary Provides a summary of the report. Part 1: Introduction Outlines the background to the Culture Standard and provides an overview of the research program elements and the research aim. Development of the evidence base is summarised, followed by the purpose of the report and the report structure. At the end of this section a glossary is provided. Part 2: Methods An overview of the research process is provided, followed by a description of the data collection and analysis methods used, including in the key decision-maker interviews, the Pilot Project survey and interviews, and the cost benefit analysis. Part 3: Results Results are outlined in six sections. First, the key decision-maker interviews (stage one) are presented. This is followed by the Pilot Project survey findings and interview findings. The analysis of costs and benefits associated with implementing the Culture Standard are presented, and then questions originating from the key decision-maker interviews (stage one) are addressed by drawing on the Pilot Project findings as well as the cost benefit analysis. The section concludes with findings of the decision-maker interviews (stage two). Part 4: Discussion Draws together the key points arising from the research program and considers these in light of the Culture Standard and the national and international literature. Part 5: References References used throughout the report are listed. Part 6: Appendices Supplementary materials about the data collection and analysis methods are provided. Culture in Construction: Final Report 12 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 1.5 Glossary CICT Construction Industry Culture Taskforce EBA Enterprise Bargaining Agreement EPL Environment Protection Licences KDM Key Decision-Maker RDO Rostered Day Off Culture in Construction: Final Report 13 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Part 2: Methods 2.1 Research process overview The research involved different components undertaken in parallel, as summarised in Section 1.2. Key decision-maker interviews – two rounds of interviews were undertaken with senior decision-makers in the construction industry including construction organisations, industry peak bodies, trade unions, and state government clients. Stage One interviews sought key-decision-makers’ views about the 5-day work schedule and capped work hours, the costs and benefits of the modified work schedule and any perceived problems or opportunities associated with implementing the Culture Standard. Stage Two interviews sought to understand changes in the key decision-makers’ perceptions after the implementation of the Culture Standard at five Pilot Projects. Pilot Projects – the Culture Standard was implemented at five construction projects, two in Victoria and three in NSW. Multiple waves of surveys and interviews were conducted at these Pilot Projects to examine the different ways the Culture Standard was implemented and explore workers’ experiences of the Culture Standard implementation at these projects. Cost benefit analysis – a cost benefit analysis was undertaken to explore whether and how the implementation of the time-for-life provisions in the Culture Standard drive productivity and the potential other benefits or costs for workers, the industry and society more broadly. The objective of the analysis was to provide robust evidence of the value and productivity impacts of implementing the Culture Standard. A detailed description of the methods involved in undertaking the above research components is provided in the following sections. 2.2 Key decision-maker interview method Interviews were conducted with industry leaders and stakeholders (key decision-makers) to understand their viewpoints and concerns in relation to changes to work hours and schedules involved in the implementation of the Culture Standard. The key decision-maker interviews consisted of two stages. 2.2.1 Stage One The first round of key decision-maker (KDM) interviews was conducted between June and November 2022. During these interviews, individuals from key stakeholder groups in the Australian construction industry were asked about their opinions on the Culture Standard’s recommendations for work hour modifications. Specifically, the interviewees were asked to share their views on work hour limits of 50 hours/week over five days, and the government trials of these work hours at selected projects. The interview questions were are also designed to gather participants’ insights concerning the costs and benefits of modified work hours, challenges to implementing modified hours, and how the participants, as leaders, might influence the implementation of the Culture Standard’s work hour recommendations. The CICT provided a sampling frame comprising construction contracting organisations, industry peak bodies, trade unions, and government agencies. The target sample was people in senior roles (‘key decision-makers’) including national and state level CEOs of multinational construction companies operating in Australia with experience delivering large infrastructure and transportation projects; executive level leaders of state chapters of industry peak bodies representing all tiers of the construction industry; Culture in Construction: Final Report 14 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT state and national level executives of unions representing a range of construction trades and workers; and executives of state level government agencies with a direct role in setting procurement policies or acting as clients of large infrastructure and transportation projects. Decision-makers were invited to take part in the interviews via email and phone, with a suite of recruitment materials sent via email to provide the context and rationale for the interviews. These materials included a copy of the interview questions, a short background on the study, a brief summary of the evidence supporting modified work hours, a copy of the Triple Wins literature review, a copy of the CICT Consultation Paper, and a decision-maker information sheet which outlined the parameters of the interview, privacy policy, funding behind the research, and the university ethics approval for the interviews. The interviews were conducted online by researchers from the Australian National University (ANU) and the University of Melbourne. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. As the interviews were exploratory, the interviews were semi-structured and open-ended with questions designed to elicit decision-makers’ own reflections, opinions, and professional experiences as they relate to the topic area. The KDM interview guide is provided in Appendix A. Following each interview, the interviewers met immediately to review and compare notes on the salient themes emerging in the interview. As the interviews progressed, the interviewers also compared interpretations of recurring themes that were emerging. This iterative, cumulative discussion of emerging themes offered a first line of data analysis and inter-coder reliability, a way to cross-reference the validity and reliability of researcher interpretations of the data. Once interviews were completed, the audio files were professionally transcribed and analysed. As with the immediate post-interview analysis, the transcripts were analysed using an inductive, grounded approach which involved reading the transcripts and coding sections of the interviews. As successive interviews were coded, running notes were kept on emerging patterns and relationships between analytic categories, such as which codes co-occurred, which codes were most common across the interviews, and which codes clustered around decision-maker types. These notes about emerging patterns and relationships were checked against the data as coding continued, with the ongoing refinement of both codes and observations about patterns and relationships. To check for the reliability of the codes, the researchers met to compare and discuss the codes each had assigned to sections of text across a sample of interviews. Where there were overlapping ideas represented by multiple codes, researchers agreed on which code best encapsulated particular sections of text. Subsequently, the codes were aggregated into higher level themes. The analysis of the stakeholder interviews generated over 500 first level codes, which were then aggregated into 38 higher level themes. The research team then met to discuss the findings and insights from the data. 2.2.2 Stage Two Decision-makers who took part in a Stage One interview were invited to participate in a Stage Two interview. The interviews were conducted online by researchers from ANU and the University of Sydney. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. As the interviews were exploratory, the interviews were semi-structured and open-ended with questions designed to elicit decision-makers’ own reflections, opinions, and professional experiences as they relate to the topic area. The second stage KDM interview guide is provided in Appendix A. The second round of KDM interviews was conducted between August and October 2024. In advance of the Stage Two interviews, a summary of findings from the analysis of first round KDM interviews, as well Culture in Construction: Final Report 15 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT as interim data from the Pilot Projects implementing the reduced work hours were presented to decisionmakers. The Stage Two interviews asked the decision-makers to reflect on the areas of agreement and disagreement with other stakeholders interviewed, and to consider alternate perspectives on modified work hours. During the second interviews, the decision-makers were also asked for their opinion on the interim data provided for the Pilot Projects implementing the Culture Standard. Data preparation and analysis followed the same process used for the first round of KDM interviews. 2.3 Pilot Project method Data was collected at five Pilot Projects that implemented the Culture Standard. Data collection at these Pilot Projects involved multiple rounds of surveys and interviews undertaken between November 2022 and May 2024. At all of these projects, data collection started at the early stage of the construction phase. On three projects (A, C and D), data collection continued through to project completion as these projects completed within the data collection period of this research. 2.3.1 Survey method Multiple waves of surveys were conducted at each Pilot Project. Timing of data collection at each Pilot Project was decided based on project progress and workforce profile. Table 2.1 shows the timing of surveys conducted at the Pilot Projects and the number of responses received in each wave. A total of 739 survey responses were received. Table 2.1: Summary of surveys conducted at the Pilot Projects Project Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 A June 2023 (53 responses) December 2023 (43 responses) April 2024 (46 responses) B June 2023 (65 responses) November 2023 (180 responses) - C June 2023 (30 responses) February 2024 (57 responses) - D September 2023 (110 responses) May 2024 (90 responses) - E December 2023 (65 responses) - - The survey instrument consisted of 36 questions in three sections. Section one asked demographic questions, such as age, gender and family structure. Section two asked questions about participants’ work including their employer, type of pay, work hours, and preferences relating to work hours and schedule. Section three asked questions about: • work demand (Aronsson et al., 2014) • workload (Rothmann and Joubert, 2007) • managerial work-family support (Behson, 2005) Culture in Construction: Final Report 16 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT • work-life balance (Haar, 2013) • organisational fairness (Mor Barak, 1998) • respect (Walsh et al., 2012) • mental wellbeing (Ng Fat et al., 2017), and • work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2010). Survey scales and items are outlined in Appendix B. The survey was administered using the “TurningPoint” automated response system with “KeePad” handheld devices. Survey questions were projected onto a screen and read out by a facilitator. Participants were required to press a number on the hand-held devices to indicate their responses to each statement. Following each data collection wave, the survey data was analysed for each project. Descriptive statistics were developed to understand the experiences of participants in different demographic groups, e.g. people who differed by age, gender, family structure, pay type, work-hour ranges, etc. Participants’ perceptions of the characteristics of their work (work demand, workload, managerial workfamily support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, prevalence of inappropriate banter, respect, and work engagement) were captured using Likert-scales with different response ranges (see Appendix B). These scales were quantified by assigning a score of 1 to the lowest response category and increasing the scores of the subsequent category by 1 point consecutively. For example, a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Mean scores were calculated for each variable and the results were compared between different demographic groups. To test the statistical significance differences in mean scores between groups, ttests, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. Chi-square tests were used to test for significant differences between observed and expected data (see Appendix C for descriptions of these statistical procedures). To measure mental wellbeing, the seven-item short-form Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) was used (Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). Responses to each item were captured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all the time). The responses reflected how frequently the participants experienced specific feelings over the two weeks prior to completing the survey. An overall mental wellbeing score was calculated by adding up the scores of all the items and transforming the score according to the procedure specified by Ng Fat et al. (2017). Calculating an overall score for mental wellbeing required that participants respond to all the seven items in the SWEMWBS. The overall scores enabled participants to be divided into three groups reflecting whether they reported low, medium or high mental wellbeing scores based upon the application of population norm scores (see Ng Fat et al., 2017). The SWEMWBS has a mean of 23.5 and a standard deviation of 3.9 in general population samples. This means that 15% of the population can be expected to have a score >27.4. Consequently, the threshold for high mental wellbeing was set at 27.5. Conversely, 15% of the population can be expected to have a score <19.6, so a threshold point of 19.5 was established below which participants were deemed to have low mental wellbeing. The mean scores for work characteristic variables were compared between participants in different mental wellbeing groups. The statistical significance of differences in mean scores were tested using an ANOVA technique. Since different scales were used to measure the work characteristics, mean scores were normalised and presented as percentages before the comparison. Culture in Construction: Final Report 23 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.1.2 Stakeholder views on the Culture Standard Participants differed in their views on the Culture Standard. Some expressed unequivocal support for the implementation of the Culture Standard identifying the urgency and necessity of industry change. Other participants were more cautious in their support. These participants acknowledged the construction industry is a tough working environment and observed that the prevailing industry culture may deter people from pursuing careers in construction. However, they also expressed the view that industry reform needs to go deeper than the implementation of the Culture Standard to address problematic commercial models underpinning the procurement and delivery of projects. Some participants expressed conditional support for the Culture Standard on the proviso that it could be shown that implementing the Culture Standard does not negatively impact the time and cost involved in project delivery. For these participants, if the same quantum of work could be done in five days (capped at 50-hours) they considered the Culture Standard to be viable. Consequently, there was considerable interest in the impact of the Culture Standard on labour productivity. Some participants, including those in government roles, indicated that if it could be demonstrated that implementing the Culture Standard is cost-neutral, then it would be a rational decision to adopt it. Some participants supported the concept of a 5-day working week with capped hours as a starting point, but suggested that this should not be rigidly applied across the project lifecycle. These participants perceived that flexibility to work longer hours (and more days) might be required, for example, if projects fall behind schedule. Some participants were sceptical that the Culture Standard could be maintained across the lifecycle of a construction project. These participants felt that project pressures, tight deadlines and the threat of liquidated damages would result in construction companies requiring people to work more than the five in seven days specified by the Culture Standard. This was particularly expected to be the case in large transport infrastructure (road or rail) projects in which periods of high work intensity (occupations) are typically required. Some participants, including a peak industry body representative, believed that the implementation of the Culture Standard would inevitably increase project cost and timelines. To this participant, these anticipated cost and time increases were unacceptable. 3.1.3 Anticipated costs and benefits Participants anticipated that workers would experience a number of important benefits as a result of the implementation of the Culture Standard. These included being able to spend more time with their families and having improved mental health and wellbeing. Trade union, peak body and construction company representatives all commented on the damage that working long hours and a 6-day week can have on workers’ family relationships. Some participants also commented on the potential benefits for workers’ health, safety and wellbeing. Participants anticipated that implementation of the Culture Standard could help the construction industry to more effectively recruit and retain women. Participants, mainly from government organisations, also anticipated that providing workers with more opportunity to rest and recover from work could improve labour productivity. However, participants also identified a variety of anticipated costs associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard. Government, construction company and industry peak body representatives anticipated increased timelines and therefore increased costs of project delivery. For many of these participants these increased timelines and associated costs were deemed to be unacceptable, even if improvements in workers’ health and wellbeing were realised. In contrast to this view, other participants (mainly government and trade union representatives) indicated that some increase in project cost could (and should) be accepted in order to improve the health and wellbeing of the construction workforce. Some government and trade union representative participants suggested that productivity gains would potentially offset any anticipated costs. Culture in Construction: Final Report 24 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Other participants, including industry peak body and some trade union representatives, questioned the feasibility of working 50-55 hours over a 5-day week, given the physically demanding nature of work undertaken by some construction trades. These participants expressed concerns about the impacts of a work schedule in which daily hours of work are increased and work is performed over fewer days in the week (i.e. a compressed work week) on workers’ physical and mental fatigue. Trades, including steelfixers, form-workers and bricklayers were specifically singled out as groups that would be adversely affected by the working time changes under the Culture Standard. However, another trade union representative, whose members had direct experience of working on a previous 5-day week project, indicated that workers who experienced the 5-day week schedule supported it, including workers in physically demanding trades like form-workers, steel-fixers and scaffolders. This participant argued that, even though many waged workers are initially sceptical, the majority of workers who experience working a 5-day week schedule ultimately form a strong preference for a 5compared to a 6-day schedule. Both union and construction company representatives anticipated that waged workers would be concerned about experiencing a potential reduction in pay associated with the time for life provisions of the Culture Standard. Impacts on waged workers’ take-home pay are therefore a critical factor to consider in the implementation of the Culture Standard. However, the trade union representative who had direct experience of the implementation of a previous 5-day week project described minimal loss of pay associated with the 5compared to the 6-day week as a result of longer hours worked over fewer days (i.e. a work week compression). Trade union representatives also raised concerns about whether Rostered Days Off (RDOs) would be affected by the Culture Standard. Any suggestion that RDOs would be affected was unacceptable to union members. 3.1.4 Anticipated barriers to adoption Participants identified a number of anticipated barriers to the adoption of the Culture Standard. For example, some participants suggested that the Culture Standard would not be practical to implement in horizontal construction projects, due to the need to work around live road and rail infrastructure and therefore engage in periods of intensive work, weekend work and night shifts etc. Tunnelling was frequently identified as an activity in which the Culture Standard’s time for life provisions could not be practically implemented due to the need to keep heavy machinery working 24 hours a day/ seven days a week. Participants (particularly construction contractor, industry peak body and trade union representatives) identified the commercial models (and their inherent risk allocation and penalties) currently used in the procurement of construction work as creating a barrier to the implementation of the Culture Standard. In particular, the use of fixed-price lump sum contracts with financial penalties for time overruns was identified as a barrier to the practical implementation of the Culture Standard. Procurement practices that focus on prioritising lowest cost and short timelines in contractor selection were also identified as a practical barrier to the adoption of the Culture Standard. It was observed that, for the Culture Standard to be effectively implemented, clients would need to ensure that assessment used in procurement and contractor selection criteria do not assume that work would be undertaken over a 6-day week and tenders submitted on the basis of a 5-day working week are appropriately considered. 3.1.5 Questions arising from the key decision-maker interviews – Stage One The key decision-maker Stage One interview results were used to frame questions to answer in the Pilot Project data analysis (described in Parts 3.2 and 3.3) and the economic analysis of the costs and benefits associated with implementing the Culture Standard (described in Part 3.4). These questions are explicitly addressed in Part 3.5 of this report and include: Culture in Construction: Final Report 25 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 1) Were the expected benefits associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard observed in the Pilot Projects? 2) Were the anticipated costs associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard observed in the Pilot Projects? 3) Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in horizontal projects? 4) Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in the current commercial conditions? 5) Do current procurement and tendering practices impact the viability of the Culture Standard? and 6) What happens to RDOs? The key decision-maker Stage Two interview results are outlined in Part 3.6 of this report. Culture in Construction: Final Report 26 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.2 Pilot Project survey findings 3.2.1 Project type and work schedule The five Pilot Projects adopted different work schedules based on project circumstances and characteristics. At three transport infrastructure projects two different schedules were implemented: one for regular work activities; and one for periods of high-intensity work undertaken during campaigns/occupations involving night shifts. Changes to work schedules were made during the project duration at two Pilot Projects to balance work hours, workers’ health and wellbeing, and project demands. Details of each Pilot Project and work schedule arrangements implemented are provided in the following section. Project A: Horizontal project located in Victoria delivered by a collaborative contracting model. Project A’s normal work schedule involve working a 10-day fortnight, with work being undertaken on Saturday every other week when there is a Rostered Day Off (RDO) on Monday. Site-based workers typically work ten to 11-hour days between Monday and Friday and six hours on alternate Saturdays. Some salaried workers were able to work from home on the RDOs. Project A also engaged in periods of high-intensity work during campaigns/occupations involving night shifts. During this time workers would work up to four 12-hour shifts (48 hours) followed by two days off. Longer occupations would last for 12 days or a fortnight. There were also shorter weekend occupations. Project B: Vertical project located in NSW delivered through a design and construct contract. Project B’s normal work schedule involved working Monday to Friday with no Saturday work. Work hours were initially long (11.5 to 12-hour days). However, these daily hours reduced to 10-11 hours in later stages of the project. Non-critical work was scheduled on Friday to allow workers the opportunity to leave early. There was a RDO every fortnight. Occasional Saturday work was undertaken for specific tasks, e.g. crane erection. Project C: Vertical project located in NSW delivered through a design and construct contract with early contractor involvement. Project C’s work schedule involved working ten to 11-hour days between Monday and Friday with no Saturday work. Workers directly employed by the head contractor also had the opportunity to leave early (3 pm) one day each week. There was a RDO every fortnight. Some office-based employees worked 8-9hours each day. Project D: Horizontal project located in Victoria delivered through a design and construct contract. Project D’s normal work schedule involved working ten to 11-hour days between Monday and Thursday and 7.5 hours on Friday. The site did not typically work Saturdays until later in the project period, and Saturday work was restricted to end by 1pm. The site had every second Monday (an RDO) off. Culture in Construction: Final Report 27 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Project D also engaged in periods of high-intensity construction activity during campaigns /occupations. During this time workers indicated they were working 12-hour days on a 6:3 rotation (i.e. six consecutive workdays followed by three days off). Project E: Horizontal project located in NSW delivered by an alliance. Project E implemented a day shift roster of five 11-hour days (Monday to Friday from 7am to 6pm). However, the site remained open on Saturdays between 8am and 1pm and workers were able to work on Saturday if they chose to do so. Workers could also choose to undertake ten days of night work per month. The maximum number of nights that could be worked per week was three and night shift did not occur on Wednesday or Friday or during weekends. 3.2.2 Overall findings The last waves of survey data collected on the five Pilot Projects were combined. The combined dataset included 438 independent responses. Analysis from this combined dataset is presented in the following section. 3.2.2.1 Work hours by gender Figure 3.1 compares work hours between men and women. The results showed that the largest proportion of women (31.0%) worked fewer than 37 hours per week, while the largest proportion of men (25.1%) worked 46-50 hours. 11.0% of men and 4.8% of women indicated working more than 55 hours per week. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in work hours between men and women were statistically significant (χ2 (15, 412) = 40.212, p < 0.001). Figure 3.1: Comparison of work hours per week by gender 7.7% 23.5% 18.2% 25.1% 14.4% 11.0% 31.0% 14.3% 23.8% 14.3% 11.9% 4.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Less than 37 hrs 37-40 hrs 41-45 hrs 46-50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs Percentage of participants Weekly work hours Men Women Culture in Construction: Final Report 28 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.2.2.2 Comparison of work hours between salaried and waged workers Figure 3.2 compares work hours between salaried and waged workers. The results showed that the proportion of salaried (24.2%) and waged (24.1%) workers working 46-50 hours was similar. A larger proportion of waged workers worked fewer than 46 hours per week compared to salaried workers, while a higher proportion of salaried workers (43.4%) worked more than 50 hours per week compared to waged workers (19.7%). Overall, these results suggest that, on average, salaried workers reported more weekly working hours compared to waged workers. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in work hours between salaried and waged workers were statistically significant (χ2 (5, 419) = 28.050, p < 0.001). Figure 3.2: Comparison of work hours per week between salaried and waged workers 3.2.2.3 Comparison of work hours between vertical and horizontal projects Figure 3.3 compares weekly reported work hours between participants working on vertical (i.e. building construction) and horizontal (i.e. road/rail construction) Pilot Projects. The results show that the proportion of participants working 46-50 hours per week was similar in vertical (24.0%) and horizontal (24.5%) projects. A larger proportion of participants engaged in vertical projects worked 37-45 hours per week, while a higher proportion of participants engaged in horizontal projects worked more than 50 hours per week. The proportion of participants working fewer than 37 hours per week at horizontal projects (17.9%) is higher than it was among participants from vertical projects (3.4%). A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in work hours between participants from vertical and horizontal projects were statistically significant (χ2 (5, 429) = 72.286, p < 0.001). 7.1% 9.1% 16.2% 24.2% 24.2% 19.2% 10.6% 25.6% 20.0% 24.1% 11.6% 8.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% Less than 37 hrs 37-40 hrs 41-45 hrs 46-50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs Percentage of participants Weekly work hours Salaried Waged Culture in Construction: Final Report 29 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.3: Comparison of work hours per week between vertical and horizontal projects 3.2.2.4 Preferred work hours and work schedule by family structure Preferred work hours and preferred work schedule were compared between participants reporting different family structures. Figure 3.4 shows that the largest proportion of participants who indicated they are single (without child/children), are one partner in a couple without child/children, or who are one partner in a couple with child/children indicated a preference to work about the same hours as they were working under the Culture Standard. Irrespective of family structure, between 21.1% and 28% of participants indicated a preference to work fewer hours than they were working under the Culture Standard. With the exception of people who identified themselves as single parents, a similar proportion of participants (20-32%) indicated a preference to work more hours than they were working under the Culture Standard. However, 42% of participants who indicated they are single parents indicated a preference to work more hours than they were working under the Culture Standard. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in preferred work hours among groups of participants with different family structures were not statistically significant (χ2 (8, 416) = 8.721, p = 0.366 > 0.05). 3.4% 32.6% 23.6% 24.0% 8.2% 8.2% 17.9% 8.7% 13.8% 24.5% 21.9% 13.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Less than 37 hrs 37-40 hrs 41-45 hrs 46-50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs Percentage of participants Weekly work hours Vertical Horizontal Culture in Construction: Final Report 30 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.4: Comparison of preferred work hours among different family structures Figure 3.5 shows that largest proportion of participants who indicated they are single (without child/children), are one partner in a couple without child/children, are one partner in a couple with child/children or who are single parents indicated a preference to work a 5-day week and have weekends free (ranging from 42.1% to 73%). A smaller proportion of participants indicated a preference to work a 6day week (ranging from 9% to 36.8% depending on family structure). Proportionally fewer people who indicated they are single parents (42.1%) indicated a preference for a 5-day week, while proportionally more single parents (36.8%) indicated a preference for a 6-day week compared to participants in other family structures. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in preferred work schedule among different family structures were not statistically significant (χ2 (12, 416) = 17.614, p = 0.128 > 0.05). 26.7% 41.1% 32.2% 27.8% 43.0% 29.1% 24.1% 53.7% 22.2% 21.1% 36.8% 42.1% 28.0% 52.0% 20.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Fewer hours About the same hours More hours Percentage of participants Preferred work hours Single person Couple without child/children Couple with child/children Single parent Other Culture in Construction: Final Report 31 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.5: Comparison of preferred work schedule among different family structures Since waged workers are more likely to be financially impacted by different work hours and schedules, a subset of the participants was created that only included waged workers. Figure 3.6 shows that working about the same hours was the most preferred option among waged workers who indicated they are single, are one partner in a couple without child/children are one partner in a couple with child/children (ranging between 41.2% and 51%). However, 41.2% of waged participants who indicated they are single parents indicated a preference to work more hours. Working fewer hours was the least preferred option among the sub-set sample of waged workers (ranging from 17.1% to 22.4%). A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in preferred work hours among waged workers with different family structures were not statistically significant (χ2 (8, 308) = 4.879, p = 0.770 > 0.05). Figure 3.6: Comparison of preferred work hours among waged workers with different family structures 73.0% 9.0% 13.5% 4.5% 63.7% 23.8% 10.0% 2.5% 67.6% 19.6% 9.8% 2.9% 42.1% 36.8% 15.8% 5.3% 45.8% 33.3% 16.7% 4.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 5-day week, and have weekends free 6-day week, and only have Sunday free Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days 7-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule Single person Couple without child/children Couple with child/children Single parent Other 17.1% 44.3% 38.6% 22.4% 41.4% 36.2% 22.1% 51.0% 26.8% 17.6% 41.2% 41.2% 21.4% 50.0% 28.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% Fewer hours About the same hours More hours Percentage of participants Preferred work hours Single person Couple without child/children Couple with child/children Single parent Other Culture in Construction: Final Report 32 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.7 shows that working a 5-day week with weekends off was the most preferred schedule among all groups of waged workers, except those who indicated “other” as their family structure. A high proportion (72.5%) of waged participants who identified themselves as being single preferred the 5-day schedule. Between 11.6% and 38.5% of waged participants indicated they would prefer to work a 6-day week. Waged participants who indicated they are single parents or are one member of a couple without child/children’ had a proportionally higher preference for a 6-day week (35.3% and 32.2% respectively) compared to participants in other family structures. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in preferred work schedule among waged workers with different family structures were not statistically significant (χ2 (12, 307) = 15.510, p = 0.215 > 0.05). Figure 3.7: Comparison of preferred work schedule among waged workers with different family structures 3.2.2.5 Comparison of preferred work hours and work schedule between salaried and waged workers Figure 3.8 shows that the majority of salaried workers (51.5%) and almost half of waged workers (46.9%) preferred to work about the same hours as they were working under the Culture Standard. Proportionally more salaried workers (40.6%) preferred to work fewer hours, while 32.8% of waged workers indicated a preference to work more hours than they were working under the Culture Standard. A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in preferred work hours between salaried and waged workers were statistically significant (χ2 (2, 421) = 30.604, p < 0.001). 72.5% 11.6% 11.6% 4.3% 55.9% 32.2% 10.2% 1.7% 60.4% 25.5% 10.1% 4.0% 47.1% 35.3% 11.8% 5.9% 30.8% 38.5% 23.1% 7.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 5-day week, and have weekends free 6-day week, and only have Sunday free Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days 7-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule Single person Couple without child/children Couple with child/children Single parent Other Culture in Construction: Final Report 39 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Participants in different age groups had similar scores for workload, organisational fairness, respect, and mental wellbeing. Participants who were 50 years of age or older reported higher scores for managerial work-family support, work-life balance, banter 2 , and work engagement, while participants aged 50 years or older had lower scores for work demand compared to those in other age groups. To test the statistical significance of differences in mean scores, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. Following ANOVA, a Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to identify exactly which groups differ from each other. The results (see Appendix F, Table 6.4 and 6.5) indicated: • generally, the differences in the mean scores for work demand, banter, and work engagement among the three age groups were statistically significant • work demand – participants aged 30 to 49 years had significantly higher mean scores for work demand than those aged 50 years or over • banter – participants aged under 30 years reported lower mean scores for (inappropriate) banter than those aged 50 years or over, and • work engagement – participants aged under 30 years had significantly lower mean scores for work engagement than those in the other two age groups. 3.2.2.9 Comparison of work experiences and mental wellbeing between salaried and waged workers Normalised mean scores for work demand, workload, managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, banter, respect, work engagement, and mental wellbeing were compared between salaried and waged participants. Figure 3.15 shows the comparison of normalised mean scores. Salaried workers had slightly higher scores for workload, work-life-balance, organisational fairness, respect, work engagement and mental wellbeing than waged workers. In contrast, waged workers reported slightly higher scores for work demand and (inappropriate) banter than salaried workers. The largest difference between salaried and waged workers was in managerial work-family support, with salaried workers reporting higher scores than waged workers. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine if the differences between waged and salaried workers’ mean work characteristic and mental wellbeing scores were statistically significant. The results of the t-tests (see Appendix F, Table 6.6) revealed that salaried and waged workers differed significantly in their perceptions of workload, managerial work-family support, organisational fairness, respect, work engagement, and mental wellbeing (with salaried workers perceiving significantly higher workload and more positive managerial work-family support, organisational fairness, respect, work engagement, and mental wellbeing than waged workers). _____ 2 In this survey banter measured the frequency with which participants experienced inappropriate or offensive banter in the workplace. A high score reflects a less respectful workplace culture. Culture in Construction: Final Report 40 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.15: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing between salaried and waged workers 3.2.2.10 Work experiences among different mental wellbeing groups Participants were divided into three groups reflecting whether they reported low, medium or high mental wellbeing scores. The allocation of participants to groups was based upon the application of population norm scores for the short version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) used in the study. 3 An overall mental wellbeing score was calculated by adding up the scores of all the items and transforming the score according to the specified procedure. Calculating an overall score for mental wellbeing required that participants respond to all the seven items in the SWEMWBS. The SWEMWBS has a mean of 23.5 and a standard deviation of 3.9 in general population samples 4 . This means that 15% of the population can be expected to have a score >27.4. Consequently, we have set the threshold for high wellbeing at 27.5. Conversely, 15% of the population can be expected to have a score <19.6, so we established a threshold point of 19.5, below which participants were deemed to have low wellbeing. Normalised mean scores for work demand, workload, managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, (inappropriate) banter, respect, and work engagement were compared between _____ 3 https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/med/research/platform/wemwbs/using/howto/ 4 Ng F., L., Scholes, S., Boniface, S., Mindell, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2017). Evaluating and establishing national norms for mental wellbeing using the short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): findings from the Health Survey for England. Quality of Life Research, 26(5), 1129-1144. 49.8% 72.6% 82.0% 59.2% 74.6% 31.4% 76.8% 70.5% 55.8% 52.6% 67.8% 70.3% 56.3% 68.2% 32.7% 71.6% 65.7% 52.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Normalised mean score Salaried Waged Culture in Construction: Final Report 41 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT participants in different mental wellbeing groups. Figure 3.16 shows the comparison of normalised mean scores. Participants in the high mental wellbeing group reported higher levels of managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, respect at work, and work engagement compared to participants in the low and medium mental wellbeing groups. In contrast, participants in the low mental wellbeing group reported lower managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, respect at work, and work engagement compared to participants in the medium and high mental wellbeing groups. Participants in the low mental wellbeing group indicated higher work demand and slightly higher workload compared to participants in the medium and high mental wellbeing groups. Culture in Construction: Final Report 42 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.16: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences in different mental wellbeing groups 57.5% 70.3% 68.6% 48.8% 59.3% 36.3% 63.7% 55.5% 50.3% 68.4% 75.4% 59.2% 73.1% 31.9% 75.6% 70.5% 36.5% 67.6% 85.6% 77.2% 78.2% 18.0% 89.4% 86.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Work demand Workload Managerial workfamily support Work-life balance Organisational fairness Banter Respect Engagement Normalised mean score Low Medium High Culture in Construction: Final Report 43 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT The results of ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests (see Appendix F, Table 6.8 and 6.9) indicated: • generally, the differences in the mean scores for work demand, managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, (inappropriate) banter, respect at work, and work engagement among the three mental wellbeing groups (i.e., low, medium, and high) were statistically significant • work demand – participants in the low mental wellbeing group had significantly higher work demand than those in the medium and high mental wellbeing groups • managerial work-family support – participants in the low and medium mental wellbeing groups reported significantly lower managerial work-family support than those in the high mental wellbeing group • work-life balance – participants in the high mental wellbeing group had significantly better worklife balance than those in the medium and low mental wellbeing groups • organisational fairness – participants in the high and medium mental wellbeing groups perceived significantly more organisational fairness than those in the low mental wellbeing group • banter – participants in the high mental wellbeing group reported significantly less inappropriate banter than those in the low and medium mental wellbeing groups • respect – participants in the high mental wellbeing group perceived significantly more respect at work than those in the low and medium mental wellbeing groups, and • work engagement – participants in the high mental wellbeing group had significantly higher levels of work engagement than those in the low and medium mental wellbeing groups. 3.2.2.11 Comparison of work experiences and mental wellbeing by gender Normalised mean scores for work demand, workload, managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, (inappropriate) banter, respect, work engagement, and mental wellbeing were compared between men and women. Figure 3.17 shows the comparison of normalised mean scores. Women reported slightly higher workload, managerial work-family support, work-life balance and work engagement compared to men, while men reported slightly higher work demand, respect, and mental wellbeing than women. The largest gender differences in mean scores were identified for organisational fairness and (inappropriate) banter. In comparison with women, men perceived higher organisational fairness while women reported a higher frequency of inappropriate banter than men in the workplace. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether any differences in mean scores between men and women were statistically significant. The results (see Appendix F, Table 6.7) indicated that men and women who responded to the survey differed significantly in their perceptions of organisational fairness and banter. Culture in Construction: Final Report 44 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.17: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing by gender 3.2.2.12 Work experiences and mental wellbeing between vertical projects and horizontal projects Normalised mean scores for work demand, workload, managerial work-family support, work-life balance, organisational fairness, (inappropriate) banter, respect at work, work engagement and mental wellbeing were compared between participants at vertical and horizontal Pilot Projects. Figure 3.18 shows the comparison of normalised mean scores. Participants engaged at vertical projects indicated higher scores for work demand, workload and slightly higher scores for (inappropriate) banter compared to those working at horizontal projects. In contrast, participants engaged at horizontal projects reported slightly higher scores for managerial work-family support and work engagement than those working at vertical projects. Participants engaged at vertical projects and horizontal projects had similar scores for work-life balance, organisational fairness, respect at work and mental wellbeing. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether any differences in mean scores between vertical and horizontal projects were statistically significant. The results (see Appendix F, Table 6.10) indicated that workers at vertical and horizontal projects differed significantly in their perceptions of work demand, workload, managerial work-family support and work engagement, all of which were more favourable at the horizontal compared to the vertical Pilot Projects. 52.4% 68.3% 73.0% 57.3% 71.6% 30.8% 74.1% 67.2% 53.8% 45.1% 71.3% 76.7% 60.7% 59.7% 48.0% 71.0% 69.2% 51.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Normalised mean score Men Women Culture in Construction: Final Report 45 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.18: Comparison of mean scores for work experiences and mental wellbeing between vertical and horizontal projects 3.2.2.13 Predictors of mental wellbeing and work engagement To test the effects of work experiences on participants’ work engagement and mental wellbeing, linear regression analysis was performed. The analysis was performed in three steps: 1) testing the direct relationship between work experiences and participants’ mental wellbeing, 2) testing the relationship between work experiences and participants’ work engagement, and 3) testing the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between work experiences and participants’ mental wellbeing. The results of the three regression analyses are provided in Appendix F, Tables 6.11 to 6.13. The results suggest that higher levels of banter were directly associated with participants’ lower mental wellbeing. In addition, work-life balance, respect and work demand were associated with both mental wellbeing and work engagement. The results indicated that work-life balance, respect and work demand can influence mental wellbeing both directly and indirectly, through influencing work engagement. In particular, higher perceived work-life balance and respect were associated with better mental wellbeing (direct relationship) as well as with better work engagement which, in turn, was associated with better mental wellbeing (indirect relationship). Similarly, higher levels of perceived work demand were associated with participants’ lower mental wellbeing (direct relationship) and with worse work engagement which, in turn, would lead to lower mental wellbeing (indirect relationship). These effects are depicted in Figure 3.19. 57.8% 72.6% 70.1% 56.5% 69.7% 34.4% 73.1% 64.6% 53.9% 45.0% 65.0% 76.9% 58.1% 70.0% 30.0% 72.9% 69.6% 52.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Normalised mean score Vertical Horizontal Culture in Construction: Final Report 46 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.19: Relationships between work experiences, work engagement and mental wellbeing 3.2.3 Examining participants’ experiences over the life of the Pilot Projects As explained in Part 2.3 of this report, three Pilot Projects (A, C and D) were followed from their commencement until their completion, as their completion date fell within the data collection period for this research. This provided an opportunity to determine whether workers’ experiences of the implementation of the Culture Standard changed at these Pilot Projects as projects progressed towards completion. The percentage of project duration that had elapsed at the time of each survey is shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2: Survey administration across project duration Pilot Project A Pilot Project C Pilot Project D Survey 1 20% project duration 40% completion 60% project duration Survey 2 60% project duration 75% project duration 87% project duration Survey 3 88% project duration N/A N/A 3.2.3.1 Changes in work hours for Projects A, C, and D over time Figure 3.20 presents changes in work hours per week reported by the participants from Project A as the project progressed. The results revealed that most participants indicated working 50 hours or fewer per week and the percentages of participants reporting 50 hours or fewer per week remained similar across the three waves of the survey. Similarly, the proportion of participants working more than 50 hours did not change significantly as the project progressed. A small portion of participants (15.2%) reported working more than 55 hours a week in the last wave of the survey. Culture in Construction: Final Report 47 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.20: Changes in work hours at Project A over time Figure 3.21 presents changes in work hours per week at Project C as the project progressed. There were no significant changes in participants’ reported work hours per week across the two waves of survey and the proportion of participants working between 50 and 55 hours per week only slightly increased (from 10% to 15.8%), while the proportion of participants working more than 55 hours per week was lower in the second (compared to the first) survey. Figure 3.21: Changes in work hours at Project C over time Figure 3.22 presents changes in work hours per week at Project D as the project progressed. There was no significant change in the reported weekly work hours, as the proportion of participants working more than 50 hours per week was stable between the two surveys (between 27.7% and 27.8%). The proportion of people indicating they work 50 hours or fewer each week (between 69.7% and 68.9%). was similarly stable as the project progressed. 66.1% 67.6% 69.5% 28.3% 23.3% 15.2% 3.8% 0.0% 15.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 19.5% 60% 87.6% Percentage of participants Percentage of project completion ≤50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs 73.3% 71.9% 10.0% 15.8% 13.3% 12.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 40% 75% Percentage of participants Percentage of project completion ≤50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs Culture in Construction: Final Report 48 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.22: Changes in work hours at Project D over time 3.2.3.2 Work demand according to project completion Figure 3.23 shows that mean scores reflecting participants’ perceptions of work demand remained relatively stable for both Pilot Project A and Pilot Project D as these projects progressed. Perceptions of work demand slightly increased at Pilot Project C between the first and second surveys. Figure 3.23: Perceptions of work demand over time 69.7% 68.9% 9.8% 15.6% 17.9% 12.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 60% 87% Percentage of participants Percentage of project completion ≤50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs 1 2 3 4 5 020 40 60 80 100 Mean score Percentage of project completion Project A Project C Project D Culture in Construction: Final Report 55 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.34 shows the preferences of waged participants at Project B and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. In the Non-Culture Standard project, proportionally more waged workers indicated a preference to work the same hours as they were working at the time of the survey, than did those at Project B (58.0% compared to 46.8%). Slightly more waged workers indicated a preference to work more hours at the Non-Culture Standard project compared to Project B (26.0% compared to 23.4%). Proportionally more waged workers indicated they would prefer to work fewer hours at Project B compared to those at the Non-Culture Standard project (29.9% compared to 16.0%). Figure 3.34: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (waged participants) Preferred work schedule Figure 3.35 shows the preferences for a 5or 6-day working week among salaried participants at Project B and at the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. Proportionally more salaried workers indicated a preference to work a 5-day week at the comparison Non-Culture Standard project than those at Project B (94.1% compared to 82.3%). Only a small proportion of salaried workers indicated a preference to work a 6-day week at either Project B (17.6%) or the comparison Non-Culture Standard project (5.9%). 29.9% 46.8% 23.4% 16.0% 58.0% 26.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Fewer hours About the same hours More hours Percentage of participants Preferred work hours Project B Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 56 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.35: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (salaried participants) Figure 3.36 shows the preferences for a 5or 6-day working week among waged participants at Project B and at the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. Proportionally more waged workers indicated a preference to work a 5-day week at Project B (74.5%) compared to waged workers at the comparison Non-Culture Standard projects (55.7%). 41.6% of waged workers at the Non-Culture Standard project indicated they preferred to work a 6-day week, compared with 23.5% at Project B. Figure 3.36: Comparison between Project B and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (waged participants) 82.3% 17.6% 94.1% 5.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5-day week 6-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule of salaried workers Project B Non-Culture Standard 74.5% 23.5% 55.7% 41.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 5-day week 6-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule of waged workers Project B Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 57 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Work experiences Figure 3.37 shows a comparison of mean scores between the two projects relating to participants’ assessments of their experiences at work. Work demands, workload, banter and respect were slightly higher at Project B than they were at the Non-Culture Standard project, whilst managerial support for work and family and work-life balance were slightly higher at the Non-Culture Standard project than at Project B. Independent samples t-tests revealed that the difference between mean scores reported for work demand, workload, managerial work-family support, banter and respect at work between Project B and the Non-Culture Standard comparison project were statistically significant (see Appendix F, Table 6.14). Figure 3.37: Comparison of work experiences between Project B and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project Mental wellbeing Figure 3.38 shows mental wellbeing scores between participants at Project B and the Non-Culture Standard comparison project. Mental wellbeing scores were similar at both of these projects and no statistically significant findings were found. Figure 3.38: Comparison of mental wellbeing between Project B and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.2 2.0 5.4 3.3 3.9 4.3 3.3 1.8 5.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work demand Workload Managerial work-family support Work-life balance Banter Respect Mean score Project B Non-Culture Standard 22.0 22.8 7 14 21 28 35 Project B Non-Culture Standard Transformed score Mental wellbeing Culture in Construction: Final Report 58 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.2.4.2 Pilot Project E and comparison project Project context The two projects were located in the same Australian state. At the time the surveys were undertaken, project completion was 35% at Project E and 85% at the Non-Culture Standard Project. Sample 65 participants completed the survey at Project E compared to 51 participants at the project at which the Culture Standard was not implemented. Characteristics of participants at each of the projects is shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.4: Characteristics of samples at Project E and the Non-Culture Standard project Project E (Culture Standard Project) Non-Culture Standard Project 65 participants (wave 1 data) 51 participants 85% men, 11% women 86% men, 4% women 43% directly employed, 48% subcontracted 24% directly employed, 69% subcontracted 49% waged, 48% salaried 61% waged, 29% salaried [Note: percentages do not add up to 100 due to missing data] Work hours Figure 3.39 shows that a higher proportion of participants at the Non-Culture Standard project worked 50 hours or fewer per week than participants from Project E (58.8% compared to 50.8%). In contrast, a higher proportion of participants at Project E worked more than 50 hours than participants at the NonCulture Standard project (46.2% compared to 33.3%). A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in work hours between Project E and the non-Culture Standard project were not statistically significant (χ2 (1, 110) = 1.442, p = 0.230). Figure 3.39: Comparison of work hours per week between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project 50.8% 46.2% 58.8% 33.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% ≤50 hrs More than 50 hrs Percentage of participants Weekly work hours Project E Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 59 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.40 shows a more detailed analysis of hours worked at both projects. For all work hour categories, the proportion of participants was higher at Project E with one exception. A higher proportion of participants from the Non-Culture Standard worked 46-50 hours per week compared with participants from Project E (49% compared to 23.1%). A Chi-square test indicated that the differences in work hours between Project E and the Non-Culture Standard project were statistically significant (χ2 (5, 110) = 13.000, p = 0.023). Figure 3.40: Comparison of work hours per week between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project Preferred work hours Comparisons between the two projects in terms of preferred work hours were also examined. Figure 3.41 shows the preferences of salaried participants at Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. Proportionally more salaried participants expressed a preference to work fewer hours at the NonCulture Standard project compared to Project E (60% compared to 25.8%). Proportionally more salaried workers indicated a preference to work about the same number of hours work hours they were doing at the time of the survey at Project E than at the Non-Culture Standard comparison project (67.7% compared to 33.3%). 9.2% 6.2% 12.3% 23.1% 33.8% 12.3% 5.9% 0.0% 3.9% 49.0% 21.6% 11.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% Less than 37 hrs 37-40 hrs 41-45 hrs 46-50 hrs 51-55 hrs More than 55 hrs Percentage of participants Weekly work hours Project E Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 60 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Figure 3.41: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (salaried participants) Figure 3.42 shows the preferences of waged participants at Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. In the Non-Culture Standard project, proportionally more waged workers indicated a preference to work about the same number of hours as they were working at the time of the survey, compared with those at Project E (51.6% compared to 37.5%). Proportionally more waged workers indicated they would prefer to work more hours at Project E compared to the Non-Culture Standard project (37.5% compared to 32.3%). However, proportionally more waged workers also indicated they would prefer to work fewer hours at Project E compared to the Non-Culture Standard project (25% compared to 16.1%). Figure 3.42: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project work hour preferences (waged participants) 25.8% 67.7% 6.5% 60.0% 33.3% 6.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Fewer hours About the same hours More hours Percentage of participants Preferred work hours of salaried workers Project E Non-Culture Standard 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% 16.1% 51.6% 32.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Fewer hours About the same hours More hours Percentage of participants Preferred work hours of waged workers Project E Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 61 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Preferred work schedule Figure 3.43 shows the preferences for a 5or 6-day working week among salaried participants at Project E and at the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. A similar proportion of salaried workers indicated a preference to work a 5-day week at Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project (93.6% compared to 93.3%). Only a small proportion of salaried workers indicated a preference to work a 6-day week at either Project E (3.2%) or the comparison Non-Culture Standard project (6.7%). Figure 3.43: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (salaried participants) Figure 3.44 shows the preferences for a 5or 6-day working week among waged participants at Project E and at the comparison Non-Culture Standard project. Proportionally more waged workers indicated a preference to work a 5-day week at Project E (75%) compared to waged workers at the comparison NonCulture Standard project (60%). One third of waged workers at the Non-Culture Standard project (33.3%) indicated they preferred to work a 6-day week, compared with 15.6% at Project E. Figure 3.44: Comparison between Project E and Non-Culture Standard project weekly schedule preferences (waged participants) 93.6% 3.2% 93.3% 6.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5-day week 6-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule of salaried workers Project E Non-Culture Standard 75.0% 15.6% 60.0% 33.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 5-day week 6-day week Percentage of participants Preferred work schedule of waged workers Project E Non-Culture Standard Culture in Construction: Final Report 62 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Work experiences Figure 3.45 shows a comparison of mean scores between the two projects relating to participants’ assessments of their experiences at the projects. Work demands and workload were slightly higher at the Non-Culture Standard project than they were at Project E, whilst managerial support for work and family, work-life balance, banter and respect at work were all higher at Project E than at the Non-Culture Standard project. Independent samples t-tests indicated that the difference between mean scores for work-life balance and respect at Project E and the Non-Culture Standard project were statistically significant (see Appendix F, Table 6.15) Figure 3.45: Comparison of work experiences between Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project Mental wellbeing Figure 3.46 shows mental wellbeing scores between participants at Project E and the Non-Culture Standard comparison project. Mental wellbeing scores were similar at both of these projects and no statistically significant differences were found. Figure 3.46: Comparison of mental wellbeing between Project E and the comparison Non-Culture Standard project 2.9 3.6 3.9 3.3 1.9 5.7 3.2 3.8 3.7 2.9 1.9 4.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work demand Workload Managerial workfamily support Work-life balance Banter Respect Mean score Project E Non-Culture Standard 21.9 21.0 7 14 21 28 35 Project E Non-Culture Standard Transformed score Mental wellbeing Culture in Construction: Final Report 63 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3 Pilot Project interview findings This section of the report describes the interview findings according to key themes and uses illustrative quotes to evidence the themes. Key themes described in this section are: • time for life • health and wellbeing • gender diversity • changing perceptions about the 5-day week, and • the future of the Culture Standard The interview findings detail the experiences and perspectives of the interview participants. It is important to acknowledge that only those time for life, health and wellbeing, and gender diversity initiatives mentioned by participants are described, therefore this section of the report may not consider the impacts of the complete suite of initiatives implemented at the five Pilot Projects. In some sections, and where relevant, illustrative quotes are accompanied by demographic information about participants. In other instances, details (such as job role) are omitted to protect the participant’s anonymity. 3.3.1 Time for life This section is arranged under the following areas: • work schedule changes • work schedule preferences, and • experience of flexible working The end of the section includes a table summarising these areas. 3.3.1.1 Work schedule changes Project A, Project C and Project E reported no changes to their initial work schedules. To recap, Project A utilised a 10-day fortnight schedule, with Saturday work undertaken every other week with a Monday RDO. Project C maintained a schedule with no weekend work, working no more than 11 hours per day with an RDO every fortnight. Project E implemented a 5-day roster of 11-hour days for day shifts with the option for workers to work on Saturday and/or undertake 10 days of night work per month. Midway through the project, Project B and Project D adjusted their work schedule to reduce worker fatigue. Project B Project B initially scheduled a working week consisting of five 11-hour days with no Saturday work (except for specific tasks such as crane erection). However, during first round of data collection the majority of workers reported that they were working five 12-hour days, thereby exceeding the 55-hour Culture in Construction: Final Report 64 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT limit specified in the Culture Standard. Participants explained that, during these early stages, the project was essentially condensing six days of work into five days: “They’re still doing 60-hour weeks but they’re just doing it five days instead of six” (BP06). During the first two rounds of interviews at Project B, some workers noted that they would rather work six shorter consecutive days than a 5-day schedule with longer daily hours. For some workers, this was due to feeling fatigued: “I reckon, 6 o'clock finishes is probably a bit more strenuous for five days rather than doing a Saturday. I think that's more taxing on the body and the mind… doing 12-hour days for five days is more intense than doing a Saturday” (BP06). Another reason for preferring five shorter days and a Saturday was being able to spend time with family during the week: “I believe we’re coming up with a solution to make it work for us, but as it stands at the moment, I personally prefer a 6-day week over a 5-day week, because I finish at 5:00, and I can get home, spend time with the family” (BP13). By the third round of interviews at Project B, the working hours had been reduced to better comply with the time for life component of the Culture Standard. After work hours were effectively limited to stay below the 55-per week Culture Standard limit, participants indicated they generally preferred the 5-day schedule: “Just that little aspect of doing 10-hour days and having Saturday off, it gives you a whole new day for you. It's incredible” (BP24). A participant in a senior role described how the project had made a concerted effort to reduce and monitor working hours: “Everyone's been allocated a number, confidentially, people put in their hours for the week. If there's too many hours that've been put in, we have conversations with that individual as to why. Do you want a day off in lieu? What are we going to do about it? But it's also about just monitoring on a day-to-day basis. Just being aware of it” (BP26). Project D Project D’s typical work schedule involved working 10to 11-hour days between Monday and Thursday and 7.5 hours on Friday with an RDO every second Monday. However, an occupation programmed in the earlier stages of this project involved working six consecutive workdays, thereby deviating from the Culture Standard parameters. Initially, the project had planned for more intensive 24/7-style occupations. However, due to the difficulty experienced in meeting the Culture Standard time for life requirements throughout the first occupation, the project ceased campaigns/occupations in its later stages and adopted alternative approaches for meeting project program requirements. A managerial worker explained: “We're not doing any either (campaigns/occupations) from now on, we're doing one side of the road at the time. … we're managing it that way… it might roll into some Saturday work because of that, because it will be elongated, but now we're managing it so we're not doing any of these occupations or campaigns” (DP38). During the early stages of Project D, workers recognised that the intensity of long campaigns which involved night shifts was not sustainable, but that these work practices could be managed in shorter durations: “…night shifts, working Saturdays again… it’s not too bad when you know it’s just a short period” (DP32). Work tasks were reallocated to Saturday without significant changes to the original work schedule or notable increases in work hours per week. Short night shifts took place on Fridays and Saturdays and extra crews of a small size were organised for the weekend work. Workers described this new organisation of labour as undertaking “mini occupations”: Culture in Construction: Final Report 71 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3.1.4 Summary of time for life themes Table 3.5 summarises the themes which have been described in this section of the report. Table 3.5: Summary of themes relating to time for life Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E Work schedule • 10 working days per fortnight • Saturdays work undertaken every second week with a Monday RDO • Most workers worked 10-11 a day with rare instances of overtime work beyond 11.5 hours • Some occupations and night shift • Targeted a 5-day working week, 11 hour days, no weekend work (excepting specific tasks e.g. crane erection) • Reported work hours for majority of the workers exceeded the work hour limits in the early stages of the project. This was changed to ensure hours were maintained below the Culture Standard threshold. • 5-day working week, no weekend work • No more than 11 hours per day • RDO every fortnight • Targeted 10-11 hour workdays Mon-Thu and 7.5 hours on Friday • RDOs were every second Monday • Early occupation involved six consecutive workdays, deviating from Culture Standard • Blue collar subcontractor rostered for no weekend work, and cap of 55 hours initially • White collar project staff had no weekend work, and a cap of 50 hours initially • Five wellbeing RDOs in a year for white collar project staff • 5-day working week • 11-hour shifts during the day • Optional Saturday work and/or 10 days of night work per month Work schedule changes • Work hours reduced in later rounds of data collection recorded, meeting the project’s initial targets • Changes on roster arrangement of occupations in later stages of the project Workers’ preferences • Most workers preferred the 5-day week citing the benefits of improved • Most workers preferred the 5-day week citing the benefits • Most workers preferred the 5-day week citing the benefits • Most workers preferred the 5-day week citing the benefits of improved work- • Most workers preferred the 5-day week citing the Culture in Construction: Final Report 72 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E work-life balance, reduced fatigue, and increased family time • Some waged workers would prefer more hours than the Culture Standard allows of improved work-life balance, reduced fatigue, and increased family time • Some waged workers would prefer more hours than the Culture Standard allows • In early interviews, some workers preferred working six shorter days than five long days • After work hours at the project were limited to below 55 hours a week, most interview participants no longer preferred a 6-day week over a 5-day one of improved work-life balance, reduced fatigue, and increased family time • Some waged workers would prefer more hours than the Culture Standard allows life balance, reduced fatigue, and increased family time • Some waged workers would prefer more hours than the Culture Standard allows • Many workers expressed dislike for long hours, nightshifts and weekend work during early occupation – later “mini occupations” were preferred by most interview participants. benefits of improved work-life balance, reduced fatigue, and increased family time • Some waged workers would prefer more hours than the Culture Standard allows • Preferred not to work split shifts (e.g. noonmidnight) Participants’ experiences of flexible working options • General and informal support for flexible work options • General and informal support for flexible work options • “Wellbeing board” in office to nominate a day to come in late or leave early • No critical works after 3pm • General and informal support for flexible work options • Flee by Three (leave early one day a week) • General and informal support for flexible work options • General and informal support for flexible work options • Flexibility workshops • The “My Time” initiative Culture in Construction: Final Report 73 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3.2 Health and wellbeing This section is arranged under the following areas: • experience of health and wellbeing initiatives, and • wellbeing culture The end of the section includes a table summarising these areas. 3.3.2.1 Experience of health and wellbeing initiatives Several different initiatives were implemented at the five Pilot Projects to support workers’ health and wellbeing. Project A provided exercise facilities at the site which were well-received by participants: “I’ve never seen [a basketball court] before, so that’s great when you go out and just take your mind off things for a bit. We’ve only had it for probably a month now but I definitely use it around lunchtime and maybe after work. I think the table tennis table gets more use. There’s one inside in one of the lunch rooms there, so you can always hear a table tennis ball going back and forth” (AP11). Participants at Project A and C spoke positively about an allowance provided by the project for wellbeing activities such as gym memberships, massages and personal training: • “We get an allowance of up to $1,000 towards our wellbeing, so mine this time round, it’s around personal training or gym memberships. This one is around this wellness centre where I can go and do flotation tanks, I can do meditation, it’s just around letting the mind stop and letting the body recover” (CP19). • “I do group fitness. I’ve been there for a good couple of years now… and [head contractor’s name] actually paid half your membership because they promote health and fitness” (AP02). Participants at Project A commented positively on the focus on physical safety and mental wellbeing during prestart/toolbox talks and strict adherence to fatigue policies. “We do a lot of toolbox talks in the morning…we just had an occupation, so [talking] about being sleep deprived and taking care and taking a rest and being able to speak up if there’s issues with that. If you’re not getting enough sleep and stuff doing shift work. They definitely do care about your health and wellbeing I would say” (AP24). As discussed in the time for life section, Project B’s “wellbeing board” promoted wellbeing by encouraging workers to nominate a day to come in late or leave early. “We’ve put up a new wellbeing board for everyone, trying to get people to nominate either one morning or one afternoon every week that they either come in late or leave early to go and do something that’s for their wellbeing. We’ve specifically made it visible so that everyone can support it, and if people say that they’re going to do something on a certain day, we support that and try to make that happen” (BP02). As well as providing a wellbeing allowance, Project C also provided head contractor staff with the opportunity to leave early one day a week. One participant believed that these health and wellbeing initiatives contributed to a positive culture in which team members were happy: “We all get along really well and I think all the other things, like we can ‘Flee by Three contributes to the fact that we’re all happy to be here” (CP02). Additionally, participants at Project C indicated they have access to an employee assistance program available for workers who need psychological support: “We also have an employee assistance program Culture in Construction: Final Report 74 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT support as well. So, if you're struggling with mental health, you have a free hotline to call and they match you with someone based on similar interests” (CP31). Projects C and D also scheduled regular wellbeing days. A participant at Project D spoke positively about how their manager encouraged them to use the wellbeing days: “[My manager] is a real strong advocate for the wellbeing days and making sure you use them wisely and appropriately. The last one I had my kids with me… We actually went out to the city and had a nice day” (DP30). Project D offered free health scans and consultations to its workers which were spoken about positively in interviews: “[Project D] engaged a consultant that comes out every week for eight weeks. He does an assessment on your body and your physicality and all those types of things and we get a weekly update on strategies to help improve something in your life, whether that be weight reduction, reduce alcohol intake or whatever it is, so [it’s] really good” (DP15). Project D also ran some R U OK day promotions. However, when asked if there had been any initiatives in relation to mental health, one participant suggested more could be done in relation to protecting workers’ mental health and wellbeing: “They acknowledged R U OK Day and like had people come and talk and that sort of thing but it’s, I don’t feel like it’s been a huge area of focus” (DP40). Participants at all Pilot Projects indicated they are provided with regular ‘wellbeing’ gatherings, such as barbeques, shared meals and group activities held to promote wellbeing at work: “They’ve got all these little sessions that they do, like events or barbecues and the morning teas and the team bonding sessions. We went to bowling one time” (EP45). Participants at the Pilot Projects also observed that the frequency of wellbeing gatherings was higher than they had experienced at previous projects, which they appreciated: • “There's probably a few more barbecues and those kind of things. Those come together on a Friday. Those cultural things they've put in place that are probably more prevalent than previous projects” (DP38). • “We’ve had a fair amount of… site barbeques and all that sort of stuff, it always keeps that morale and culture that bit higher because they don’t have to do that, there’s nothing written anywhere like you need to supply four barbeques per year or something. It’s stuff they do off their own back” (CP23). Projects A, B and E provided access to mental health advisors and first aiders and promoted the availability of this support to workers: “We have mental health advisors on our project as well. They’re up on our main board in the main compound their names, their phone numbers, and they’re also very accessible through the office as well. All over the site there’s things about mental health, and there’s always help here, and also give a shout if you’re feeling you're not comfortable about something, we can speak up about anything. There’s always everyone here that we can speak to” (AP11). Participants indicated that they were aware of the mental health support available: “There's some support for mental health first aiders or phone numbers you can call. I haven't utilised any myself, but they make you aware that they are available if you need them” (BP21). One participant at Project A explained that, even though they weren’t taking part in any initiatives themselves, the consistent messaging about wellbeing ensured that they were aware that support was available should it ever be needed: “They have a lot more assistance programs. I haven't used them personally, but I know that they're available and they communicate that a lot. We have like mental health Culture in Construction: Final Report 75 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT champions and stuff like that on the alliance and on the project as well, so if I ever wanted to reach out, I know there's plenty of resources available” (AP11). Project E also used an employee engagement website to identify areas for improvement regarding wellbeing: “…there is a tool, you are maybe familiar with Culture Amp. It’s a website culture questionnaire sort of platform… that can track trends and provide output and recommendations for targeted areas of a development… The AI that’s built into that package will say where the areas of development need to be” (EP01). 3.3.2.2 Wellbeing culture Focus on health and wellbeing Participants at all five Pilot Projects described their health and wellbeing as being valued and wellsupported. It was widely recognised that the support for health and wellbeing at the Pilot Projects went beyond the industry norm, with many participants comparing their current work culture favourably to previous projects where the Culture Standard had not been implemented: • “There hasn't been any mental health conversations at all in my previous jobs, but this has been the one that's different for me” (AP22). • “[Project B name] have things in place to deal with the mental side of stuff… [if you] need a chat, there’s somebody here. Other sites have it but it’s not as accessible. Depending on which sites you’re on, it’s push, push, push. Mental health gets swept a bit. [Project B name] takes it seriously” (BP05). • “[Head contractor’s name] is a lot better than my previous organisation. They have a lot more focus on the health and wellbeing. Like the Flee at Three, the wellbeing allowance, wellness days as well” (CP31). • “It's better than a lot of other projects that I've been on. They do worry about your health and your mental health mainly... and they can tell when I'm in a mood. They're like, ‘Are you all right? Do you need to talk about it?’” (DP31). • “This is certainly the most focused project towards health and wellbeing I've been on, and it's actually front of mind that they actually communicate that to the whole team, there's a lot of conversations around that, lots of toolboxes around that. I think you just feel like the support is there” (EP07). Leadership Participants considered leadership to be a critical factor in shaping the wellbeing culture at each Pilot Project. Participants generally reported that health and wellbeing were well-supported by the project leaders: “I do still find that health and well-being is important to the project. It seems to be well supported from the top… from project manager, from the Alliance leadership team” (AP08). A participant at Project C had a similar view of their project’s leadership: “We’ve got a good project manager, he’s fairly flexible… so that’s good. I don’t feel that there’s any pressure; you don’t really get pressure from upper management” (CP14). The approachability of managers was cited by several participants as a key factor in supporting health and wellbeing at work: “I think my Project Manager is very conscious of supporting wellbeing. He's really approachable. I think that I had an issue or anything, I could go to him with it, and he'd help me. I think that's probably the main thing” (CP02). Culture in Construction: Final Report 76 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT A participant at Project A described how their manager was a good listener and was understanding when they needed a wellbeing break from work: “Here you're able to have a chat to your own manager and they'll be more understanding; immediate managers… We're able to talk, bring our own point. Sometimes you're not able to have a chat to your manager, you're worried how it might come across... but they would totally understand where I come from. There is a discussion if I need a bit of time off or I'll be like, maybe I just need to take a break. It's become quite too much right now. Is it okay? And that part of it is understood. That's the thing” (AP22). At Project B, a participant described their managers’ communication skills and described how they ‘check in’ on the wellbeing of workers: “We’ve got a management here that, they’re good communicators. So, basically, if they see that you’re struggling at any time with anything, they’ll pull you aside and say ‘How you going? What’s up?’. So, they have that mentality which is really good and that’s why I like working with the crew I’m with at the moment” (BP08). Some workers described how they were comfortable enough with their managers to discuss non-workrelated issues that were negatively affecting their mental wellbeing. For example, a participant described how their manager was very supportive and made it clear that the participant should prioritise their wellbeing over work tasks: “I can speak to my one up manager and just have a chat, even if it’s about shit at home or shit with mates. I can have a chat, blurt my stuff out, clear my mind, go again, refresh, regroup, go again. He says to me multiple times, if I need to tap out, tap out… being functioning normal people is more important than a building site” (BP13). A participant at Project D also explained that project leaders demonstrate consistent concern about wellbeing, particularly as it relates to managing workload: “Just the people above me, the general care about the hours, the efforts and consistently doing it as well. Not just a one-off sort of thing. I guess making sure you're not overworking” (DP11). Positive impacts of a wellbeing culture At Project E, a participant noted a reciprocal relationship between working hard and leaders’ support for workers’ health and wellbeing: “They're very supportive. I've had really good project managers, which it makes the world of difference. And I think it's also what you put in, you get out. So I've always tried to make sure I go above and beyond what's expected. And I feel like they recognise that. And it's reciprocal, really” (EP15). This relationship was also noted by a participant at Project B who described his team as “family”: “The culture on this project, with the people that are here that I’ve worked with for the last 10 years, is a family… It was more the care factor. You really wanted to do well, because it felt like if you didn’t do well, you were letting down a brother, or like… an older brother, father kind of figure… So we’re all about helping out each other” (BP50). Participants noted that prioritisation of health and wellbeing contributes to increased retention of workers. One participant, aged in his 60s, indicated they felt confident that they could work for another five years due to the wellbeing policies implemented at Project A: “I’m 63 and I can stay here for another five years if I wanted to. They make it so that I am able to do that” (AP10). A participant at Project E observed that, although their project had experienced some turnover, this was not attributable to poor health or wellbeing: “… the people, for everything I can see, seem to be a lot happier, the culture’s pretty good. We’ve had a little bit of turnover, but that’s really senior people going off and feeling supported enough to follow their dreams” (EP31). Culture in Construction: Final Report 77 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT A participant at Project B felt that the increased focus on wellbeing would attract younger workers to the industry: “I think it’s definitely a great thing for the building industry… it helps to attract younger people into the industry as well… sometimes the hours and things that steer people away… if we can come closer to what other industries work… and promote the working from home or whatever else for wellbeing, I think it just promotes better, and greater attraction, and definitely better for the industry, moving forward” (BP03). Culture in Construction: Final Report 78 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3.2.3 Summary of health and wellbeing themes Table 3.6 summarises the themes which have been described in this section of the report. Table 3.6: Summary of themes relating to health and wellbeing Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E Experience of health and wellbeing initiatives • Site facilities support exercise • Emphasis of physical safety and mental wellbeing in pre-start and toolbox meetings • Mental health first aiders • Wellbeing gatherings • Allowance to support workers’ wellbeing expenses • Mental health advisors • Wellbeing catch-ups and gatherings • Wellbeing gatherings • Wellbeing days • Allowance to support workers’ wellbeing expenses • Wellbeing gatherings • Employee assistance program • Fortnightly RDO’s/wellbeing days • R U OK day promotions and conversations • Free health scans and consultations • Wellbeing gatherings • Mental health first aiders • Wellbeing gatherings Wellbeing culture • Participants felt their health and wellbeing valued and supported • The support for health and wellbeing at the Pilot Projects was perceived to be greater than the industry norm • Leadership behaviour was seen as contributing to the positive culture for health and wellbeing • Improved health and wellbeing can help to improve attraction and help retention of workers Culture in Construction: Final Report 79 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3.3 Gender diversity and inclusion This section is arranged under the following areas: • gender diversity in construction roles • gender inclusion and support, and • inappropriate language and behaviour still occurs. The end of the section includes a table summarising these areas. 3.3.3.1 Gender diversity in construction roles Interview participants commented on the higher-than-normal representation of women in site-based roles at the Pilot Projects: “I think there's just general level of inclusiveness. We have a lot of female engineers here and even the onsite staff, there's good contingent of females there… I know there just is a good inclusion and participation level of women in this project, which has been good” (AP11, man in professional role). Another worker at Project C observed the representation of women to be above average at the project: “It seems like there’s a lot more women on the project… probably has a lot more than a typical builder. So yes, there’s definitely more” (CP29, man in a supervisory role for a subcontractor). A woman at Project A indicated that the presence of other women in the workplace was a source of support to her in her operational site-based job role: “Just having female engineers in this team for me has made a phenomenal difference… It’s just nice to feel supported by your fellow females. That’s definitely a big difference for me… you know, it’s like a social thing as well. It’s just nice to have the girls there” (AP15, woman in professional role). Participants at all five Pilot Projects observed that there were very few women in trades roles, which was indicative of an industry-wide low levels of gender diversity in the trade-based workforce: “We typically don't have many females in our trades… But there's definitely discussions around it and how to improve it… at the end of the day we can request for as many females as possible, but the reality is there's just not many out there in our service trades right now” (CP29). Given the shortage of women in trades, some projects found it challenging to reach the diversity performance levels set out in the Culture Standard. For example, a participant commented: “Culture in Construction have a target that we want a certain percentage… And that’s one of the targets. So in that sense that is a good thing. But it’s hard. It’s like you’re asking someone when the whole industry is 20% and then you force it to be 40%... I think we need to increase the talent pool first before having that target for the project” (DP18, woman in professional role). A manager at Project C observed that promoting construction careers in schools can help in the recruitment of women into the sector: “As the builder, we’ve got women in our office but the women in trades is probably the side of thing that might need a bit of a push… we can try and implement things at our level to bring women across but it starts from school, so the schools probably need to assist in that to bring the construction industry forward” (CP01, man in managerial role). Project D ran a TAFE/school outreach program with the aim of helping to attract more women into the industry: “At this project we've done a sponsorship with Chisholm to promote female graduates. I also Culture in Construction: Final Report 80 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT know they will be sponsoring high school as well, so embedding the engineering culture for the younger generation so that more females can go into the industry” (DP12, woman in professional role). At Project B, a specifically employed Female Participation Advisor was tasked with collaborating with subcontractors to better understand the barriers to attracting more women into their organisations: “[the Female Participation Advisor] has done two subcontractor forums for our site... we're trying to figure out what their implications are. What's stopping them getting women in their trades? and stuff like that” (BP09, woman in professional role). Although women at the Pilot Projects were generally very supportive of the gender diversity initiatives that were being implemented, some felt concerned about perceptions that they were favourably treated because of their gender: “I do get more opportunities because I'm female. Like opportunities to network, involvement in more mentor programs, invites to go to industry events and all sorts of things that expand your career generally. You know that you're an in-demand commodity. We have control. They don't really care how competent you are… it is a hard thing when you change jobs and you wonder if they hired me because I'm female or because I'm good at my job. So you got to prove yourself once you're there. But like to get a job as a female in construction is not hard. Which I have issues with itself because it's a really complex thing… I am aware that I am a positive commodity for a company to have, but I also really want be good at it” (CP24, woman in professional role). One woman described feeling conflicted that she decided to stop participating in activities specifically implemented to support women: “I want to be treated equally. I don't want to be pulling away and going on luncheons or going to meetings just because I'm a female. I work just as much as the men. So why are they not getting, oh, well, what about men in construction? They're doing a great job too, but for us it felt like we were getting special treatment. Look, I didn't want keep doing that. I didn't want to keep being segregated. I'm in a team, so it doesn't matter if I'm male, female or whatever you want to identify yourself as. I work just as much as the men” (AP02). While the Culture Standard has been effective in addressing issues relating to gender diversity, there was also a belief that change requires higher level executive leadership support within organisations in the sector, including smaller organisations in the supply network: “It's more the people that in the higher positions of these tier three, tier four companies that need to make this initiative and really look out for the changes that really is required in the industry. Because it's always going to trickle from the top down. It's never going to be from the bottom up. We can have marches, we can have strikes, but if it's not going to move the principals and the directors and the CEOs then it's really not going to really do much” (CP09). 3.3.3.2 Gender inclusion and support All Pilot Projects indicated a commitment to creating inclusive workplaces for women. Interview participants shared their experiences of the initiatives they were aware of at each project. Project A established clear policies regarding inappropriate behaviour in worker contracts and inductions, which resulted in some women feeling more confident in reporting experiences of inappropriate behaviour: “I know that there's a zero tolerance for sexual harassment and bullying. That’s made clear in your contract but also in the site inductions. So from a policy point of view there are things in place and I feel very comfortable that if somebody had done something that I could report that and something would be done about it” (AP08, woman in professional role). A tradeswoman at Project B felt that she wasn’t sexualised at work and would report any inappropriate behaviour as she was confident that it would be dealt with appropriately which helped her to feel safe at Culture in Construction: Final Report 87 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT He continued: “I thought people would obviously like it, but it went from people complaining to people, in some instances not wanting to leave. You talk to people, their next job’s a 6-day work week or whatever, and they’re like, ‘How am I going back to working six days?’ They were the people who were complaining when they got here six months earlier” (CP08). One of the reasons for the change in subcontracted workers’ perceptions was believed to be the realisation (learned through experience) that the modified work schedule had minimal impact on their weekly earnings: “…we keep the site open from 7:00am to 6:00pm at night and people, if they are driven by how much money they take home at the end of the week, there’s hours available there to work between Monday and Friday, and they still don’t have to come in Saturday” (CP08). It was a common view that people have to experience the 5-day week themselves in order to develop a realistic understanding of the costs and benefits associated with the change. For example, a managerial participant explained: “I think everyone has got to just experience it, to be honest, to show that it works. That’s probably the biggest thing from the subcontractor perspective is just people turn up, they’re a little bit hesitant to change, and then all that starts to go away and those people actually start to live the initiatives and the positive impact that’s having on their life” (CP08). Another participant observed: “…things have changed, and for the better. You don't know any different [when working on a Saturday]. That's why you think that people are weak and need the 5-day work week because they're not born tough anymore. But you don't know any better, that's all you did, until you start experiencing the 5-day work week” (BP09). Despite this evidence that many people changed their opinions, some people (n=10, 12.7% of waged interviewees who had participated in more than one interview) remained opposed to the 5-day week throughout the duration of the Pilot Project data collection period. This was often due to specific family circumstances. For example, one waged worker at Project A explained that she would rather work on alternate weekends when her children are with her ex-partner. She indicated she liked being busy and wanted to earn additional money. “…because I don’t like being at home. I’d rather be at work. I’d rather be busy and working rather than, especially on the weekends that I don’t have the kids and they are not there to distract me. Yeah, that affects me. [I prefer a 6-day week], financially and mentally” (AP07 – early 40s, shares custody of children with ex-partner). In the fourth round of interviews, this worker still held this preference: “I prefer to work every Saturday”. In the fifth interview round she further commented that co-workers who have joined the Pilot Project would also prefer to work a 6-day week: “So everyone that I’ve spoken to, and they’re like, ‘Why aren’t we working this Saturday?’ and I explain to them about the 50-hour week… And they’re like, ‘What is that bullshit?’” (AP07). A salaried worker also at Pilot Project A noted that many waged workers are on the project for too short a duration to experience the benefits associated with the 5-day schedule: “… a lot of the guys that I’ll induct, they’re only here for a little time, probably 40% odd people that come through the induction may be here for two days a week, even two weeks... And then they’ve gone to another job…and/or on a Saturday go to another site… So they don’t get exposure to get the benefits of the 5-day week” (AP06). A waged worker at Pilot Project A stated his intention to look for additional Saturday work in the second round of interviews: “I’ll probably find myself finding a Saturday here and there on another site and not doing this 5-day week”. When he was interviewed again in the fourth round of interviews, this worker’s views had not changed: “Suppose I’ve just had time to actually see how this is affecting me monetarily, so not having the option to work the extra Saturdays if you want is not something that I’m really all that keen on, to be honest” (AP13 – 40s, married with dependent children). Culture in Construction: Final Report 88 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT When asked if they had been working other jobs on Saturdays, he responded: “A couple of times, yeah… I think we’re at the point now in our lives where you’ve only got so much time you can be working and making money… I think this is sort of taking away from that a little bit” (AP13). Another waged worker at Pilot Project A indicated a similar desire to make as much money as possible: “Coming from what I was doing, the money’s better here, but I’m happy to work more hours” (AP01 – married, late 20s with dependent children). In the fourth round of interviews, this worker indicated that that he would still like to have the option to work Saturdays and explained this in terms of the impacts of escalating costs of living: “You’d still have it optional. If the work’s there you can work. I would for sure… Yeah if the work’s there I’ll take it. Cost of living is ridiculous at the moment” (AP01). By the fifth round of interviews, this worker maintained his view, explaining that he wants to earn as much money as possible whilst he is fit and able to do so, especially as he has travelled for work: “I would work as much as I could. While you're still fit enough to get work, I suppose do it… I think most people want to just be while they're working and make the most money they can, you know what I mean? You are not going to be working forever. You're coming down this way, so why not? Well, for me anyway, I'm traveling. So if I'm here to make money, I'll stay” (AP01). A waged worker at Pilot Project E stated that, while he would prefer to work a 5-day week, he believes people in other circumstances, e.g. younger people with dependent children, need to make as money as possible to cope with rising costs of living: “I’m all right, but my partner works full-time. We don’t owe much… that’s only because of my age. I speak to a young fellow that I work with. He does not want to go home early. He relies on the overtime to get that extra dollar. He’s trying to buy a house. He’s 25 so got a young family. He’s locked down to do that whereas I’m not. I could walk away from this tomorrow if I really wanted to” (EP28 – 38 years old, partnered with no children). Views of key decision-makers In addition to Pilot Project participants, some KDM participants also shared their views on changing perceptions about the 5-day week. We have added their views to this section. One of the participants in the Stage One KDM interviews (a state-based trade union leader) described how site-based construction workers who are paid a wage would need some time to adjust to working a 5-day week. This participant described how these workers would be initially sceptical based on the expectation that their wages would be reduced: “Somebody said to me, ‘You’ve got to understand, I live on a budget. Me working Saturday is the payment on the new car for my family. Everything’s budgeted. $400 that I earn on Saturday is budgeted for that car.’ We’ve sat down and explained “Listen, if you work it out, you’re going to work a little bit longer hours during the week. It’ll work our almost the same but you’re going to have more leisure time with your family”. And once you explain…they almost look at you like ‘What’s the trick? What’s the game here?’” (KDM10) This union leader expressed the belief that once workers had experienced working a 5-day week, they would change their minds: “People don’t like change. You’ve got to drive it and you’ve got to show people and give them a little bit of a taste of it…You’ve got a person that’s used to working every Saturday all of a sudden working a little bit longer and then having that Saturday with their family and doing things with their kids they normally wouldn’t have done except once in a blue moon when they have a Saturday lockdown weekend. And they get a taste of it, and I think it just puts a whole new perspective on it” (KDM10). Culture in Construction: Final Report 89 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Another state-based union leader who represents members who have tried a 5-day week similarly explained: “We weren’t sure how our members would react, particularly some of the older members we thought might be against it. We were proven wrong there. The majority of them, once they worked on a job that was a 5-day week and they’re at home on the weekend and there’s no loss of money there, they were over the moon with it” (KDM18). 3.3.5 Future of the Culture Standard Pilot Project interview participants were asked about potential for future implementation of the Culture Standard across the broader industry, and several themes emerged: • government and union support • private clients and contractors • project leadership, and • cost and time pressure 3.3.5.1 Role of government and union support In their role as the client of many construction projects, government agencies are perceived to play an integral role in implementing the Culture Standard more broadly across the construction industry. One way is mandating that programs are tendered on a 5-day work week: • “It's such a cost-driven industry with such tight margins. There needs to be something from the clients to help incentivise it or mandate it, because otherwise it's going to be very slow to pick up because well, why aren't we working six days, we'll finish the job that much quicker and save on overheads”. (EP21, Utility Supervisor) • “I think it will be pretty quick if it comes from the top. When I say it needs to come from the top, your whole construction program is based on the timelines that you are given or the times that you give them. So, we work on government jobs, with the government projects. If the government says “’You have to make your program so that there’s no Saturday at work’, so you can’t work Saturday. So, if it is made into overall contracts that you can’t work Saturdays, then it will change in no time” (AP18, Project Engineer). Some participants perceived that, if all government-funded projects are scheduled on a 5-day week, industry, take up of the Culture Standard is likely to be quick: “I think all the government jobs it won't take long. A hundred per cent. ... And I think with the government being so interested and invested in this, I don't think it's going to take long” (AP15, Site Engineer). A site manager commented that the government and industry had to work in partnership to lead the implementation of the Culture Standard more broadly: “Government, it should be from the top, that support from the top. It’s communication between the industry with the government. If everyone helps each other to be honest, better lives, better Australia, better everything” (CP06). Another participant highlighted that support from both the government and unions was required to implement the Culture Standard more broadly: “The buy-in from the unions and the government. I think that would be the major buy-ins because one kind of drives the other” (AP04). Culture in Construction: Final Report 90 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3.3.5.2 Private clients and contractors Participants observed that some contractors are already tendering for projects on a 5-day week, often in response to government client requirements. However, they noted that private clients are less inclined to support a 5-day a week construction program due to an expectation that this will increase project duration: “Over the last couple of years I’ve heard there’s a few builders taking on 5-day responsibilities or they are tendering for 5-day working weeks to compete. I believe a lot of government work wants five days a week so, for them to be able to get the jobs they need, to change their programs. So [I’m] hoping that can continue happening. I know when you are talking about private clients, for them they don’t really care much about that, they want the job done faster. I believe when it comes to government work it might be a good way to go but when it comes to private work, private clients, it’s a hard field to change” (CP20, Crane Operator). Another participant similarly observed: “It'll be getting private builders and clients on board with it. I know that a lot of government agencies like [government client name], they've embedded it into their tenders like an option to bid for 5-day working week. In New South Wales, the majority of their projects are 5-day working week. You're getting that backing from the top end and you get them pushed down, like start from the client, pushed down to the managing contractors. They'll be able to set the standard and example, but I think just the private sector would be a bit difficult” (CP31). Participants also observed that, for the Culture Standard to be adopted more widely across the industry, this needs to be client-driven: “It shouldn’t be left up to the contractors to decide because there’s overall pressure for you to deliver in short amount of time because everyone wants things done quickly” (AP18, Project Engineer). Without client intervention, participants believe that only the largest construction companies will engage with the Culture Standard: “The tier ones can lead it, and they're more or less adopting it now” (BP26). Participants observed that many small to medium-sized construction companies have little or no knowledge of the Culture Standard: “I think you’ll find a lot more of the builders in the tier one, tier two space, that’s the people who deliver to hospitals and schools, the bigger companies. I think they’re more susceptible to implementing the change. It would be [tier 1 company name]. I think it’s going to take everyone to get exposed to these projects at some point in time for the pendulum to really swing. We’re talking about a pretty small portion of the subcontract market being exposed to it [the Culture Standard] at this point in time. I think it will take a while” (CP08, Project Manager). This is despite the fact that participants also acknowledged that industry-wide implementation of the Culture Standard would require all stakeholders within the supply chain to be engaged in the implementation process: “They [tier 1 companies] recognise that there needs to be an industry change. It can't just be [tier 1 company name] because you're relying upon the supply chain” (AP20). 3.3.5.3 Project leadership At a project level, those in leadership roles were perceived to play a critical role in enabling the implementation of the Culture Standard. In particular, “old-school” management thinking was considered to be a potential barrier to wider adoption of the Culture Standard: “Mostly I would say mindset of the managers who are running the project, it’s got to be changed. The old-school managers prefer things to be done their way for a number of good reasons, but probably it will be harder for them to get onto that train of the Culture Standard and the 5-day week” (EP48, Planner / Programmer). Project management commitment and leadership was identified as being crucial to effective implementation: “I really think it depends on the project manager driving it and the team. I think if you don't have the project manager on board, then it's really hard for the rest of the team to get on board. Culture in Construction: Final Report 91 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT And I think those initial conversations where we did that time for life session really made sure that we were all on the same page. But we also had a great group of people. So if you had the same conditions, it [adoption of the Culture Standard] shouldn't take long. But if you had a Project Manager that isn't onboard, then it would be difficult” (EP15, Contract Administrator). 3.3.5.4 Cost and time pressure Cost and times pressures were also identified as potential barriers to the industry-wide acceptance and implementation of the Culture Standard. One participant anticipated that delays in project delivery would be unacceptable to many stakeholders, including government agencies: “Money talks. If you want to have a 5-day week, if you don’t want someone to work on Saturday, how’s the project going to look like if they’re not going to be finished in that amount of years. Is the government going to be okay with that? Is that stakeholder going to be okay with it? Is the public okay with that? So, I don’t know, tunnel, bridge and road will be delayed by one year just because the crew want to have Saturday off” (EP48). Other participants similarly perceived that cost and schedule considerations would act as a barrier to the adoption of the Culture Standard outside large government contracts: “I’m sure with the government projects, yes, you will get across the line without a doubt. I’m talking about your schools, possibly hospitals and all that. But I don’t think it would go with your commercial side of things. I think the client itself and the high demands of everything, I don’t know, I’m just guessing, sort of what I think will happen and obviously the constraint of the program and timeframes” (CP28). Some participants suggested that more information is required for the industry to better understand the impact of the 5-day work schedule on labour productivity, project timeframes, and cost: “In order for that to happen, there will probably be the research on it to prove that it’s more productive, or same level of productiveness but much better wellbeing. And also I think the main driver, obviously, for lots of things, is money” (CP33). This same participant went on to explain that, if it is clear that the 5-day week has no negative impact on project delivery then others in the industry would potentially be more willing to implement the Culture Standard: “Say the NSW Government is doing a school and would only take tenders from builders that are doing a 5-day work week and can prove that under a 5-day work week, you can meet the program, and cost targets and budgets. I feel like if we do a few more jobs and it goes really well, and a bit more research it will definitely help, just to prove to the industry that it works and it really doesn’t negatively impact project delivery” (CP33). 3.4 Analysis of costs and benefits associated with implementing the Culture Standard This section of the report outlines key findings from the cost benefit analysis undertaken by Frontier Economics. Findings are reported under the topics of: • project cost and time • quality of life • turnover and absenteeism • worker remuneration • health and safety impacts Culture in Construction: Final Report 92 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT • women’s representation, and • travel cost savings 3.4.1 Project cost and time The impact of the time for life provisions on a project’s overall cost was difficult to determine. This is because it was not possible to define a reliable and robust ‘counterfactual’ against which to compare or benchmark the costs of delivering the Pilot Projects. The costs of large scale, bespoke construction projects are affected by numerous factors including the specific scale and nature of the work, the state of the economy, level of activity in the construction sector more broadly, weather and environmental conditions among many other factors. Controlling for these various factors in the context of the cost benefit analysis was not possible. Hence the cost benefit analysis did not provide observable evidence to suggest that the application of the time for life provisions in the Pilot Projects would either increase or decrease the cost of delivering these projects. However, there was also no clear reason to expect the Pilot Projects were delayed on the basis of implementing the Culture Standard time for life provisions, given there was only a small change in scheduled hours worked. If labour productivity and worker utilisation remained unaffected, then working the same number of hours - albeit at different times - should not be assumed to lead to an extension in project program or substantial increase in cost. Indeed, although the findings of the cost benefit analysis undertaken by Frontier Economics found no evidence to suggest that the Culture Standard improved cost and time performance, neither was there any evidence to suggest that the time for life provisions adversely affected the cost or time required to deliver the Pilot Projects. 3.4.2 Quality of life Majority of workers prefer a 5-day week schedule Frontier Economics argued that workers themselves are in the best position to judge whether the time for life provisions, and the Culture Standard more generally, improved their quality of life. In considering different work schedules and hours, workers will necessarily consider both the impact of the provision on their take home pay and their activities and relationships outside of work. Findings from the Pilot Projects indicated that the modified work schedules implemented under the Culture Standard, including increased flexibility, were preferred by the majority of workers who participated in the surveys and interviews. This was true irrespective of a worker’s family structure and irrespective of whether they were salaried or waged workers. This stated majority preference suggests that these changes improved their quality of life. All things being equal, if the majority of workers prefer the revised scheduling arrangements and there are no wider costs for society, then the Culture Standard time for life provisions can be considered to drive value, reflecting a positive outcome. However, it is also worth noting that preferences were not universal and, unsurprisingly, varied between individual workers. In particular, the survey results suggest that preferences were less clear in respect to hours worked, with the majority of participants suggesting they would prefer to work about the same number of hours at both the Pilot Projects and the Non-Culture Standard projects that were surveyed for comparative purposes. The preference of some individuals to work more hours should also be expected. This likely reflects the economic climate and the cost-of-living challenges being experienced at the time of the Pilot Projects. However, more generally, preferences should be expected to vary depending on an individuals’ stage of Culture in Construction: Final Report 93 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT life, with some workers looking to save up for big expenditure items such as buying a house or a wedding. In this context it is the flexibility provisions that can really be expected to drive value as they enable workers to self-select and either choose to work more or less depending on their preferences. A critical feature of the Culture Standard is that it allows participation in project-based jobs that is not predicated on the requirement (and workers’ ability) to work a 6-day week. Flexibility related provisions are likely to be as important in driving value for workers It is reasonable to expect that workers value flexibility and that giving individuals the option to adjust their hours in line with their individual circumstances will drive a significant portion of the value of implementing the Culture Standard. There appeared to be significant uptake of the programs put in place by the Pilot Projects to enable flexibility to meet the time for life requirements. Frontier Economics would expect these provisions to be material in driving worker preferences and views. Increased flexibility in the hours workers can choose to work creates benefits. Firstly, enhanced flexibility enables workers to self-select into the work hour/schedule that best suits them and their circumstances and drives the most value for them as an individual. When individuals are able to select the working option that best delivers value to them, this helps the Culture Standard drive value more generally (subject to this not creating negative impacts on other parties i.e. driving up workplace accidents or affecting the efficiency of the program of works more generally). Secondly, it creates an options value i.e. it provides workers in the sector with a future option to adapt their hours of work in the face of circumstances which can be expected to change over time. This creates additional value and would be expected to encourage workers to remain in the sector and drive additional productivity benefits for society. 3.4.3 Turnover and absenteeism While absenteeism data was inconclusive, the Pilot Projects typically experienced lower levels of staff turnover when compared to average head contractor organisational outcomes. Turnover With the exception of one project (Project E), the difference in employee turnover rates was notable across Pilot Projects. The figure below shows how average annual turnover rates differed across the Pilot Projects. Average annual turnover amongst staff employed at the Pilot Projects was around 21.2% whereas average annual turnover within the head contractors’ total workforce was averaged around 25.6% per annum, as summarised in Figure 3.47. This result implies that, on average across the Pilot Projects, turnover in head contractors’ staff employed at the Pilot Projects was 4.4% lower in absolute terms compared to the average of the organisational workforce. Culture in Construction: Final Report 94 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Source: Frontier Economics analysis of head contractor data Figure 3.47: Annual average turnover rates amongst staff employed on the pilot project vs the wider applicable organisation This difference in turnover can be valued using the avoided costs of onboarding new staff incurred by contractors. Estimates from head contractors suggest that this could be in the order of $13,000 to $25,940, with the latter figure also being consistent with government estimates that suggest the cost of staff turnover to an organisation is approximately 30% of a worker’s weekly earnings. To give some context to the significance of this change, if this same reduction in turnover could be achieved across the NSW and Victorian sector as a result of the industry-wide rollout of the Culture Standard, then this would generate avoided costs for the industry of between $386 -771 million dollars per annum. Absenteeism Using data provided by Pilot Project head contractors, Frontier Economics also sought to identify whether there was an observable difference in the levels of absenteeism among employees working on the Pilot Projects when compared to average estimates for the head contractors’ organisations more generally over the same period of time. Specifically, Frontier Economics measured the differences in the average hours of sick leave per employee. Ultimately this analysis was inconclusive. Levels of sick leave were higher at two Pilot Projects and lower at two Pilots Projects when compared to organisational data for the same time period. One Pilot Project was excluded from analysis due to a lack of data provided by the head contractor. 3.4.4 Worker renumeration By virtue of there being minimal change in hours worked, it is unlikely that waged workers experienced a significant change in renumeration as a result of altered schedules on the Pilot Projects. This is based on the assumption that overtime rates are the same from Monday to Friday and at the weekend. Similarly, salaried workers are not understood to have faced any change in renumeration when working at the Pilot Projects. This was expressly tested at one of the Pilot Projects with the adopted schedule resulting in Culture in Construction: Final Report 95 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT near equivalent gross annual wages to those that would be expected under typical working arrangements. 3.4.5 Health and safety impacts There are a few pathways through which Frontier Economics would expect the time for life provisions to cause a change in safety incidents, and therefore incident or injury-related health and other outcomes. Examples include: • fatigue – a longer rest over the weekend could lead to a reduction in fatigue and less fatigued workers may be less likely to be involved in a safety incident. There is evidence to suggest working fewer hours in a week would reduce fatigue, but less evidence in relation to change in shifts • stress and mental health – having a larger block of time off could reduce stress levels, and less stressed workers may be less likely to be involved in a safety incident, and • change in behaviour – working more hours across fewer days may cause workers to engage in riskier behaviour to finish work on time, and this behaviour may increase the likelihood of a safety incident. Fundamentally, work health and safety outcomes will depend on how worksites and workers implement the time for life provisions. For instance, workers may be less likely to need to work at a fast pace and rushing their work if the head contractor has considered and made allowances for the time for life provisions when programming the works. On the other hand, worker fatigue may not decrease if workers start working another job in response to lower income (i.e., fewer hours and less overtime) or more time available. Data from the Pilot Projects suggests that work health and safety was not likely affected by the scheduling changes implemented on the pilots. Average total recorded injury frequency rates 5 were lower at Pilot Projects when compared to both industry averages and the average levels for the pilot organisations as a whole. If accurate, this could contribute to avoided costs for industry, workers and society as a whole. 3.4.6 Women’s representation Using data provided by head contractors for the Pilot Projects, Frontier Economics analysed whether there was an observable difference in gender diversity amongst the head contractor’s staff employed at the Pilot Projects as compared to average estimates for the head contractors’ organisations more generally. Specifically, Frontier Economics measured differences in the average proportion of staff employed that identify as female. With the exception of one Pilot Project, the proportion of staff that identify as female was higher at the Pilot Projects. On average 32% of staff employed at the Pilot Projects identified as female, compared to 24% within the head contractors’ workforces more generally. The Culture Standard is intended to, among other things, improve the gender diversity of the construction industry through increased participation of women. Furthermore, the time for life provisions are expected to address some of the barrier and rigidities in work hours and practices that are a cause of low attraction and retention rates of women. Given this, the Culture Standard can reasonably be expected to improve retention in the sector and the matching of skills to jobs. In doing so, it can also be expected to contribute to improve productivity in the sector and the economy more generally. _____ 5 It is acknowledged that relying on total recordable injury frequency rate at project level is statistically p[problematic so this data must be interpreted with caution. Culture in Construction: Final Report 96 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT When workers are not matched to the jobs for which they are best suited, this creates inefficiency in the economy. Improved labour market matching, where workers are able to find and stay in a job that is best suited to their skills and knowledge drives productivity in the economy. Where this is impeded by barriers to entry or rigidities in employment, the optimal matching of skills to jobs is constrained. As noted by the Productivity Commission interventions that lead to an increase in the labour supply pool (such that labour is less scarce) can potentially promote productivity growth where they: • increase the availability of labour with particular in-demand skills ― This can enable businesses to more quickly fill labour or skill gaps, and therefore more fully utilise their other assets, and • remove barriers to the increased participation of highly productive workers that are not in the labour market, or that are working in a lower capacity than their skills and expertise would allow. In addition to leading to productivity improvements, this could also help address worker shortages in the sector that may be constraining output and driving cost escalation. It seems reasonable to expect that the culture of long hours, overtime and extended work weeks may be contributing significantly to the departure of all workers already in the construction industry, and most acutely women because they are more likely to have or expect to have caring responsibilities. Long overtime hours are also seen as a way for construction workers to demonstrate commitment and increase their chances of promotion and even their job security. If women are less willing (or able) to work these long hours (for example due to gendered expectations and non-work responsibilities), then their career prospects may be limited. Career opportunities and the potential for career advancement are strongly linked to a worker’s actual organisational commitment, which is a predictor of employee turnover. The implicit requirement that construction workers are willing to work long overtime hours to be considered for promotion is likely both preventing women from joining the industry, as well as pushing already employed women out of the industry at a rate higher than their male peers. If highly productive workers or workers with in-demand skills are not in the labour market or are not fully utilising their skills and expertise, then removing any barriers to their increased participation would drive productivity growth. Unfortunately, it is not possible to robustly identify the impact of the time for life provisions on gender diversity more broadly. This is because the provisions of the Culture Standard would have driven an intentional shift of women to the Pilot Projects from other projects. However, in the absence of the diversity targets, for the time for life provisions to be effective in retaining and attracting women into the sector they would need to be applied more broadly within the industry. 3.4.7 Travel cost savings A direct benefit of a shorter work week is a reduction in transport costs incurred by construction workers. Working one less day means that workers save on travel costs including time spent travelling (where there is an opportunity cost to this time). Society more generally also potentially benefits from reduced vehicle emissions. It is possible to estimate these values based on publicly available data on construction workers’ work and travel patterns and Australian Transport Assessment and Planning monetisation values. Culture in Construction: Final Report 103 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Interview results at the Pilot Projects also suggest that the Culture Standard may help organisations to better recruit and retain employees. For example, some women who participated in the interviews indicated the 5-day work week influenced their decision to work in their current role. A woman worker in a professional role commented: “I haven't worked a 6-day, my expectations of having to work a 6-day week, I wouldn’t actually be working for this company if that was the case. I think coming in and working, I’ve been corporate my whole life, just a 5-day week” (DP01). This worker recently moved into the construction industry from another industry. Another woman in a site-based role also indicated that she joined the construction industry because she could work between Monday and Friday: “I came from hospitality, and I was an operations manager there, where I was predominantly a lot of nights and weekend work. I got into this industry, in this job in particular, because they actually said it’s going to be a Monday to Friday, and obviously, you don’t work nights … so that was really appealing to me” (DP05). Other participants who have worked in construction for some time, indicated they strongly preferred to work a 5-day work week. A professional woman described the 5-day week as a “dealbreaker” for her in terms of remaining in the industry: “I’ve worked on maybe four different jobs previously, and all of them have been five days. But for a couple of years there I was working 60-hour weeks, just in five days. … I would never do six days again; I would just find a different job. My reflection is that it’s necessary for me, and that it’s a really positive thing, that you need to enjoy work, you need time, like enough time away” (AP08). Interview participants also described flexible work as a key feature affecting the retention of women in construction roles: “I think flexibility is probably the main one isn't it, for women?. … [W]omen want to go to a job where they can see long term prospects of having a family” (P20 – male managerial worker). It was observed that women who have children find it difficult to join or return to work after childbirth because of their caring responsibilities. One woman explained: “[M]y daughters are both… one’s 20, she drives, my other daughter’s 16, nearly 17, so she catches public transport to school which is not far at all. They’re very independent which is hence why I’ve just sort of started to get into this industry. I would have liked to have got into it a lot sooner, but with having young kids… [It was not possible]” (AP02). Women whose domestic partners are also in construction find participating in construction industry roles particularly challenging: “My partner is [an]… engineer as well, and he's working full-time. Since my younger child now joined school, I feel comfortable to join the [construction] industry” (AP20). Importantly, the Culture Standard includes requirements for organisations to develop and provide a flexibility plan to support and promote flexibility for people in both office and site-based roles (Culture Standard Part 2.2). A woman in a supervisory role explained: “When I came back [from maternity leave] they [the project leadership team] understood if I wanted to come back early or said if I wanted to come back late. So I think it's been very great for me. 100% great. And they even brought up the conversation of where I can do career development, even if I'm part-time and what do I want to do in the future? I think it's pretty good”. (AP04). Another woman worker in a professional role observed: “And then with kids and stuff in the middle of it. I don’t think long term unless it’s a massive shift towards shorter hours, more flexibility that I will be in the industry for that long” (AP24). Participants observed how the implementation of the Culture Standard would provide more opportunities in the industry for women with caring responsibilities, who may otherwise perceive that they will not be able to pursue construction careers if they have children: “It would be a very good, I guess, standing point for obviously females thinking of having families. It’s definitely opened up doors for opportunities for us to obviously, don't get scared of actually having a family and being accepted as being mothers” (P09). Men who participated in the interviews also described the Culture Standard as attracting them to work at one of the Pilot Projects: “I just previously come off of another major project and where I was supervisor, and I was just worked into the ground. So, when it came to moving on ... I basically had to court four Culture in Construction: Final Report 104 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT options. And this one appealed to me the most because I would have time back for myself. Instead of working 70, 80, 90 hours a week, they were saying it would be capped at 55 a week. I’d have my weekends, my RDOs. Basically, a life again. So, that did entice me to this project” (DP04 – subcontracted worker in a supervisory role). A man in a managerial role similarly commented: “…the company I was previously at still do the 6-day working weeks. But there’s an element within the 6-day working weeks was, there was a perception that it wasn’t the whole company doing it. There was only select people who did it and it wasn’t even really the whole site that did it. And so there was that element there that it felt unfair in a way. So definitely coming here, there was the 5-day working week was a major influence” (CP26). Another man in a professional role explained: “…we used to be called on site on Saturdays as well, never on this project so far. So, if there is something planned, like nightshifts, which was a few times, it was discussed prior … a few weeks prior so you know aware of that, but I don’t remember any Saturday works, which is amazing for me. That was the main reason for me to join that particular project with this particular company” (EP34). Site-based workers compared the different sectors of the construction industry and observed that some sectors of the industry currently only work 5-days a week. The 5-day week schedule at the Pilot Project was a key factor in this person joining a major public infrastructure construction project: “…I suppose the [work schedule] aspect was told to me quite early as well, an appealing part of me joining the organisation around the 5-day working week…I’ve had the exposure to the residential medium density construction sector which was a lot of hours and working for the principal builder, you’re opening sites and closing sites. … And so when it was told to me that we were doing a 5-day week, and I’d just come out of an industry for the last 15 years that only worked on a 5-day week, being residential medium density construction sector. And that was one of my stepping-stones to get out of that area of construction profession” (AP06). When asked whether they would prefer to work under the Culture Standard in future projects, the majority of interview participants indicated a strong preference to continue working under the time for life provisions of the Culture Standard, which cap weekly working hours at 50 and require individual workers to work no more than 55 hours per week, being distributed over five days in every seven (Culture Standard Part 2.1). A man in a managerial role explained: “To me, I think I wouldn’t work another 6-day program. I don’t know, I don’t think there’s any benefit, personally. I think it’s huge benefits not working a 6-day week, for people. And I don’t think there’s any real damage to the overall value given back to client” (BP03). Another man in a site supervisory role observed: “If I was to get put on a 6-day project again, I’d have to reevaluate [whether to remain in that job]” (CP15). A professional woman worker similarly commented: “I don’t know how I could go back to the 6-day week. This [project] has definitely set a benchmark for me” (BP03). Another woman in a managerial role shared similar intentions: “I think it’s generally, for the whole team, it creates a more cohesive environment. There’s not that divide with people that are working Saturdays and feel like they’re working harder or more, or feel like they’re entitled to more, so I would definitely look to work a 5-day week [in the future]” (BP10). 3.5.2 Were the expected costs associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard observed in the Pilot Projects? The extent to which expected costs were perceived to have flowed from the implementation of the Culture Standard at the five Pilot Projects is considered in the following section according to the following topics: Culture in Construction: Final Report 105 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT • excessive fatigue and reduced productivity • waged workers affected by loss of income, and • projects cost more/take longer to complete 3.5.2.1 Did workers experience excessive fatigue and reduced productivity? “If you’re looking at the people who do the majority of the work, and that is the construction, the heavy construction critical contractors, and I talk about bricklayers, concreters, steel-fixers and formworkers…they’ll tell you that they will not get more productivity or output from their employees past eight hours a day because they go hard. So the two hours extra or two and a half hours extra, whatever it is, on the site in many cases I understand the subcontractors say, ‘Well, past 3:30 I don’t get more bricks laid really’, so they just go home. They’re spent” (KD22, Peak industry body). As relatively few workers in ‘heavy construction’ roles participated in the interviews, it is not possible to assess how the 5-day week impacted their productivity. However, those site-based construction workers who did participate in the research reported a favourable response to the 5-day week. A scaffolder indicated that he felt more productive as he had more time to rest and that his work was up to date: “I find we get more productivity at the workforce because you get time to relax and just have time for yourself. It's been good. Shows on the project as well. We're up to date with everything” (BP43). A bricklayer commented that he felt well-rested and was motivated to do things to support his own health and wellbeing: “It's definitely enough rest because before I used to... So I've lost in the last three months, it's been on this job as well, I've lost 27 kilos. ... Just feel more motivated to do stuff” (BP39). Participants in other physically-based roles also agreed that the 5-day week did not have a negative impact on their productivity. For example, a carpenter felt less exhausted by the end of the week due to having two days to rest and recover and prepare for the following week of work: “I feel a lot less exhausted by the end [of the week]. Fridays are a lot better when you know you’re not working on Saturday. You feel like you never really had that the last couple of years but now it’s like when you get to Friday, it’s a good push to get to Friday. You know you’re going to be able to have two days off, so it’s good” (BP46). A plumber reported working more efficiently and productively over the 5-days: “I'd much rather do longer days and have the more days off. It’s definitely you got to work faster. You should ask my boss. … I just do it better and quicker” (CP23). A crane coordinator similarly reported that a 5-day week helped to overcome fatigue: “I’m happy with a 5-day working week. Being a craney, you’re always first on site, last to leave, and six days of that, you’re very fatigued by the end of it “(BP05). A sprinkler fitter did not believe there was a difference in productivity between a 5-day and 6-day week due to the fatigue associated with long hours: “I’d say it’s about the same because I think, no matter what, people start getting tired anyway, so they might be here doing more hours, but for the last few hours of it, they’re probably doing less work. Just because of fatigue I suppose” (BP52). In contrast, a supervisor had observed that workers in physically-demanding roles did get tired from working longer hours over the 5-day week and that productivity was impacted: “I don’t think you get the productivity as what you did before. I actually think it’s worse, productivity-wise. On the sheer, simple fact that people get fatigued after the day. … The guys actually physically doing the work, they get more fatigued by doing the longer hours during the day. … And so you notice, maybe on a Thursday, Friday, they’re looking at bit weary, gradually getting wearier” (BP13). Culture in Construction: Final Report 106 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Section 3.5.1.1 addresses the issue of productivity from a broader sample of interview participants and considers this under the topic of rest and recovery. As there was limited Pilot Project data on the experience of the 5-day week from bricklayers, concreters, steel-fixers and form-workers, additional information was sought from these workers and is presented in Box 2. Box 2: Impact of the 5-day week on physically demanding occupations During the key decision-maker Stage One interviews, a question was raised around the viability of a 5day week for occupations engaged in physically demanding roles, particularly concreters, steel-fixers, form-workers, and bricklayers. As our interviews did not cover the issue in depth, we asked these occupations working at Project B to share their experience of working a 5-day week under the Culture Standard. The head contractor of Project B asked these occupations the following questions: Did they deliver the work in the same number of hours as they would have estimated at the time of tender? • Were actual hours the same as estimated, or different? • If the same number of hours were worked as estimated, how was this achieved? Did their crews work longer hours from Monday to Friday? If so, how many hours per day? Did they put more workers on to the tasks for fewer hours, or were they able to achieve productivity improvements (in which case hours worked may have been fewer than estimated)? Concreters The estimated work hours at the tender stage is exactly what has been worked to date at Project B by concreters. On non-Culture Standard projects, the usual working hours of concreters is 10-15 hours on most days, therefore the 10-hour workday at Project B has not been significantly different from the concreters’ daily work hours on other projects. The working schedule preference of concreters at Project B is for a 5-day working week. The concreting company has a fatigue management policy in place which they use to ensure that their workforce is safe and alert. The concreters report that all pours have gone reasonably well and any delays that have occurred were due to concrete supply being slow on the day. The concreting teams on the ground are efficient and working well. Steel-fixers The estimated hours tendered are very similar to what has been worked at Project B by steel-fixers. There may have been a few extra hours required but not a lot. The steel-fixers have been working 10 hours from Monday to Thursday and 8 hours on Friday. The additional hours worked on Monday to Thursday have caused some additional fatigue, however, the company has been managing this and it is not long lasting. The site supervisor stated that this program was preferred by the team and the preference is for 5-day work weeks. Form-workers Form-workers have required more hours than originally tendered due to program overrun and variations at Project B. The form-workers have worked from Monday to Thursday for 10 hours and 8 hours on Friday for 90% of the contract period and are now currently doing 8-hour days. There have been fatigue issues within this workgroup as they have not been getting home until late. Workers would be happy with 9-hour days from Monday to Friday. Some form-workers prefer the 5-day program, while others prefer a 6-day program due to the double time available on a Saturday. Culture in Construction: Final Report 107 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Bricklayers Bricklayers at Project B have been working the same hours as per the tender submission. From November 2023 to March 2024, the bricklayers were working 10 hours a day five days a week. Extra workers were added to the project to meet the program. The bricklayers’ preference is for 10-hour days, five days a week. The project management team have noticed higher productivity as a result of implementing the 5-day week program. 3.5.2.2 Were waged workers affected by loss of income? “Most of these guys – a lot of them are earning a lot of money. Like, our tunnellers are earning over $300,000 a year. And they look at the money they earn, they would look and say, how much is this going to cost me? because… if I’ve decided that this is the direction that I want to take and this is my career path, and I’m young and I’m able to put in a lot of these hours and you’re restricting me from earning money, there will be some people that are pissed off with that. There will be other people that say, it’s not going to be that much, and I get an extra day off a week, I’m pretty happy with that. But I think something like this could take a generation” (KD13, Trade union leader). To find a compromise between capping workdays at five and minimising loss of income for waged workers, each of the Pilot Projects scheduled regular overtime over the five days. As a result, the majority of waged workers experienced minimal impact on their weekly income. Participants commented that working overtime from Monday to Friday and not working on Saturday had not had a substantial impact on their income. For example, a traffic controller commented that his income had been slightly impacted but the time off was worth it: “[On previous jobs] we used to finish up at 5 o’clock and now we’re finishing up at 6. You usually did 6 hours on a Saturday, so really you’re actually gaining 5 hours Monday to Friday from the 6 hours that you’ve lost for Saturday, so you’re dropping an hour. If I left here at 5 o’clock every day I’ll drop $225 per week because the majority of it is tax. So for me the 225 doesn’t matter for the quality of life that I will have” (BP07). Similarly, a site manager explained how the extra hours worked during the week offset the loss of income of Saturday: “We’re doing some overtime during the week, so it’s not really a big impact to be honest. They (teammates) are on wages. For them, no, they haven’t got impact that much because every day they’re doing these two extra hours, so it’s makes up like that Saturday” (CP06). A leading hand/plumber noted that income was similar when working overtime hours from Monday to Friday versus no overtime during the week and working on Saturday: “They're quite similar” (CP23). A plant operator also explained: “That was exactly the same as the previous project. I would've got an extra couple of hours for a Saturday, but the tax man hits you for a Saturday anyway” (EP27). Similarly, another traffic controller commented: “Because we do the long days Monday to Friday, like for me that is enough overtime. And then because we are not working Saturday, we are not getting taxed as much either” (BP17). Some participants noted that they there was minimal impact on pay when they factored in travel expense savings when not working on a Saturday. For example, a bricklayer commented: “I think it sort of works out the same. There’s probably only a little bit of a difference but I’m trying to work out – there’s only a little bit of a difference with the travel for the day. I don’t really know how it works but I’m not too worried about it, the $40 or whatever. To get off the Saturday I’m happy to spend $40” (BP39). However, it is important to also note that some waged workers – at all Pilot Projects - were concerned about the loss of income associated with the 5-day week. For example, one site supervisor noted: “Let's Culture in Construction: Final Report 108 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT be more honest. So you work five days and you work six days, there's totally different pay because I'm on hourly rate. So you're losing that amount on Saturday because we get double pay” (CP16). A labourer/traffic controller who is a single parent similarly commented: “As a single mum it is a significant difference compared to working six days a week and working between 10 and 12 hours a day, it’s a significant amount” (AP07). For some participants, increased cost of living was cited as a reason why they would like to work additional hours, including Saturdays. For example: “You’d like to keep it five [days], but the cost of living going up too high and all that, people that would like it are going to be forced to work more” (EP28). Some participants noted that their income can be impacted when the site was closed during the week , for example due to rain, and they were not able to make up for the lost income on a Saturday: “Usually if we get rained off during the week or something, you could always work Saturday to make it [income] up but you know because we can’t work every Saturday, only the ones where the RDOs are or whatever, sort of you miss out on that a little bit” (BP05, crane coordinator). However, for many participants, the drop in income was considered to be worth it, given the extra time this provides with family and to rest and recover: • “If you could work a Saturday, I probably would for money purposes. But it’s good [not to work Saturday], you take advantage of taking a Saturday off, you get to see the kids for another day and they have swimming, so you take them to their things that they do” (AP01 – labourer). • “I’m definitely in the middle. I can go without the money. I need my alone time. Me time” (DP42 – traffic controller). • “Sure, it's a bit less money. The [money] offset out of that [no Saturday work], it's incomparable. The time I'm having with my wife now and getting home on a Friday afternoon and Friday's become more significant” (BP208 - coordinator). See also Section 3.4.4 of the cost benefit analysis findings which considers the impact of the Culture Standard on waged workers’ income. 3.5.2.3 Did projects cost more/take longer to complete? “On the cost, simply, it's going to take longer to build these bits of key infrastructure. That means they're more expensive, less benefit to taxpayers, a long time before they're in service. They're all big negatives” (KD16, Government agency leader). The cost benefit analysis undertaken by Frontier Economics found no evidence to suggest that the Culture Standard adversely affected the cost or time required to deliver the Pilot Projects. Refer to Section 3.4.1 which outlines findings from the cost benefit analysis in relation to cost and time. See also Section 3.5.5 which considers the variance between a 5-day and 6-day tender. 3.5.3 Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in horizontal projects? “If you're working in (a) live road environment, given you've got traffic on it… you're not going to be digging up the road at 9AM on a Monday morning at peak hour… you'll be doing night works and you'll be doing weekend works and you'll probably be doing works over holiday periods, because that’s when you can get access. And the same in the rail space. In fact, more so in the rail space. You know, you're not Culture in Construction: Final Report 109 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT going to close the rail network down in normal business hours, because that’s when people want the rail network to be operating” (KD12, Government agency leader). During the first-round key decision-maker interviews, some stakeholders questioned whether it is feasible to implement the Culture Standard in ‘horizontal’ construction projects, i.e. in the construction of civil engineering infrastructure projects such as railways, roads, bridges, tunnels etc., which often require periods of high intensity work, night shifts or 24 hour/seven day week operations. Although the Culture Standard encourages projects to operate from Monday to Friday, it is important to note that this is not prescriptive – if working on weekends is demonstrated to be necessary for a project’s viability, organisations can implement alternate working schedules. The Culture Standard’s time for life component requires that: a) no workers work more than 55 hours per week and, b) all workers work on a 5-day per week program. Working within these parameters, organisations can program their projects in a variety of different ways. Importantly, the Pilot Projects at which the Culture Standard was implemented included both horizontal projects (A, D and E) as well as vertical projects (B and C). The Culture Standard was implemented differently at each Pilot Project, but all three horizontal projects successfully programmed several periods of high intensity work (campaigns/occupations) while maintaining the Culture Standard requirements (for full details see 3.2.1). However, implementing the Culture Standard at the horizontal projects was not without its challenges: • some workers at Project A indicated they exceeded the 55 hours per week limit during an early occupation • at Project D an occupation programmed early in the project lifecycle involved working six consecutive workdays followed by three days off, and • Project E had to plan night work in the context of significant environmental restrictions. Notwithstanding these challenges, management teams at each of the three horizontal Pilot Projects adapted their work schedules to meet the requirements of the Culture Standard’s time for life component. Several participants at Project A commented that the occupations they had experienced at the Pilot Project were better managed and less disruptive of their non-work lives than those they had experienced on previous projects. A site-based worker explained: “Whereas on previous projects if there was like a night shift or an occupation we’re kind of expected to be there, whereas this one, I had my close friend’s little one, his baptism on the Sunday, so I said to everyone ‘I can’t miss that, it’s really important to me.’ There was no judgment, they just said, ‘Okay, are you comfortable doing the Friday night shift?’… And I said, ‘Yes, that’s fine’” (AP15). A professional worker, also at Project A, observed: “Yeah it was pretty well planned… like normally an occupation you just work 24 hours a day, every day of the occupation but we actually had a break the first week on the weekend. So we didn’t work the Saturday or Sunday which is different… just a two-day break, because most nightshifts I’ve done in the past have just been like four on and one off, so having two was good” (AP11 – man in site-based operational role). Another professional worker explained that the occupation they experienced at Project A was better than an experience he had at a previous project due to different planning and rostering: “Ah, I think (the most recent occupation was) better in the fact, once you're on nights, staying on nights is better than doing Culture in Construction: Final Report 110 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT days and nights, because the previous big one we did was in [other project name] and I think a lot of people said this, speaking to them, and my opinion was the day/night, day/night transition was too hard” (AP12). The more positive experience that workers had of the occupations at Project A were attributed by participants to good planning and prior notice that was given to people of changes to their shift patterns. A professional man in a site-based operational role commented: “Yeah, it was well planned. We had plenty of notice so my family was prepared” (AP15). To manage occupations at Project D, the number of workers on site was increased during occupations. One subcontracted worker in a supervisory role explained: “We definitely ramped up for the campaign. Because of the rostering, the labour tripled. We had three labour crews instead of just the one. We had a few extra supervisors and foremen to come on to help for that period” (DP13). A worker in a project administration role similarly observed: “During the campaign, they engaged another group of professional engineers. We have a campaign manager, we have campaign engineers that we hired on-board also, independent contractors solely for the campaign” (DP02). In its later stages, Project D opted to forgo major occupations in favour of Saturday “mini occupations”. This change was supported by the majority of interview participants. The rearrangement of rosters and addition of workers helped ensure workloads were managed during periods of high-intensity work. A subcontracted worker observed: “There was extra peggies [cleaner] so we had extra support. So it went really well. I wasn’t feeling like I was overworked. It was just long days that’s all” (DP05). At Project E, the environmental restrictions imposed at the project reduced the amount of night shift work that could be undertaken. A managerial worker explained: “The night shift is easy to manage. We’ve got an EPL now that restricts us to only three nights a week. Two consecutive nights, three nights maximum a week and ten nights maximum a month. ... And that’s with no weekends” (EP01). When asked whether they would like to see the Culture Standard be implemented across horizontal construction projects in the future, the majority of participants at the three horizontal projects indicated they would. For example, a site supervisor at Project D commented: “Oh a hundred percent, just for people’s general wellbeing. I’m sure there’s lots of people out there that enjoy the money side of it, six days a week gets you a higher income. How that affects people long term, do they burn out? do they have broken families? marriages?...I’m sure it affects a lot of people. I definitely see the benefits in it. I’d rather it continued…I can see these pilot initiatives are a good way of seeing how it can run, which obviously I think it can, but I don’t know whether it’s going to continue or not” (DP04). 3.5.4 Is it possible to implement the Culture Standard in current commercial conditions? “And every single one of our projects that’s exposed to the elements in Sydney is – we’ve lost two months in the last six months. And so, now, we’re under enormous time pressure, the risk of LDs [liquidated damages] etcetera, etcetera. So, you know, a 5-day work week just is not going to cut it” (KD09, Construction company CEO). During the first round of key decision-maker interviews, some stakeholders expressed the view that long work hours cannot be changed in the context of financial penalties for time overruns. Some participants in the Pilot Projects agreed with this key decision-maker’s concern that it will be difficult to adopt the Culture Standard more broadly throughout the construction industry due to the prevailing Culture in Construction: Final Report 111 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT conditions and commercial arrangements under which construction projects are delivered. One participant explained: “The way the industry is structured, with deadlines and LDs and all that, I can never see it always maintaining because it’s just the same as any other industry when there’s deadlines, people work bigger hours and do that too. But construction’s rife with it, just the way the market is with demand while others don’t see it. If we can work in that model then by all means, but for a blanket industry-wide, I see that as pretty unlikely” (CP15). Another participant similarly observed that the project delivery approach would impact the viability of the Culture Standard: “I’ve seen different types of cultures and depending on types of delivery models…If a project is construction only versus an alliance versus design and construction, you know we have financial pressures if you have time delays, approvals, lots of factors that will still impact that and override what you’re trying to do, because they will still want it to happen this way” (AP16). Notwithstanding these concerns, the cost benefit analysis (reported in Part 3.4 of this report) found no evidence to suggest that productivity is significantly reduced when working under the Culture Standard. 3.5.5 Do current procurement and tendering practices impact the viability of the Culture Standard? “But you look at a lot of these infrastructure projects, often they’re delivered in very tight timeframes…So, unless governments, when they procure those projects, factor in those longer time frames or different types of working arrangements that may add a year or two to a project, and they’re prepared to cop that politically, but also potentially the cost ramifications of that, if the treasury department’s prepared to cop that, that’s where I see there being some real challenges going forward” (KD09, Contracting organisation CEO). During the first round of key decision-maker interviews, some participants perceived that the procurement practices adopted by client organisations could encourage contractors to reduce costs and timelines in order to win work. It was argued that these systemic pressures to compete on cost and time performance would create a challenge for the implementation of the Culture Standard, in particular the time for life elements. Some Pilot Project participants shared their concerns that current tendering practices could be a barrier to adoption of the Culture Standard. For example, one participant explained: “Look the issue’s going to be the competitive tendering element of it because everyone wants to win the jobs and the lengths that people go to win these jobs, we’ve already got a precedent in place to work 6 days, to me if everyone was doing 5 days you’re still going to get the builders who go ‘I’ll do it, I’ll do 6-day work weeks’, you can take four weeks off the program or whatever. So that element to it is going to be, it’s not a roadblock but it’s probably a barrier to it progressing” (CP26). Another observed: “I think when they do tender an estimation, maybe they go under budget or maybe less timing. They would promise, ‘oh, I'm going to deliver this project by 2025’. And then they would've estimated some Saturdays. So that will add up to working all of the Saturdays because they haven't estimated properly” (CP23). However, the Pilot Project analysis also showed that, when projects are procured and tendered on the basis that people will work a 5-day week, it is possible to maintain the Culture Standard across the project lifecycle: • “I’m sure everyone in this team here, now that we’ve experienced it, I’ve experienced it, the job’s work being delivered on a 5-day work week. If you have a plan in place from the start, as long as your Culture in Construction: Final Report 112 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT program incorporates that from the get-go, you’re not putting yourself under undue stress from the start trying to make up that extra day, 6 days in a 5-day period. I’ve fully bought-in to projects can be delivered on the five days” (CP08, Project Manager). • “I think that comes down to, during the tender phase, making sure the construction program is done correctly, so that we’ve made allowances for the 5-day week. We haven't, at the tender stage, gone with a really tight program, an unrealistic program, and then said “We’re going to do the 5-day week”. The project has always been based on a 5-day week and so, no, we won’t be doing that [work on weekends]” (BP14, Construction Director). • “There was no difference between the 5and the 6-day. I suppose you plan around 8 hours a day, Monday to Friday, and 6 hours on a Saturday, so that’s 46 hours. And then what happens is under the Monday to Friday program, you actually plan 10 hours Monday to Thursday and 8 hours on a Friday, so realistically, if you just looked at it on paper, you actually gain 2 hours a week, because you’ve got 48 hours instead of the 46. ... you probably couldn’t say gained 2 hours and put it onto the end of the program, but what I’m saying is 5 versus a 6th day, there shouldn’t be any impact on the overall program, it shouldn’t prolong it, going to a 5-day program” (BP03, Project Manager). At Project E, the project was scheduled from Monday to Friday, and Saturday was used as a catch-up day. At this stage of the project, the project manager was less definitive about maintaining the 5-day week across the project life cycle. “Well the way that we actually tender the job and the way that we price and plan is we do schedule a 5-day week in our construction program and all the productivities are based on a 5-day week and we rely on a Saturday as your catch-up day, as contingency. So if you do get a wet day or more rain than anticipated then you’ve already built in or if something slips and say they can’t come it’s a contingency and we build that in for the Saturday. And we typically work every Saturday to catch up on that time or get ahead where possible” (EP01, Project Manager). At Project D, it was noted that the 5-day week had not been maintained during the project life cycle due to program delays: “When I came onto the project, what I was actually originally promised and what has actually happened probably hasn’t come to fruition. We’ve probably done a lot more days, hours than what I was originally sold in coming here but again I think that’s just the nature of the beast. I think deep down I probably always knew that that was going to be the case because it’s construction. What it always comes down to is hitting goals, hitting targets, hitting dates. Program blows out, dates don’t change but tasks fall behind” (DP04, Supervisor). A leading hand from Project D indicated that while the program was based on 5-days, the program was tight and there was a sense of always feeling behind: “Our program is based around 5-day weeks so you look at it and you think there’s no way we can meet that program. And then we get thrown you know, 100 curve balls and then all of a sudden you’re nowhere near the program but quite quickly we can get back on track. But you do feel like you’re behind the eight ball a lot, you know you stand out there some days and you just look and you’re like where are we, like how have we built this road. You know, so quite often our program is so tight that you look at it a week out from even starting and you’ve got that negative mindset that we’re never going to meet this” (DP14). A male supervisory worker observed: “I think if it’s programmed correctly the 5-day working week works fine. I think if the program isn’t done properly then, and if we’re trying to push for 6 days a week, then I think we haven’t done our job properly in the background” (DP04). Good planning was also identified as critical in managing specific work task interdependencies in the 5day work week. For example, site managerial worker explained: “Well, it’s a bit of planning, a bit of managing, like planning ahead. So sometimes we’re pouring [concrete] Thursday instead of Friday... So, it’s worked out. It’s all about planning... So far, it’s very good (CP06). Culture in Construction: Final Report 119 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT reduction in earnings for waged workers and the question of ‘who would pay’ for any additional reductions was unresolved. One union executive observed that, even with increased productivity, increasing waged workers’ hourly rates of pay to maintain income while reducing hours further would not be favoured by contractors or clients. “…how do we transition to less hours without less money? ... I'm yet to find any government or principal contractor that whilst they still say, “Yeah, we get more productivity with less hours”, I don't know any of them that have preferred to pay more for less hours… I truly believe getting a better quality of work time, work-life balance is important. But when we speak to members on it, the money seems to be always important.” [05] At present it was acknowledged that the Culture Standard seems to have achieved a compromise between the expectations of waged workers and a redistribution of work hours such that people are able to have two full days off work each week. 3.6.7 Next steps The KDM interview participants were asked to reflect on the next steps they saw in adopting the Culture Standard. Some of the participants highlighted the need for implementation tools and resources to support this process. Several participants also identified the need to engage more effectively with sectors of the construction industry that may know little about the Culture Standard, or who are currently ambivalent or opposed to it. In particular, smaller construction businesses, subcontractors and peak industry bodies were identified as groups with whom further engagement is required. It was also noted that a critical next step is in clients, contractors and unions getting together to agree on the ways in which the Culture Standard can be effectively implemented in projects of different scales and types, including very large construction projects at which a union executive observed the Culture Standard has not yet been trialled. Culture in Construction: Final Report 120 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Part 4: Discussion 4.1 Addressing excessive work hours Long work hours are a risk factor for work-related illness and death. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-Related Burden of Disease and Injury calculate the numbers of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) that are attributable to selected occupational risk factors, including long hours of work (Li et al., 2020). These estimates indicate that exposure to long working hours (defined as ≥55 hours/week) contributes to a large number of deaths and DALYs through ischemic heart disease and stroke (Pega et al., 2021). Moreover, long work hours were identified as the occupational risk factor with the largest attributable burden of disease (Pega et al., 2021). The recognition that long work hours are a significant occupational/work health and safety risk factor is important, as previous research suggests that workers in project-based construction work often work more than 55 hours per week. One Australian study found that the average number of hours worked each week was 63 among site-based participants in direct construction activity and 56 among workers based in a construction project office (Lingard & Francis, 2004). Project-based work is also subject to fluctuating demands and unexpected events that can result in periods of high intensity work in which work hours exceed 55 per week (Lingard et al., 2010). While KDM Stage Two interviewees discussed long working hours prevalent in construction and suggested that the reduction of hours to 50 is sensible, these hours are still well above the 38 hours maximum weekly work hours outlined in the National Employment Standard (NES). While the NES sets the maximum full-time hours at 38 hours, it is coupled with an option for reasonable additional hours, creating a vagueness in national maximum hour limits so that they easily become irrelevant to discussions on how long a safe and healthy working week should be. Long hours of work have been linked to burnout among Australian construction workers (Lingard & Francis, 2005). Although this early work on work hours and burnout was undertaken some years ago, a recent survey undertaken by Wellness in Infrastructure provides further evidence that burnout remains a problem in the Australian construction sector. For example, 2023 survey results revealed that more than one in three infrastructure industry professionals (39%) working in site-based or hybrid office-site positions met the criteria for being burnt-out. Importantly, more than half (51%) of workers aged between 25 and 29 met the criteria for being burnt-out (Roads Australia, 2024). Reducing hours of work in construction projects has been challenging because construction projects are often delivered to tight timelines. Time overruns are associated with financial penalties. The construction workforce is also made up of two different groups of workers, operating in distinct labour markets. Managerial, professional, administrative and supervisory workers are salaried, i.e., they are paid a fixed annual salary irrespective of the hours they work each week. In contrast, skilled and unskilled trades and labourers are paid based upon an hourly rate up to a standard work week, above which penalty rates are paid for overtime. For the latter group of workers, a reduction in weekly work hours has the potential to reduce their income and, consequently, previous research has shown that changing working time arrangements in construction projects is experienced differently by these two groups of workers (Lingard et al., 2008). The results of the Pilot Projects reveal that, when the Culture Standard was initially introduced, some waged construction workers at the Pilot Projects expressed concerns about the potential impacts that the Culture Standard’s time for life provisions would have on their income. However, for many of the participants, these concerns were alleviated as the projects progressed when it became apparent that Culture in Construction: Final Report 121 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT income was not substantially reduced and the benefits of having a two-day break each week were experienced as off-setting any modest reduction in pay. The time for life provisions in the Culture Standard require organisations to program their projects to target that all workers work 50 hours or less per week and ensure that no workers work over 55 hours per week, effectively establishing a maximum number of hours individual workers can work each week – at least at a project implementing the Culture Standard. Across the Pilot Projects the majority of workers indicated they were working within the requirements of the Culture Standard. 80.3% of waged and 56.6% of salaried participants indicated they worked fewer than 51 hours per week. A further 24.0% of salaried and 11.6% of waged workers indicated they work between 51 and 55 hours per week. However, the distribution of salaried and waged workers differed significantly with proportionally more salaried than waged workers working longer hours at the Pilot Projects. It is also noteworthy that 19.2% of salaried and 8.1% of waged workers indicated they work more than 55 hours each week. When compared to projects at which the Culture Standard was not implemented (but which were being delivered by the same head contractors as two of the Pilot Projects) the distribution of work hours did not differ significantly between the Culture Standard and comparison Non-Culture Standard sites. This may reflect the fact that the implementation of the Culture Standard at the Pilot Projects produced a re-distribution of work hours more so than a reduction of weekly hours for many workers. When comparing the distribution of work hours by waged and salaried workers under the Culture Standard, it is also apparent that more than half of the waged workers who responded to the survey (56.2%) indicated they work up to 45 hours a week (equating to working 9 hours or less per day). These workers are likely to engage in heavy physical work and concerns about the impact of long working days on their fatigue were raised by some of the key decision-maker interviewees. Waged workers engaged in manual/non-managerial work who were interviewed at the Pilot Projects did not express concerns about the physical impact of the work hours arrangements under the Culture Standard. However, it is important that the potential for longer daily work hours to increase fatigue in particularly physically-demanding trades continues to be carefully reviewed as the Culture Standard is adopted more broadly. Fatigue should be carefully monitored and managed. The Pilot Project findings indicated a majority preference among both waged and salaried workers for working a 5-day week. The following two response options: ‘working a 5-day week and having weekends free;’ and ‘working a maximum of 5 in 7 days’ were combined to reflect a preference for a 5-day week. 93% of salaried workers and 71% of waged workers chose one or other of these response options to indicate their preferred work schedule. This was compared with 25% of waged and only 5% of salaried workers who indicated a preference for a 6-day week schedule. The interview data provided further insights into the benefits that participants experienced having two consecutive days off each week. These included being able to spend time with family members including children, being able to engage in sport and leisure activities that they could not participate in when working a 6-day week and being able to complete household chores and still have time for leisure activities, which was also not possible with only one work-free day each week. These benefits were experienced irrespective of age, life stage or gender and reflect the fact that having sufficient time for life outside work is beneficial to all workers. Moreover, having the opportunity to relax, detach from work and engage in activities that are stimulating, challenging and confidence-building during the weekends has been found in previous studies to increase workers’ positive emotional state (and reduce their negative emotional state) throughout the following week at work (Fritz et al., 2010). Research shows, for example, that workers who are able to engage in social, physical, and creative activities during the weekend experience the most positive recovery benefits. Engaging in weekend activities outside of work can replenish psychological and physical Culture in Construction: Final Report 122 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT resources expended by workers during the working week, and is reported to improve work-related wellbeing, i.e. reduced burnout and increased work engagement the following week (Ginoux et al., 2021; Ragsdale & Beehr, 2016). 4.2 Women’s participation The Australian construction industry currently faces a shortage of workers. This shortage has been exacerbated by a subsequent Australian Government commitment to building 1.2 million new homes over 5 years, requiring a workforce of 90,000 people more than currently exist (Manfield, 2024). Given these shortages, there is a need to improve the construction industry’s ability to attract and retain workers, including women (Infrastructure Australia, 2023). Projected shortages for infrastructure workers have decreased compared with the 2023 forecast as demand softens and supply grows, reflecting the impact of governments actively managing ambitious pipelines to align demand more closely with market capacity (Infrastructure Australia, 2024). The Culture Standard requires organisations to target the appointment of women across critical workforce segments and strategic decision-making roles and develop a plan for the project to achieve these targets. The analysis of costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the Culture Standard at the five Pilot Projects found that women were better represented in the Pilot Projects (32%) than they were in the workforce of the head contractors engaged in the Pilot Project delivery (24%). Some of the Pilot Projects implemented specific initiatives to attract more women to the projects, for example, appointing a Female Participation Advisor to support subcontractors in the recruitment of women. However, Pilot Project managerial personnel recognised that their ability to increase the participation of women in the workforce is constrained by the numbers of women with the requisite skills to enter jobs within the industry and it was acknowledged that entry into a construction career has a long lead time. As a result, one of the Pilot Projects initiated a program of making visits to schools to promote construction as a career choice for young women (and men). The Pilot Project interview data also shows that women generally felt supported and were provided with good amenities including clean, women-only toilet facilities, free sanitary products etc. However, the Pilot Projects also identified a number of factors that could negatively impact women’s safety, health, wellbeing and/or retention. In particular, women at the Pilot Projects indicated that they are exposed to inappropriate interactions and behaviours, for example, sexual innuendo or sexist comments. This is consistent with the findings of a recent study by the National Association of Women in Construction that found that 88% of women in construction report experiencing microaggressions in the workplace (TDC Global/NAWIC, 2024). The TDC Global/NAWIC report defines microaggressions as small acts that make people feel less welcome, less valued or less safe. Women in all roles (including officeand site-based roles) reported experiencing microaggressions which were reported to negatively affect women’s professional confidence and wellbeing. The survey data collected at the Pilot Projects similarly found that women reported significantly higher levels of inappropriate banter than men. A distinction has been drawn between inclusive and exclusionary banter. Inclusive banter helps to develop friendships and a sense of solidarity, but exclusionary banter can result in workers avoiding their colleagues, experiencing mental health impacts or leaving their employment (Wilcock et al., 2019; Plester et al., 2022). Research shows young workers and women are unlikely to report banter if they experience it in the workplace due to fear of repercussions (Wilcock et al., 2019). It was also observed that women in the Pilot Projects who had experienced interactions that were offensive and inappropriate indicated they did not always feel comfortable reporting these because this Culture in Construction: Final Report 123 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT could result in them being perceived as ‘trouble-makers’ and have negative impacts on their employment or career. Importantly, experiencing inappropriate banter was also significantly and inversely predictive of mental wellbeing, i.e. the more inappropriate banter is experienced, the lower the level of mental wellbeing reported. Experiences of this nature reflect a prevailing culture in the construction industry that is resistant to change and does not support a gender-inclusive work environment. Future initiatives implemented in support of the Culture Standard could potentially address this by helping organisations to better recognise and respond to inappropriate workplace humour. Interview data collected at the Pilot Projects also suggests that women with dependent children may also find rigid adherence to long daily hours as challenging, which highlights the importance of individual workers being provided with flexibility with regard to when and where they work so far as is possible in the context of their job roles. 4.3 Perception versus experience The Pilot Project interviews revealed that some manual/non-managerial workers and supervisors were initially sceptical about the Culture Standard. Workers were concerned about the potential impacts on their income, while supervisors expressed concern about the ability for the projects to keep to the program when working five rather than six days each week. The longitudinal research design allowed these workers and supervisors to be interviewed multiple times as the projects progressed. There was a discernible shift in participants’ views about the modified working time arrangements as participants experienced working under the Culture Standard. Many waged participants who were initially concerned about their income indicated that the impacts had not been as great as they had expected and that the benefits of having two consecutive days off work outweighed the costs associated with the modified working time arrangements. Some supervisors who were initially sceptical observed that the projects had been able to maintain production progress according to the project program and attributed this to good planning and productivity gains associated with workers being well-rested when they come to work at the beginning of the work week. These interview findings suggest that perceptions of what it is like to work under the working time arrangements specified in the Culture Standard change with experience. It is therefore critical that the insights of people who have personally experienced working under the Culture Standard are considered when determining the likely impacts and experience of costs and benefits. The survey data collected at comparison projects not implementing the Culture Standard (but being delivered by the same head contractors at two of the Pilot Projects) also provides interesting insights. When asked about their work schedule preferences, waged workers were more likely to indicate a preference for a 5compared to a 6-day week at the Pilot Projects compared to the Non-Culture Standard comparison projects (74.5% at Project B and 55.7% at the Non-Culture Standard comparison project and 75.0% at Project E and 60.0% at the Non-Culture Standard comparison project). One explanation for these differences is that waged workers who have experienced working under the Culture Standard may be more likely to see the benefits of working under the new working time arrangements (in particular, having two consecutive days off work) than waged workers who have no experience of working at a project at which the Culture Standard has been implemented. Culture in Construction: Final Report 124 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT However, it must also be acknowledged that, notwithstanding the majority preference for the 5-day week among waged workers at the Pilot Projects, approximately 30% of waged workers indicated a preference to work a 6or even 7-day work week. This percentage was similar and consistent across all Pilot Projects and for all age groups within the sample. Interview data suggest that the current cost of living pressures and financial commitments for some participants (e.g. mortgages, investments, costs of raising children etc) that cannot be easily changed are contributing to these preferences. Unfavourable perceptions about the Culture Standard requirements were also evident in the first round of the key decision-maker interviews. Some key industry stakeholders expected that implementation of the Culture Standard would inevitably cause projects to take longer and cost more. Others believed that adherence to the Culture Standard could not be maintained across the lifecycle of a construction project as project pressures, tight deadlines and the threat of liquidated damages would mean projects would not be able to maintain the time for life provisions throughout the entire life of a construction project. Some key stakeholders also suggested that the time for life provisions were feasible in vertical (building) construction projects, but would not be practicable in horizontal (civil engineering) infrastructure construction projects. One of the key points illustrated by the Pilot Projects is that the Culture Standard provides project management teams with a great deal of flexibility and control over the way that work is scheduled. Projects are able to operate 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week. However, the time for life provisions require that individual workers’ hours are capped at 50 (not exceeding 55) and they should work no more than five days in every seven, allowing a 2-day period of recovery each week. The Pilot Projects included three horizontal projects, all major transport infrastructure projects, that demonstrated the practicability of implementing the Culture Standard in projects of this type. These projects experienced a variety of restrictions and conditions surrounding when and how they could work – in relation to reducing noise emissions, closing operational roads/railways etc – and were able to schedule work in ways that met the requirements of the time for life provisions of the Culture Standard while still maintaining production according to the program. The multi-wave survey design also allowed an analysis of work hours and key variables, e.g. work demand, work-life balance, managerial support for family, respect at work etc, as projects progressed from earlyor midproject through to near completion. Comparison of data collected over multiple waves suggested little variation in these key variables as projects neared completion, indicating that the desired outcomes associated with the provisions of the Culture Standard can be maintained throughout the entire construction stage of a project. Lastly, the Frontier Economics analysis of the costs and benefits of the implementation of the Culture Standard cited high level analysis using previously published benchmarking research that suggested that the unit cost of the Pilot Projects was within a reasonable range of expectations, based on the cost of previously completed comparable projects and found no indications that the Pilot Projects were delayed because of the time for life provisions. This analysis suggests that there is no clear reason to assume projects would incur delays because work hours were largely redistributed rather than reduced at the Pilot Projects (as is also reflected in the comparison between Pilot Projects B and E and the two Non-Culture Standard comparison projects). 4.4 Future workforce The Australian construction industry workforce is ageing. One industry report suggests that the percentage of workers aged 50 years and over grew from 17.5% in 1997 to 23.6% in 2018, while the percentage of the construction workforce under the age of 30 only increased by 0.6% during this time (Artibus Innovation, 2018). As older cohorts of workers retire a significant skill replacement gap has emerged as new entrants are not replacing those leaving the industry (Artibus Innovation, 2018). One Culture in Construction: Final Report 125 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT solution to addressing the skills shortage is to encourage more young people to enter construction (Gerrard, 2023). However, there are signs that the industry is not performing well in its ability to attract young workers, particularly into trade-based roles. The numbers of young workers commencing apprenticeships in Australia and those currently in training are the lowest for a decade (Australian Industry Group, 2016). The completion rate of construction industry apprenticeships also steadily declined in Australia between the years 2012 and 2017 (ABS, 2018). Completion rates for women in construction trade apprenticeships are 12% lower than for men, indicating women are more likely to drop out of construction trade apprentices than their male counterparts (CSQ, 2018). A recent study of young people engaged in a New South Wales Government Infrastructure Traineeship program explored the job characteristics that Gen Z workers consider to be important in career-decisionmaking and the extent to which they perceive these would be available to them in a construction career. The job characteristics that the trainees identified as being important to them included characteristics associated with having a healthy and balanced life and a diverse and fair workplace. In particular, having a job that enables them to have a healthy lifestyle, a reasonable workload that affords control over their work time, and with hours that do not interfere with non-work roles and interests were most important. Having a job characterised by gender diversity and fair treatment was also of high importance to 74% of the trainees in the current study (Turner et al., 2023). These findings are consistent with previous studies which report that a positive, supportive and diverse work environment and work-life balance are primary concerns of Gen Z workers when choosing a career (Ayoobzadeh et al., 2024; Fodor & Jaeckel, 2018; Borg, 2024). However, when asked whether they thought these characteristics would be available in a construction career, the trainees indicated a low level of expectation that some important characteristics would be available. In particular, the trainees had low expectations in relation to having a job that could be combined with parenthood, that would not interfere with non-work roles and interests, that would allow control over work time, that would not take them away from family for long durations and that would enable a healthy lifestyle (Turner et al., 2023). Importantly, the size of the gap between perceived importance of these job characteristics and perceptions about their availability predicted the trainees’ stated intention to remain in construction on completion of the traineeship program: the greater the gap, the less likely trainees were to commit to pursuing a construction career (Lingard et al., 2025). The fact that having time for life outside work and having a job that allows a healthy lifestyle, gender diversity and fairness were also important to trainees in this study and highlights the importance of addressing the work practices, cultural norms and behaviours that currently negatively impact health and wellbeing, time for life and diversity. The Culture Standard therefore addresses key characteristics that are likely to improve the attractiveness of careers in the construction industry for young workers and potentially improve recruitment, retention and diversification of the workforce. The second round of key decision-maker interviews reinforced the importance of changing the culture of the construction industry in response to the shortage of skilled workers facing the industry. Many of the interview participants expressed the opinion that the construction industry has no other option but to change its culture and practices to be more attractive to young workers who currently regard construction as an unattractive career option. Culture in Construction: Final Report 126 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 4.5 Culture of care The research results highlight the close interrelationships between the three pillars of the Culture Standard. This is evident in the way that the work environment characteristics of exposure to inappropriate banter and experiencing a respectful work environment (aspects of the diversity pillar) and experiencing work-life balance (related to the time for life pillar) were found to be significant predictors of workers’ mental wellbeing at the Pilot Projects. Aspects of the psychosocial work environment addressed by the Culture Standard are closely related in the academic literature. For example, imbalanced work, high job demands and a lack of respect at work are linked to mental ill-health (Harvey et al., 2017). The interview data collected from workers at the Pilot Projects also provides critical insights into how the time for life provisions enabled workers to participate more actively in activities outside work, e.g. spending time with family and friends and engaging in outdoor, sporting and leisure activities, which are reported to be health-promoting (Fancourt et al., 2021; Twohig-Bennett & Jones, 2018). The 2-day weekend was also widely reported by Pilot Project interview participants to improve rest and recovery and support positive family relationships, both of which are also strongly linked to health (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). Flexibility is a key component of the Culture Standard which requires organisations to develop and provide a flexibility plan outlining how they will support and promote flexibility for workers in both office and site-based roles. The interview data showed that flexibility was effectively negotiated by workers in these roles with many managerial or professional workers being able to work from home, start work late or leave work early to accommodate personal needs. In contrast to office-based workers, site-based workers, including those in operational or managerial roles, were not able to work from home due to the nature of their work, but these workers described being able to informally request flexibility to attend to personal matters during work time if necessary. The survey data also revealed high levels of managerial support for family life, work-life balance and work engagement. The Culture Standard therefore provides a collective right for workers to customise their work practices, albeit to varying degrees which can help to break down structural barriers for participation of under-represented groups in project-based construction roles. It is noteworthy that women who were interviewed at the Pilot Projects indicated that they felt more supported than at other projects at which they had worked. Importantly, interviewees described how the culture of care fostered at the Pilot Projects created positive feelings in relation to work that led to them engaging in extra-role behaviour (i.e, working above and beyond minimum requirements). Previous research similarly shows that creating a positive environment in which workers experience high levels of work engagement improves task performance and reduces counter-productive behaviour at work (Yin, 2018). It is possible that, combined with improved organisation and planning and better rest and recovery, high levels of work engagement at the Pilot Projects contributed to many participants' observation that productivity was maintained and potentially improved under the Culture Standard. This may also explain why employee turnover was reported to be lower at the Pilot Projects than it was in the respective head contractor organisations delivering these projects. Taken together, the research findings highlight that the impacts associated with implementing the Culture Standard should be understood in the context of all of the different (and interrelated) elements of the Standard. It is unlikely that a single element of the Culture Standard was uniquely responsible for the positive impacts observed. Rather, it is more likely that the strategies implemented in response to the requirements under the three pillars of the Culture Standard combined in synergistic ways to produce a positive outcome for the majority of participants at these projects, in both siteand officeroles. Culture in Construction: Final Report 127 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Part 5: References Aronsson, G., Astvik, W., & Gustafsson, K. (2014). Work conditions, recovery and health: a study among workers within pre-school, home care and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1654–1672. Artibus Innovation. (2018). Construction, Plumbing and Services IRC Skills Forecast and Proposed Schedule of Work. Hobart, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018). Completion-and-attrition-rates-for-apprentices-and-trainees2018-data-tables, retrieved June 4th 2020. Australian Industry Group. (2016). Making Apprenticeships Work. Retrieved 12th September 2018. 15160_apprenticeships_policy_full.pdf Ayoobzadeh, M., Schweitzer, L., Lyons, S. and Ng, E. (2024), A tale of two generations: a time-lag study of career expectations, Personnel Review. 53(7), 1649-1665. Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work–family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 487-500. Borg, N. (2024). Gen Z perceptions of preferred employer: a study further contributing to dimensions of employer branding [Master's thesis, University of Malta]. CSQ. (2018). Women in construction: An opportunity lost? [Industry report]. https://www.csq.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/CSQ2531-Women-in-Construction_2.pdf Construction Industry Culture Taskforce. (2021). A Culture Standard for the Construction Industry. [Consultation Paper: October 2021]. Australian Constructors Association. Accessed 18 September 2024 from: https://cultureinconstruction.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ACulture-Standard-for-the-Construction-Industry_Consultation-Paper_October-2021.pdf Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-222. Fancourt, D., Aughterson, H., Finn, S., Walker, E., & Steptoe, A. (2021). How leisure activities affect health: a narrative review and multi-level theoretical framework of mechanisms of action. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(4), 329-339. Fodor, M., & Jaeckel, K. (2018). What does it take to have a successful career through the eyes of generation Z-based on the results of a primary qualitative research. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, 4(1), 1-7. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: effects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,10(3), 187-199. Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P. E., & McInroe, J. A. (2010). The weekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1137-1162. Culture in Construction: Final Report 128 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Gerrard, N. (2023). Why is construction still suffering a labour squeeze and what are the solutions? International Construction. Accessed 15 November 2023: https://www.internationalconstruction.com/news/why-is-construction-still-suffering-a-labour-squeeze-and-what-are-thesolutions-/8026126.article Ginoux, C., Isoard‐Gautheur, S., & Sarrazin, P. (2021). “What did you do this weekend?” Relationships between weekend activities, recovery experiences, and changes in work‐related well‐being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 13(4), 798-816. Government of Australia, (2024), https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/agreements/land-transportinfrastructure-projects-2024-2029, Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on the Land Transport Infrastructure Projects (2024-2029), accessed 12th December 2024. Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: a study of parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(17), 3305-3324. Harvey, S. B., Modini, M., Joyce, S., Milligan-Saville, J. S., Tan, L., Mykletun, A., ... & Mitchell, P. B. (2017). Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 301-310. Infrastructure Australia. (2023). Market Capacity Report. https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/2023-infrastructure-market-capacityreport, accessed 3 December 2024. Infrastructure Australia. (2024). Infrastructure Market Capacity 2024 Report. https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/202412/2024%20Infrastructure%20Market%20Capacity%20report_1.pdf, accessed 12 February 2024. Li, J., Pega, F., Ujita, Y., Brisson, C., Clays, E., Descatha, A., ... & Siegrist, J. (2020). The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review and metaanalysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environment international, 142, 105739. Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2004). The work‐life experiences of office and site‐based employees in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 22(9), 991-1002. Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2005). Does work–family conflict mediate the relationship between job schedule demands and burnout in male construction professionals and managers? Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), 733-745. Lingard, H. C., Francis, V., & Turner, M. (2010). The rhythms of project life: A longitudinal analysis of work hours and work–life experiences in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 28(10), 1085-1098. Lingard, H. C., Townsend, K., Bradley, L., & Brown, K. (2008). Alternative work schedule interventions in the Australian construction industry: A comparative case study analysis. Construction Management and Economics,26(10), 1101-1112. Lingard, H., Turner, M., & Pirzadeh, P. (2025). Is construction my industry of choice? Examining the factors affecting career choice decision-making of young workers, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2024-1125 Culture in Construction: Final Report 135 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Regression analysis Regression analysis refers to the process of fitting a linear model to data to predict the values of an outcome variable (or dependent variable, Y) based on one or more predictor variables (or independent variables, X). The linear represents “straight line”, which can be defined by the slope of the line (b1) and the intercept of the line (b0). A positive b1 indicates a positive relationship between X and Y, while a negative b1 indicates a negative relationship. b0, b1…bn are called regression coefficients (i.e., b). If an independent variable (predictor) significantly predicts a dependent variable, its b-value should significantly differ from zero, which can be tested by a t-statistic, with the null hypothesis being the value of b is 0. If an independent variable significantly predicts a dependent variable through a third variable (indirect effect), then this third variable is a mediator. The test of mediation effect includes the following steps: (1) if the relationship between predictors and outcome is significant (without mediator); (2) if the relationship between predictors and mediator is significant; and (3) if the relationship between the mediator and outcome is significant when regressing the outcome on predictors including the mediator. If the relationship in step 1 is not significant, then there is no mediation effect. In step 3, if the relationships between predictors and outcome also remain significant by including the mediator, there is evidence for partial mediation, otherwise there is a full mediation effect. If one or more relationships in step 2 are insignificant, a Sobel test can be used to determine the presence of mediation effect. Culture in Construction: Final Report 136 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Appendix D – Pilot Projects interview participant sampling frame Table 6.2: Interview participant sampling frame Work group Gender Life stage Number Blue Man < 35 and child-free 1 Blue Man < 35 and have dependent-aged children 1 Blue Man Mid-age (35-44 years) (may have dependent children or not) 1 Blue Man Older workers 50+ 1 Blue Woman < 35 and child-free 1 Blue Woman < 35 and have dependent-aged children 1 Blue Woman Mid-age (35-44 years) (may have dependent children or not) 1 Blue Woman* Older workers 50+ 1 White Man < 35 and child-free 1 White Man < 35 and have dependent-aged children 1 White Man Mid-age (35-44 years) (may have dependent children or not) 1 White Man Older workers 50+ 1 White Woman < 35 and child-free 1 White Woman < 35 and have dependent-aged children 1 White Woman Mid-age (35-44 years) (may have dependent children or not) 1 White Woman* Older workers 50+ 1 Role Employer Supervisor Head contractor 1 Supervisor Head contractor 1 Supervisor Subcontractor 1 Supervisor Subcontractor 1 TOTAL 20 *If the project does not employ women with all of the sampling characteristics outlined above, then other women can be included. Culture in Construction: Final Report 137 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Appendix E – Pilot Projects interview schedule Table 6.3: Interview questions and their associated prompts Question Prompts A. Introduction Ethics - Standard Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form Start recording: B. Background Questionnaire Name: Age: Gender: Role: Years with [organisation] / [project]: Family structure: married/defacto/children/other Caring responsibilities (parents/aunt/uncle) When did they start on this project? C. Wellbeing 1. Do you feel your health and wellbeing is supported at this project? For people who just started working on the project the start of the project How do you expect your health and wellbeing to be on this project compared to other projects? 1a. Is the way your health and wellbeing is supported on this project different to your experience on past projects? Why? How? What do the project team do? Why? How? [job demand, work pace, pressure, work overload …] D. Work schedule 2. Can you pls describe to me your current work schedule? Is it the same as pervious projects? Is there any implication for your pay? How do you find it in terms of your productivity? Can you do all your work within the hours you currently work? Does that work for you? Do you like working those hours? Does it affect your health or wellbeing? Are you satisfied with the balance between work and non-work life at this project? [Days, start-finish time, number of construction sites they work on, number of hours per week] If so, how? Do you get enough rest/recovery between shifts? Why? (length of work hours as well as flexibility/control overwork time) – is it different from other projects you have worked on? Culture in Construction: Final Report 138 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT On this project, what options are there to work flexibly – e.g. part-time, shorter hours, different start times? If they have caring responsibility: How do you fit in your care responsibilities (children, aged parents) with your work schedule? 3. Is participating in volunteering or community related activities something you like to do? If yes: • on this project, are you able to participate in volunteering or community related activities (coaching sport, playing sport, volunteering)? If no: • What prevents you from participating? • Is this different to past projects you have worked on? How? 4. Do you have a partner who works in a paid job? If yes: • How many hours, on average do your partner work per week? • Is this influenced by the number of hours you work? • If you could continue working the number of hours you work on this site, would your partner be able to increase the number of hours they work? Is it easier than other projects? Why? E. Inclusive culture 5. What is the work culture at this project like for workers? 6. Do you think it is different for women compared to men? Why/how? Is it any different to other projects you’ve worked at? How? Offensive behaviour called out? Respectful interactions? Strategies to support women in construction? Amenities/and equipment? Other things that make it an inclusive culture? F. Formal policies 7. Do you know if policies have been put in place to support women at this project? Are the policies the same as other projects you’ve worked on or different? How? Are these policies/strategies working? Could the project do more to support women? Gender pay equality How are women recruited into project roles? Do they have the same opportunities as men? Are they working? How/why? Give examples. Culture in Construction: Final Report 139 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT G. Implementation of the standard into the future: 8. Now that you have had a bit of time working under the Culture Standard, what do you think it would be like if your workplace kept doing this beyond the life of the project, say for 5 or 10 years? 9. How long do you think it would take for the whole construction industry to adopt this new way of working? 10. Now that you have had a bit of time working under the Culture Standard, what changes would you make (if any) to make it work better? New questions added for interviews in round 3 Are there any other things you would like to add or any questions you have for me? Culture in Construction: Final Report 140 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Appendix F – Statistical analysis results Table 6.4: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing in different age groups Variable Age group N Mean score Standard deviation F-ratio p-value Work demand <30 years 120 3.11 0.98 3.484 0.032* 30-49 years 230 3.13 0.90 ≥50 years 68 2.79 0.99 Workload <30 years 116 3.78 0.87 0.099 0.905 30-49 years 226 3.74 0.87 ≥50 years 68 3.79 0.87 Managerial work family support <30 years 119 3.78 1.38 2.281 0.103 30-49 years 230 3.94 1.29 ≥50 years 64 4.20 0.98 Work-life balance <30 years 117 3.16 0.92 2.915 0.055 30-49 years 227 3.30 0.82 ≥50 years 63 3.48 0.73 Organisational fairness <30 years 119 3.72 1.00 1.828 0.162 30-49 years 220 3.87 0.92 ≥50 years 67 3.64 0.94 Banter <30 years 119 1.85 0.73 5.032 0.007* 30-49 years 224 1.96 0.73 ≥50 years 67 2.20 0.69 Respect <30 years 111 5.27 1.34 0.487 0.615 30-49 years 214 5.42 1.30 ≥50 years 65 5.40 1.31 Engagement <30 years 116 2.87 0.63 4.236 0.015* 30-49 years 216 3.04 0.60 ≥50 years 69 3.10 0.55 Mental wellbeing <30 years 111 21.32 4.02 1.762 0.173 30-49 years 211 22.20 3.91 ≥50 years 62 21.86 4.23 * Difference in mean scores is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 6.5: Bonferroni post hoc tests for between group differences Dependent variable (I) Age group (J) Age group Mean difference (I-J) p-value Work demand 1 2 -0.01 1.000 3 0.32 0.077 2 1 0.01 1.000 3 0.33 0.032* 3 1 -0.32 0.077 2 -0.33 0.032* Banter 1 2 -0.11 0.522 3 -0.35 0.005* 2 1 0.11 0.522 3 -0.24 0.056 3 1 0.35 0.005* 2 0.24 0.056 Engagement 1 2 -0.17 0.036* 3 -0.23 0.037* 2 1 0.17 0.036* 3 -0.05 1.000 3 1 0.23 0.037* 2 0.05 1.000 * Difference in mean scores is significant at the 0.05 level. Culture in Construction: Final Report 141 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Table 6.6: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing between salaried and waged workers Variable Participants’ pay type N Mean score Standard deviation t-value (equal variance assumed) p-value Work demand Salaried 100 2.99 0.87 -1.061 0.289 Waged 315 3.10 0.96 Workload Salaried 99 3.90 0.72 2.133a 0.034* Waged 311 3.71 0.90 Managerial work family support Salaried 100 4.28 1.07 3.575a <0.001* Waged 312 3.81 1.33 Work-life balance Salaried 97 3.37 0.87 1.188 0.236 Waged 308 3.25 0.84 Organisational fairness Salaried 98 3.98 0.93 2.342 0.020* Waged 305 3.73 0.96 Banter Salaried 97 1.94 0.68 -0.440 0.660 Waged 312 1.98 0.75 Respect Salaried 95 5.61 1.04 2.339a 0.020* Waged 295 5.30 1.39 Engagement Salaried 97 3.11 0.58 2.024 0.044* Waged 304 2.97 0.61 Mental wellbeing Salaried 94 22.62 3.60 2.047 0.041* Waged 288 21.66 4.08 a. Equal variances not assumed. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 6.7: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing by gender Variable Gender group N Mean score Standard deviation t-value (equal variance assumed) p-value Work demand Men 359 3.10 0.94 -1.956 0.051 Women 43 2.80 0.83 Workload Men 355 3.73 0.87 0.863 0.388 Women 43 3.85 0.83 Managerial work family support Men 356 3.92 1.27 0.743 0.458 Women 44 4.07 1.17 Work-life balance Men 351 3.29 0.84 1.000 0.318 Women 42 3.43 0.72 Organisational fairness Men 351 3.86 0.90 -3.106 0.002* Women 40 3.39 1.02 Banter Men 354 1.92 0.70 4.428 <0.001* Women 41 2.44 0.78 Respect Men 336 5.45 1.25 -0.873 0.383 Women 40 5.26 1.36 Engagement Men 346 3.02 0.59 0.588 0.557 Women 40 3.08 0.68 Mental wellbeing Men 333 22.07 3.96 -0.957 0.339 Women 38 21.43 3.31 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Culture in Construction: Final Report 142 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Table 6.8: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences in different mental wellbeing groups Variable Mental wellbeing group N Mean score Standard deviation F-ratio p-value Work demand Low 102 3.30 0.96 9.526 <0.001* Medium 252 3.01 0.88 High 26 2.46 0.92 Workload Low 103 3.81 0.89 0.322 0.725 Medium 250 3.74 0.84 High 26 3.71 0.97 Managerial work family support Low 102 3.75 1.28 3.620 0.028* Medium 253 4.02 1.22 High 26 4.42 1.21 Work-life balance Low 101 2.95 0.84 23.843 <0.001* Medium 248 3.37 0.75 High 26 4.09 0.93 Organisational fairness Low 102 3.37 1.10 15.457 <0.001* Medium 249 3.93 0.79 High 27 4.13 1.10 Banter Low 103 2.09 0.86 6.388 0.002* Medium 249 1.96 0.63 High 26 1.54 0.65 Respect Low 99 4.82 1.59 20.587 <0.001* Medium 246 5.53 1.09 High 26 6.37 0.75 Engagement Low 103 2.66 0.66 38.616 <0.001* Medium 248 3.11 0.50 High 24 3.58 0.36 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 6.9: Bonferroni post hoc tests for between group differences Dependent variable (I) Wellbeing group (J) Wellbeing group Mean difference (IJ) p-value Work demand 1 2 0.29 0.022* 3 0.84 <0.001* 2 1 -0.29 0.022* 3 0.55 0.010* 3 1 -0.84 <0.001* 2 -0.55 0.010* Managerial work family support 1 2 -0.27 0.187 3 -0.68 0.038* 2 1 0.27 0.187 3 -0.41 0.330 3 1 0.68 0.038* 2 0.41 0.330 Work-life balance 1 2 -0.41 <0.001* 3 -1.14 <0.001* 2 1 0.41 <0.001* 3 -0.72 <0.001* 3 1 1.13 <0.001* 2 0.72 <0.001* Organisational fairness 1 2 -0.55 <0.001* 3 -0.76 <0.001* 2 1 0.55 <0.001* 3 -0.20 0.805 Culture in Construction: Final Report 143 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT 3 1 0.76 <0.001* 2 0.20 0.805 Banter 1 2 0.13 0.347 3 0.55 0.001* 2 1 -0.13 0.347 3 0.42 0.012* 3 1 -0.55 0.001* 2 -0.42 0.012* Respect 1 2 -0.71 <0.001* 3 -1.54 <0.001* 2 1 0.71 <0.001* 3 -0.83 0.003* 3 1 1.54 <0.001* 2 0.83 0.003* Engagement 1 2 -0.45 <0.001* 3 -0.92 <0.001* 2 1 0.45 <0.001* 3 -0.47 <0.001* 3 1 0.92 <0.001* 2 0.47 <0.001* *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 6.10: Comparison of mean scores for perceptions of work experiences and mental wellbeing between vertical and horizontal projects Variable Project group N Mean score Standard deviation t-value (equal variance assumed) p-value Work demand Vertical 227 3.31 0.98 5.846a <0.001* Horizontal 196 2.80 0.82 Workload Vertical 228 3.90 0.87 3.608 <0.001* Horizontal 189 3.60 0.83 Managerial work family support Vertical 228 3.80 1.33 -2.204 0.028* Horizontal 193 4.08 1.21 Work-life balance Vertical 224 3.26 0.88 -0.750 0.454 Horizontal 190 3.32 0.80 Organisational fairness Vertical 223 3.79 0.92 -0.155 0.877 Horizontal 189 3.80 0.99 Banter Vertical 228 2.03 0.74 1.867 0.063 Horizontal 189 1.90 0.71 Respect Vertical 220 5.39 1.33 0.103 0.918 Horizontal 177 5.37 1.31 Engagement Vertical 226 2.94 0.62 -2.513 0.012* Horizontal 182 3.09 0.58 Mental wellbeing Vertical 213 22.09 3.92 1.004 0.316 Horizontal 176 21.68 4.05 a. Equal variances not assumed. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Culture in Construction: Final Report 144 RMIT University Construction Work Health and Safety Research @ RMIT Table 6.11: The effects of work experiences on mental wellbeing Variable b Standard error β p-value (Constant) 14.74 1.59 <0.001 Work demand -0.93 0.24 -0.22 <0.001** Workload 0.36 0.25 0.08 0.148 Managerial work-family support -0.16 0.17 -0.05 0.358 Work-life balance 1.55 0.26 0.32 <0.001** Organisational fairness 0.14 0.22 0.03 0.521 Banter -0.59 0.25 -0.11 0.021* Respect 0.85 0.17 0.28 <0.001** Work hours 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.720 R2 = 0.35, Dependent variable: mental wellbeing *. Significant effect at 0.05 level **. Significant effect at 0.01 level Table 6.12: The effects of work experiences on work engagement Variable b Standard error β p (Constant) 1.78 0.24 <0.001 Work demand -0.12 0.04 -0.19 0.001** Workload 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.673 Managerial work-family support 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.172 Work-life balance 0.16 0.04 0.22 <0.001** Organisational fairness 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.648 Banter -0.00 0.04 -0.00 0.979 Respect 0.14 0.03 0.30 <0.001** Work hours 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.359 Dependent variable: work engagement **. Significant effect at 0.01 level Table 6.13: The effects of work experiences and work engagement on mental wellbeing Variable b Standard error β p (Constant) 9.93 1.57 <0.001 Work demand -0.63 0.23 -0.15 0.005** Workload 0.32 0.23 0.07 0.154 Managerial work-family support -0.24 0.15 -0.07 0.116 Work-life balance 1.13 0.24 0.23 <0.001** Organisational fairness 0.10 0.20 0.03 0.613 Banter -0.57 0.23 -0.10 0.015* Respect 0.52 0.16 0.17 0.001** Work hours -0.00 0.11 0.00 0.994 Engagement 2.59 0.32 0.40 <0.001** R2 = 0.46, Dependent variable: mental wellbeing *. Significant effect at 0.05 level **. Significant effect at 0.01 level