University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

(USC Thesis Other)

Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Clearing the Way: Pathways to Retention of Women in Engineering
by
Catherine Argy Rice

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Catherine Argy Rice 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Catherine Argy Rice certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Adrian Donato
Cathy Krop
Alexandra Wilcox, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Women in engineering remain a minority despite years of efforts to increase representation and
address challenges in this environment. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to
explore female engineers’ perceptions and lived experiences of the engineering environment’s
organizational barriers by evaluating the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
within the organization. Using a qualitative research design and a gap analysis framework, 10
interviewees described their experiences as engineers and their perceptions of workplace climate,
culture, and support. Data were coded and combined with pertinent literature to provide
recommendations to better support women in engineering. The findings reinforced the need for
organizational transparency and career development opportunities. Recommendations focus on
organizational actions to design, develop, and implement a robust, three-part mentoring program,
share wage and demographic data, and provide additional non-linear career opportunities.
Keywords: women in engineering, career development

v
Dedication
To my mother, who showed me strength, resiliency, and the power of unconditional love. I miss
you every day.

To my daughters, Caia and Keelin, who inspire me with their intelligence, kindness, and
inquisitive minds. Dream big.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to many who have helped me along
this journey. My sincere thanks go to Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, my dissertation chair, for her
patience, guidance, and kindness throughout this process with all its interruptions. Special thanks
and appreciation go to Dr. Cathy Krop for stepping in to join my committee at its midpoint and
to Dr. Adrian Donato for his valuable time, knowledge, and feedback. Thank you to Dr. Derisa
Grant for your thoughtful consideration of my proposal and helpful input. My thanks and
gratitude to my professors, who embody the excellence of USC, Rossier, and the OCL program.
To my Cohort 13 classmates, thank you for sharing your experiences, knowledge, and
friendship. Special thanks go to Pamela Paspa, Kim Nguyen, Diana Sanchez, and Julius Hahn for
their unyielding belief that we could do this!
I am grateful to my organization, study participants, and co-workers who kindly
supported my educational pursuits. Lifelong learning is my passion, and I am thankful for your
support.
Thank you to my sister, PJ, for your encouragement and the occasional kick to get things
moving. For their love and belief in me, thank you to my family, near and far. And finally, I am
so grateful for my daughters, Caia and Keelin, who are my shining stars and my heart. You give
me great hope for the future.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 5
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 6
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 10
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 12
Purpose of the Study and Questions ................................................................................. 12
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 13
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Historical Context ............................................................................................................. 15
Gender Barriers in Engineering ........................................................................................ 18
Organizational Factors that Support Retention ................................................................. 24
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influence
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 27
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 41
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 41

viii
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 41
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 43
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 48
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 49
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 51
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 52
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 53
Determination of Needs and Assets .................................................................................. 54
Knowledge Influence Findings ......................................................................................... 54
Motivation Influence Findings .......................................................................................... 59
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings ................................................................... 64
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................... 81
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Data ................... 83
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion......................................................................... 85
Discussion of Findings and Results .................................................................................. 85
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 87
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 99
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 100
References ................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Email to Participate in Interviews ......................................................................... 122
Appendix B: Research Questions and Influences by Category .................................................. 123

ix
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 125
Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 128

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Mission and Goals 12
Table 2: Engineering Technology Bachelor’s Degrees by Gender 16
Table 3: Employment in STEM Occupations, 2009 and 2015(thousands of workers) 18
Table 4: Knowledge Influences 30
Table 5: Motivation Influences 33
Table 6: Organizational Influences 38
Table 7: Data Sources 42
Table 8: Interview Participants 52
Table 9: Document Analysis 842
Table 10: Summary of Categories, Influences, and Results 84
Table 11: Summary of Needs and Recommendations 88
Table 12: Levels of Pay Transparency 95
Table B1: Assumed Influences 124
Table C1: Interview Questions 126
Appendix E: Crosswalk of KMO Influences With Interview Questions and Research
Questions 131

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: TECH Race and Ethnicity Data for Fiscal Year 2020 6
Figure 2: Job Types at TECH 7
Figure 3: Percentage of Women in Technical Disciplines and Total Population at TECH by Year 8
Figure 4: Concept Map 39
Figure 5: Logic Model to Implement Recommendations 98

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The lack of gender diversity in engineering, both in academia and industry, has been an
issue for decades (Aerospace Industries Association, 2019; National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, 2019). Although women made up 51.5% of the U.S. population in 2017,
only 20% of graduates in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields were
female, and even fewer were engineering graduates (National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, 2019). Furthermore, research from the Society of Women Engineers
(SWE, 2019b) showed that 32% of women who initially choose STEM majors change to a
different major before graduation. Corbett and Hill (2015) found that, upon graduation, many
female STEM graduates pursue careers in biological science rather than engineering despite
better job prospects for both computer science and engineering graduates. This attrition from the
pursuit of engineering degrees results in fewer female engineers in the workforce, where women
leave the field at a higher rate than enter it (Fouad et al., 2017). Data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2018) show that only 12% of active engineers are female, and studies from Frehill
(2008) and Fouad et al. (2017) found that women have a lower rate of retention than men in most
engineering disciplines.
Adding to the gender imbalance in engineering careers is the forecasted increase in the
need for skilled STEM workers over the next decade. According to research done in 2015 by the
American Association of University Women (AAUW), over a million new STEM jobs will be
created over the next 10 years. Retaining women with engineering degrees already in the
workplace is essential due to the need for highly-skilled engineers in the rapidly changing
technological environment and the strength that diversity brings to the workplace (Choi, 2011).
Gender diversity in the workplace provides benefits, including increased innovation and
2

productivity (Noonan, 2017; Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). According to Smith-Doerr et al. (2017),
the benefits of gender diverse teams included improved group dynamics, better communication,
and more participation from all team members. This study sought to identify gaps in
understanding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that female engineers must
overcome. By minimizing or eliminating these barriers, employers will benefit by retaining
valuable talent and expertise and cultivating a desirable working environment for all employees.
Background of the Problem
Engineering is typically a male-dominated field, creating several challenges for females.
Faulkner (2009) described the engineering environment for engineers as an “in/visibility
paradox, whereby women engineers are simultaneously highly visible as women yet invisible as
engineers” (p. 172). Per the SWE (2019b), only 30% of female engineers stay in these careers
long-term. Organizational gender barriers such as inequity in pay and opportunities for
promotion, combined with cultural factors, contribute to women’s flight from the field (Fouad et
al., 2017; Frehill, 2013; Hunt, 2016; Singh et al., 2013). Much of the current research has
focused on the individual reasons women leave rather than the systemic organizational factors
and complex climate issues that contribute to their low retention rates (Block et al., 2018; Fouad
et al., 2011; Fouad et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2018). However, organizational factors, including
climate, culture, and support, play roles in how women view the organization and their career
development paths.
Challenging Work Environments
Research from the SWE (2019b) found that 30% of the women who left the engineering
field cited the organizational climate. Several studies detail the difficulties for women in a male-
dominated workplace (Britton, 2017; Cech et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2010; Hunt, 2016) and
3

highlight the challenges for women in the technology-driven, competitive engineering
environment. Fouad et al. (2011) described workplace behaviors that resulted in an inhospitable
organizational environment for women as patronizing or condescending input from others,
undermining authority, and lacking clarity in job roles and expectations. Corbett and Hill (2015)
noted that women engineers’ job satisfaction was negatively impacted by incivility at work,
being belittled, and being ignored. Additional factors include inequitable compensation and a
lack of recognition for their efforts (Fouad et al., 2017; Hunt, 2016). a respondent to a survey by
Fouad et al. (2011) described the consequences of an unwelcoming environment:
At my last engineering job, women were fed up with the culture: arrogant, inflexible,
completely money-driven, sometimes unethical, and intolerant of differences in values
and priorities. I felt alienated, in spite of spending my entire career trying to act like a
man. (p. 8)
In research done by Hall et al. (2015), conversations with male colleagues left
female engineers feeling incompetent and alienated from their peers. Daily interactions
caused “mental exhaustion and psychological burnout,” which undermined productivity
and the female engineers’ well-being (p. 528). This problematic environment may lead to
women doubting their engineering abilities.
Organizational Support of Work/Life Integration
The engineering environment presents challenges and opportunities for women. In recent
studies, many women found the field prone to poor working conditions, with inflexible and
demanding work expectations (Fouad et al., 2011). At the same time, female participants in other
studies observed that engineering provided an intellectually challenging and stimulating
environment enabling them to make significant contributions to society (Buse et al., 2013). The
4

difference between these perceptions may be attributed to how an organization supports
work/life integration for its employees, regardless of gender. Expectations that employees work
50 or more hours per week and night and weekend work lowered job satisfaction for women and
men (Corbett & Hill, 2015; Frehill, 2008). Several studies found that a work environment that
supported work/life integration was key to retaining female engineers (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad
et al., 2017; Fouad et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2018). Organizational considerations, including
flexible work hours, supportive networks, opportunities for training and development, and formal
and informal mentoring, contributed to females’ commitment to their careers and persistence
(Fouad & Santana, 2017; Singh et al., 2018). Even if the employees did not use the benefits, the
organizational factors created a climate that recognized and supported the varying roles of its
employees and the many demands of working life (Singh et al., 2018).
Stereotype Threat and Implicit Bias
Women starting their engineering careers have invested significant time and effort in
obtaining a degree, often facing implicit and explicit biases in the academic environment (Jones
et al., 2013; Smith & Gayles, 2017). Biases in the academic environment can make women feel
like they do not belong in the field or receive special treatment because they are female (Smith &
Gayles, 2017). These biases follow them into the work environment and impact perceptions of
their engineering ability. Biases that may have been implicit in college may take the form of
explicit bias in the workplace, with experiences of sexism and sexual harassment (Buse et al.,
2013; Smith & Gayles, 2017). Research conducted by Block et al. (2018) and Cech et al. (2011)
found that women’s own implicit biases impact self-efficacy and contribute to a lack of a sense
of belonging or lack of commitment to the organization. Explicit negative stereotypes of
women’s mathematical and engineering ability and implicit concerns about confirming a
5

negative stereotype can decrease women’s performance in the workplace, further exacerbating a
challenging environment (Jones et al., 2013). Block et al. (2018) described the stereotype threat
that women often feel and how feelings of judgment can influence their sense of belonging in
engineering. Implicit bias may lead to a perception of not belonging in an engineering
environment and make women less committed to staying in their careers (Buse et al., 2013).
In summary, literature regarding the organizational gender barriers in engineering
explored the challenges in dealing with the relatively small number of women in these
workplaces, the biases of working in a male-dominated field and culture, and the pressure of
work-life integration.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of organizational gender barriers to retaining female engineers is critical to
solving for various reasons. According to the National Science Board (2018), technology is
omnipresent in the U.S. economy. It requires that the STEM workforce grow to face new
complex issues that it brings to government, industry, and education. Dasgupta and Stout (2014)
stated that “girls and women represent untapped human capital that, if leveraged, could enhance
the STEM workforce” (p. 21), and the retention of women already in engineering careers would
assist in staunching the “leaky pipeline” (p. 21). Noonan (2017) stated that it is critical for U.S.
companies to have gender diversity in their STEM workforce to compete in the global
marketplace. Identifying the organizational factors that influence females’ retention will enable
the creation of opportunities for engagement and connection. This study may contribute to
understanding the organizational gender barriers women face in the field. This research may also
benefit engineers by encouraging the development of organizational policies and benefits that
support all employees and cultivate a diverse, desirable workplace.
6

Organizational Context and Mission
TECH (a pseudonym) is a research and development organization that provides
technology, performs research, and manages projects for the United States government and other
customers. TECH is located in California and has a long history of engineering and scientific
excellence. Founded in the 1930s, it has been at the forefront of research and technology
development for decades. Its roughly 6,000 employees are mostly engineers and scientists,
making up almost 70% of the organization’s population. Figure 1 illustrates the race and
ethnicity demographics of the population.

Figure 1
TECH Race and Ethnicity Data for Fiscal Year 2020

7

As is typical of an engineering organization (Aerospace Industries Association, 2019),
the technical employees have usually been White men, with women comprising only about 22%
of the total technical staff of engineers and scientists. While women make up a more significant
percentage of the overall technical workforce now than in previous years, the lack of diversity in
engineering is exacerbated by the shortage of science, technical, engineering, and math
employees needed for today’s workforce, and progress in hiring and retaining women in
technical disciplines is slow. Figure 2 shows job type data.

Figure 2
Job Types at TECH

8

Given the large numbers of the Baby Boomer generation employees who will retire
between now and 2030 (Pew Research Center, 2018), there are opportunities to engage a more
diverse pool of candidates for technical job openings as well as an increased need to retain the
experienced staff currently employed at TECH. Figure 3 shows data from TECH shows
incremental progress in hiring women in both technical and non-technical disciplines.

Figure 3
Percentage of Women in Technical Disciplines and Total Population at TECH by Year

9

Organizational Goal
TECH aims to identify and eliminate organizational barriers to gender diversity to
increase female engineers’ retention by June 2024. This goal is part of the organization’s broader
creativity, transparency, and diversity goals. Demographics of the current workforce are tracked,
and the organization's management promotes the achievement of a diverse and inclusive
workforce. Currently, the demographics of the engineering population are 78.19% who identify
as male and 21.81% who identify as female. While the number of women has risen in recent
years, it does not reflect the increasing number of women graduating with degrees in
engineering. It is essential to evaluate the organization’s performance concerning the overall
institutional goal of increasing the diversity of the engineering population and improving
females’ retention rate.
Progress towards this goal will be measured by analyzing the recruitment of recent
engineering graduates to ensure that the candidate pool reflects the diversity of the graduating
class and to increase the retention of current female engineers. If the organizational barriers to
female engineers’ retention are not addressed, the organization will continue to lose valuable and
skilled employees and be unable to recruit new talent. If the factors that have the most significant
influence on the organizational barriers to the gender diversity of the engineering population are
identified, attention and resources can be applied to those elements. By identifying and focusing
on the crucial factors, the TECH organization can utilize scarce resources most beneficial to the
employees.
10

Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups of this study include the female engineers in the organization, the
human resources group, and the organizational leadership of the institution. Each stakeholder
group has different perceptions of the organization and its culture.
The female engineers in the organization are critical to the study, and understanding their
lived experiences at TECH forms the basis for this research. Engineers at TECH, male and
female, provide technical knowledge in conceptualizing, designing, building, and operating the
software and hardware that make up the organization’s key product lines. Engineers play vital
roles in safety and quality control, research and development, and the supervision of engineering
teams.
The human resources (HR) group is responsible for recruitment and retention factors such
as compensation, awards, paid time off benefits, retirement benefits, and career development
activities. The HR group supports all areas of the organization and is matrixed to the institution’s
executive leadership. Also, HR is frequently the first contact a prospective employee has with the
organization and plays a crucial role in employee relations and strategy.
The institution’s organizational leadership is responsible for the tactical, day-to-day
decisions of operating the organization efficiently and for strategic, long-term direction.
Engineers and scientists make up most of the TECH organization, and the organizational
leadership will reap the most significant benefit from the diverse voices that provide creative and
innovative solutions to the complicated technical issues the organization faces daily.
Organizational leadership includes members from each area and leaders from the infrastructure
support areas, including communication, finance, facilities, and security.
11

Stakeholder Group of Focus
Achievement of the organizational goal will benefit the institution as a whole; it will
benefit specific stakeholder groups within the organization. For this study, the stakeholder group
of focus was the female engineers in the technical divisions. This stakeholder group has the
valuable experience of daily interfaces with peers, managers, subordinates, and support staff that
informs their desire to remain in the workforce, specifically in engineering. By sharing their
experiences and becoming knowledgeable about the organizational gender barriers they face and
the available resources, this stakeholder group will provide valuable input to assist the
organization in achieving its performance goal. If the retention goal is not achieved, sustained
inequity in the representation of women in the engineering field will continue, depriving the
women of opportunity and the institution of the value of a diverse and varied employee
population. Stakeholder performance goals are shown in Table 1.

12

Stakeholder Performance Goals

Table 1
Mission and Goals
Organizational Mission
Science and engineering that benefits humans.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2024, the organizational leadership team will identify and address the organizational
barriers to gender diversity to increase the retention of female engineers.
Organizational leadership
team
HR Female engineers
By December 2023, the
organizational leadership
team will convene a
committee to identify
organizational factors that
support work/life
integration and develop
support materials that
encourage the retention of
female engineers.
By January 2024, HR will
identify, develop, and
disseminate materials to
support traditional and non-
traditional career paths that
encourage the retention of
female engineers.
By May 2024, female
engineers will choose to
remain with the organization.

Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore participants’ perceptions and
lived experiences of the organizational barriers in the engineering environment by evaluating the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within the organization. This research
aimed to explore the pathway for TECH to achieve its goal of identifying and reducing
organizational barriers to gender diversity. While a complete evaluation project would focus on
all TECH stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis
are a sample of female engineers at TECH. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation,
13

and organizational influences related to barriers to retention for women in the engineering
discipline. Three questions guided this study:
1. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the organizational gender barriers, if any,
that exist at TECH?
2. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge and motivation required to
remain in their careers at TECH?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to favorably impact female engineers’
retention?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, will
be implemented as the conceptual framework. These influences impact TECH’s performance in
identifying organizational gender barriers to retaining female engineers. Motivation theory and
self-efficacy, as described by Bandura (2010), are part of the conceptual framework of employee
retention in the context of organizational barriers to gender diversity. The research design is a
qualitative phenomenological study consisting of individual interviews and document analysis.
Definitions
• Engineering discipline: Per the National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics (2013), the engineering discipline can be organized into the following
categories: Aerospace, aeronautical, and astronautical; chemical; civil and
architectural; electrical and computer; industrial; mechanical, and other.
14

• Organizational culture: Formal and informal policies, procedures, and processes,
along with relationships and social factors, that inform the foundation of the
organization (Kossek et al., 2017).
• STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (Encyclopædia Britannica, n.d.).
In 2001, the National Science Foundation defined STEM as “the academic and
professional disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”. This
definition includes physical and biological sciences, social and behavioral sciences,
mathematics, and engineering.
• STEMM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (National
Academies, n.d.).
Organization of the Study
This research is organized into five chapters to investigate the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational barriers that influence women engineers’ retention. This chapter introduced
the problem and the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the organizational barriers
to gender diversity in engineering and retaining females. Chapter Two surveys the current
literature that explores the issues surrounding the organizational barriers to diversity in
engineering and factors that push women out of the engineering field. Chapter Three presents the
methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In
Chapter Four, the data are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for
practice and future research.
15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter will review the literature related to the organizational barriers to the
retention of women in engineering by providing an overview of the historical context of women
in STEM, a synopsis of the data regarding women in engineering disciplines, and an exploration
of the organizational gender barriers to retaining female engineers. Finally, a review of this
research’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks will be examined.
Historical Context
History of Women in STEM
The underrepresentation of women in STEM education programs, STEM college majors,
and the pipeline to the STEM workforce has been the subject of several studies and initiatives
over the past 30 years. Much of the research on women in STEM focuses on the issues that
discouraged them from participating in science and math courses in elementary and high school,
making the transition to STEM majors in college particularly difficult (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014).
Gunderson et al. (2011) found that kindergarten and elementary school-age girls were
surrounded by negative stereotypes from parents, teachers, and other students regarding their
math ability. Many girls move away from engineering, computer science, and math classes in
high school to pursue biological, biomedical, and life science courses (Legewie & DiPrete,
2014). According to Jacobs and Bleeker (2004), girls take fewer calculus and physics classes that
are often prerequisite courses for advanced physical science classes. Because of this trend,
women are often less prepared when they go to college, where most first-year engineering
students are required to take calculus (Noeth et al., 2003). The issue persists as women continue
their college experience. According to research from the SWE (2019b), over 32% of young
women who choose an engineering major as a freshman switched out of STEM degree tracks in
16

college, resulting in men earning 85.8% of bachelor’s degrees in engineering in 2018, and
women earning only 14.2% (Roy, J., 2019). Table 2 shows how the percentages of women and
men earning engineering technology bachelor’s degrees have changed only slightly over the past
decade.

Table 2
Engineering Technology Bachelor’s Degrees by Gender
Female Male
2009 9.40% 90.60%
2010 9.40% 90.60%
2011 9.50% 90.50%
2012 9.40% 90.60%
2013 10.20% 89.80%
2014 10.60% 89.40%
2015 12.80% 87.20%
2016 13.30% 86.70%
2017 14.50% 85.50%
2018 14.20% 85.80%

Note. From “Engineering by the Numbers,” by J. Roy, (2019) Engineering College Profiles and
Statistics Book. (https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/publications/college-
profiles/2018-Engineering-by-Numbers-Engineering-Statistics-UPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf).

17

To facilitate STEM education, address the need to diversify the workforce, and fund
research into the lack of women in STEM, Congress passed the America Competes Act in 2007.
In 2010, the legislation was reauthorized (although not fully funded) and included a mandate to
research minorities’ underrepresentation in STEM (Gonzales, 2015). Over time, despite
increases in every other STEM field, the percentage of women in the engineering field has
remained mostly stagnant. Although women make up almost 20% of graduates in STEM fields,
data from Fouad et al. (2011) show that only 12% of active engineers are female.
According to Fouad et al. (2011), the highest turnover rate in skilled professions is in
engineering, exceeding the attrition rates in accounting, law, and medicine. In a 2017 report from
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), the employment
numbers for women in STEM changed little from 2009 to 2017 (Noonan, 2017). Studies by
Fouad et al. (2017) found that more women left the engineering field over this time frame than
were entering it. The 2017 OCE report observed that women continue to be underrepresented in
STEM undergraduate degrees and in STEM jobs. Women who obtain STEM degrees tend to
graduate with degrees in physical and life sciences, while men make up most of the engineering
graduates, and women with STEM degrees are more likely than men to go into non-STEM
occupations such as healthcare or education. The data from the OCE report, summarized in Table
3, also shows that the share of women with STEM degrees who work in STEM fields dropped
from 26% to 23% from 2009 through 2017. At the same time, men in the same category
remained the same at 40%.

18

Table 3
Employment in STEM Occupations, 2009 and 2015(thousands of workers)
Male Female Percent female
2009 2015 2009 2015 2009 2015
Computer science and math 2534 3162 929 1101 27% 26%
Engineering 2079 2195 330 364 14% 14%
Physical and life sciences 553 595 374 448 40% 43%
STEM manages 474 568 157 187 25% 25%
STEM total 5640 6520 1790 2100 24% 24%

Note. Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Economist. Estimates
pertain to employed persons aged at least 16.

Researchers have found several contributors to women’s low retention in engineering in
academic and professional settings. Organizational barriers in the engineering workplace
combine with knowledge and motivational influences to the detriment of females and their career
decisions.
Gender Barriers in Engineering
Questions remain regarding why, after spending considerable time and effort to obtain an
engineering degree, women do not choose the field as a career or stay in a job in the field long-
term. Per the OCE (Noonan, 2017), women are underrepresented in STEM jobs and among
STEM degree holders. The OCE reported that women who earn degrees in STEM subjects are
concentrated in physical and life sciences while men with STEM degrees are primarily in
engineering (Noonan, 2017). One of the most frequently cited reasons for women leaving
engineering is the prevalence of gender inequality in the field (Buse et al., 2013; Corbett & Hill,
2015; Fouad et al., 2017; Hatmaker, 2012; Hewlett et al., 2008). Hunt’s (2016) research
attributes the female’s high exit rates to the field’s predominantly male demographic. Although
19

the pay gap between men and women is one of the smallest in STEM fields (Noonan, 2017), men
still significantly outnumber women in engineering workplaces. According to a recent report
from the National Academy of Engineering (NAE, 2018), most working engineers are male and
are either White or Asian, while women and People of Color remain underrepresented
minorities. Cardador and Hill (2018) found that females were more likely to be tracked into
managerial or hybrid engineering roles and males tended to stay in technical, project-based roles.
However, the women tracked into managerial roles were more likely to leave. The literature
discusses several organizational and personal factors that can be barriers to women staying in
engineering, including implicit bias, isolation, stereotype threat, a chilly work environment, and
a lack of workplace support.
Implicit Bias
Pritlove et al. (2019) defined implicit bias as discriminatory behaviors that happen
without conscious intent. Several researchers (Corbett & Hill, 2015; Li et al., 2017; Pritlove et
al., 2019) have noted that female engineers still widely experienced implicit bias at college and
career levels, despite incidents of explicit bias declining. To investigate racial and gender biases
in engineering, researchers performed a study in 2016, surveying over 3,000 engineers on
whether they had seen gender or racial biases in their workplaces. The researchers found that
women, especially women of color, were far more likely to have personally experienced biases
on the job. The three biases most often cited by survey respondents were prove-it-again bias,
tightrope bias, and maternal wall bias:
● Prove-it-again bias is described as the perception that there was a need to prove
competence and knowledge repeatedly to gain a level of respect that White men
typically received without question.
20

● Tightrope bias defined a narrow range of acceptable behaviors for women;
respondents described pressure to refrain from behaviors that might be seen as
aggressive or too masculine while also being expected to “take notes” or plan social
activities.
● Maternal wall bias was the perception that women were less dedicated and less likely
to put in long hours due to childcare needs. Because women are often the primary
childcare providers, they frequently miss work due to family needs, especially when
children are young. These situations strengthened the maternal wall bias, no matter
how hard women worked or how effectively they used their time at work. (Williams,
et al., 2016).
Building on the Williams et al. 2016 study, Li et al. (2017) surveyed thousands of female
engineers on their experiences of implicit bias in the workplace and interviewed senior female
engineers. The researchers found that without regard to “age, education, workplace seniority, and
academic status” (p. 2), 96% of women experienced bias in their daily interaction at work. The
biases make women feel less valued in the workplace and less competent in their interactions
with co-workers. In many engineering environments, gender inequity and implicit bias go hand
in hand (Pritlove et al., 2019).
Pritlove et al. (2019) examined implicit bias concerning the gender gap in STEM, the
implications for women in STEM and medicine, and how it contributed to gender inequity.
Pritlove et al. suggested that the focus on the unintentional or subconscious nature of implicit
bias obscures the explicit bias in social institutions by placing the onus on individuals’ choices
rather than the organizational structures in which the biases are entrenched. The researchers point
out that training to recognize and reduce implicit bias encourages individuals to evaluate their
21

internalized privileges and recognize practices that foster discrimination. Little is done at the
institutional or organizational level to make significant improvements to the “culture, policies,
and practices” that support the biases (Pritlove et al., 2019, p. 901). By leaving the burden for
change on the individual, the organization can escape responsibility for making systemic changes
to the structural framework that supports implicit biases.
Isolation
Isolation is an issue for females in many male-dominated engineering workplaces, where
a woman may be the sole female on a project team (Hewlett et al., 2008). In the study by Hewlett
et al. (2008), 44% of females indicated isolation in their work environments. Research from
Saxena et al. (2019) noted that, for women, a lack of inclusion in work and non-work
socialization events leads to decreased perceptions of social support and feelings of isolation.
Often combined with workplace incivility (Fouad et al., 2015, this isolation leads to higher
turnover, performance issues, and stress (Saxena et al., 2019). Lack of belonging in the
workplace culture impacts women across STEM and may decrease opportunities for support and
promotion (De Welde & Laursen, 2011). Servon and Visser (2011) found that isolation
contributes to feelings of dissatisfaction with a job and that isolation increases as women move
up the career ladder.
Stereotype Threat
Researchers have examined prejudicial and societal stereotypes that men are better than
women in engineering ability (Bell et al., 2003). This prejudgment leads to stereotype threat,
defined as when one feels pressure or judgment that begins with a widely known prejudice and
the belief that one’s actions will cause one to be stereotyped (Steele, 1997). The pressure to
perform to avoid the stereotype can distract from the task at hand and undermine performance. In
22

2011, Gunderson et al. found that stereotype threat can harm girls as early as elementary school
when parents and teachers communicate that boys are better at math. This undermining of their
abilities steers girls away from science and math topics continuing through high school (Shapiro
& Williams, 2011). In college, female engineering students frequently find that the culture of
their departments causes anxiety even if they do not believe in the stereotype that women do not
perform as well as men (Jones et al., 2013). Bell et al. (2003), Jones et al. (2013), and Shapiro
and Williams (2011) found that stereotype threat can hamper women’s retention in engineering
and that reducing this threat may be a way to increase the number and persistence of women on
this career path.
A Chilly Work Environment
Much of the literature regarding women in engineering refers to a chilly work
environment as an organizational factor contributing to women leaving the discipline. Carr et al.
(2003) described a chilly work environment as one that discourages inclusion and marginalizes
fair treatment of all participants, and Cech et al. (2018) pointed to a “frequently hostile and
unfair work environment” (p. 3). Workplace hostilities are harmful to both women and men, but
women are more likely to feel marginalized due to the environment (Hewlett et al., 2008;
Yonemura & Wilson, 2016). Fouad et al. (2011) found that both positive and negative workplace
climates had a significant influence on women’s retention, with incivility and undermining
behaviors leading to reduced job satisfaction and increasing disengagement. Buse et al. (2013),
Fouad et al. (2017), Fouad and Singh (2011), Frehill et al. (2008), and Xu (2016) observed that
women engineers leave engineering at higher rates than men and established that the
environment is a contributing factor. Hill et al. (2010) reported similar findings, correlating with
23

Frehill’s (2008) findings that women engineers cite a negative work environment three times as
often as males as a reason for leaving.
Lack of Workplace Supports
A chilly work environment is often cited as a factor when women leave engineering, and
a lack of workplace support affects women’s perceptions of the organization. Fouad et al. (2016)
defined workplace supports as resources that enable the integration of work and family
obligations and provide training, development, and recognition opportunities. Females identify
the lack of a clear path for advancement in their careers and requirements for long hours as key
impediments to their career intentions (Fouad et al., 2011; Frehill, 2008; Hewlett et al., 2008;
Hunt, 2016). The lack of opportunities for training and development created lower levels of
commitment to the organization and lower self-efficacy among women (Singh et al., 2013).
Singh et al. (2013) and Fouad et al. (2016) recognized the availability of opportunities for
training and development as key workplace support for female engineers, which fosters higher
levels of self-efficacy and better outcome expectancies.
Social support in the workplace from co-workers and supervisors plays a part in the
organizational climate and culture. Women who persist in engineering careers often cite
supportive supervisors as the impetus for staying (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad et al., 2015; Singh et
al., 2013). Supervisors engaged and interested in their employees create supportive environments
and a workplace culture that encourages flexibility and growth. Supportive supervisors may also
become mentors as employees move through their careers. Drury et al. (2011) and Gonzalez
(2015) noted that a lack of mentors and a lack of female role models were two of the most
common issues encountered by women in the STEM workforce. The absence of female role
models or mentors can be a factor in switching to a non-engineering career path (Fouad et al.,
24

2015). The lack of a defined career path is also seen as a sign of a non-supportive work
environment and a frustration for many women (Fouad et al., 2011).
Organizational Factors that Support Retention
Environments that support diversity work to transform their culture to support men and
women without role and gender stereotypes (Buse et al., 2013). Kossek and Buzzanell (2018)
stated that “organizations with supportive cultures for women’s values, needs, and goal
accomplishments place fewer constraints on women’s career choices and are more likely to be
successful at attracting, retaining, and advancing women” (p. 233). This aligns with findings
from Fouad et al. (2011) and Singh et al. (2018), describing organizational cultures that provide
flexible work hours, supportive networks, opportunities for training and development, and formal
and informal mentoring increase the commitment that female engineers feel towards their
careers. The availability of these resources is key to creating organizational climates that support
women’s retention in a variety of roles (Singh et al., 2018).
Successful Organizational Strategies
Organizations that have eliminated organizational barriers encountered by women in
STEM include Nokia, 3M, and Autodesk (Glassdoor, n.d.). These companies implemented long-
term comprehensive strategies to create inclusive, diverse environments for their employees.
Their strategies include long-term investments in programs to achieve gender balance,
identifying and eliminating implicit bias in hiring, and inclusion efforts like leadership
development programs, employee resource networks, policies that support flexibility, mentoring,
and engaging in the community. Understanding that gender balance is a long-term goal, Nokia
implemented a plan that began with awareness and training in recruiting and hiring diverse
candidates. The company set diversity goals and published metrics against those goals. Autodesk
25

focused on weeding out implicit bias to improve its hiring processes, starting with the wording of
job descriptions. Autodesk also evaluated its interview guidelines to create opportunities for
women to discuss their accomplishments and successes. Autodesk took care to distill its culture
into a set of values to prevent interviewers from favoring candidates who were more like them.
3M created an inclusion initiative, employee resource networks, community engagement
programs, and mentoring programs to support diversity and remove organizational barriers for
women (Glassdoor, n.d.). These strategies implement the utilization of resources to create
supportive work environments to encourage female engineers’ retention.
CRDF Global, a non-profit organization, compiled a best practice guide to detect and
categorize barriers for women in STEMM and security fields (CRDF Global, n.d.). Although
targeted to a global audience, the study had commonalities with much of the research focused on
female engineers in the United States. Researchers found organizational barriers included a lack
of mentors, inflexible workplaces, tokenization of women, and a lack of career pathways and
development. As described by CRDF Global (n.d.), examples of best practices to overcome these
barriers were mentorship opportunities, salary transparency, self-assessments to uncover
disparities or unconscious bias, flexible benefits, and recognizing the benefits of a diverse
workforce.
A common theme for successful organizational strategies was the need for mentoring,
from the newly hired college graduate to the women in leadership (Wong et al., 2018). In
research done by the Royal Academy of Engineering (2017), access to mentors was noted as an
important action to make a positive difference in the engineering environment. Allen et al.
(2008) examined the role of mentoring on IT employees’ perception of organizational support
and suggested that mentoring helped the employees deal with a stressful work environment. This
26

finding aligned with the research done by Dworkin et al. (2013), which found that mentoring
supported women and assisted with professional success, particularly with networks and career
development.
Best Practices for Retention
Best practices to improve females’ retention include efforts to identify and remove
organizational barriers rather than place responsibility on women to fit into the culture (Kossek
et al., 2017; Pritlove et al., 2019). Fouad et al. (2015) studied the differences between women
who persist in engineering careers and women who change careers and found that organizations
that provide advancement opportunities and management support for work-life integration made
the difference in retention. In a review of perspectives on career equality and gender inclusion,
Kossek et al. (2017) found that the creation of a “gender-supportive organizational culture, work
environment, and job design” enhances women’s career outcomes (p. 233).
Bilimoria et al. (2008) explored how both industry and academia could improve diversity
and provided examples of initiatives and policies that were successful at the institutions studied.
The Bilimoria et al. change model (2008) focused on breaking down barriers and improving the
environment for women and for all employees. At a high level, the model created by Bilimoria et
al. included mentoring, changes to the institutional structure and processes related to promotion
and retention, and equipping women with support in career and leadership development
programs. These initiatives were combined with changes to the climate that worked to improve
organizational awareness of gender barriers. The factors discussed above combine to remove
organizational barriers and influence female engineers’ retention.
In summary, the engineering environment presents challenges and barriers to retention of
women. Women face biases, a lack of role models, and difficult environments while trying to
27

advance to reach their career goals. Companies that encourage females’ retention have an
awareness of the organizational barriers that women face and create supportive work
environments to assist in their career development. The purpose of this study was to explore the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to organizational barriers to
diversity in engineering. This study used a phenomenological approach to explore female
engineers’ perceptions of the organizational barriers and provide specific recommendations to
improve retention.
Clark and Estes’s Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influence Framework
The gap analysis framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008) was the framework for
this study. This gap analysis enables the study of the differences between the goals of an
organization and actual performance. By emphasizing a clear analytic path, the model of
investigating knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (KMO) provides a structure
to enable a careful examination of the issues facing individuals and organizations and enables the
researcher to suggest a course for improvement.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Several issues play into female engineers’ retention at the TECH organization. It is
essential to review the literature that discusses the KMO barriers to retention. The literature
review addressed the variety of KMO barriers that women in engineering must overcome and
described important issues in their journey to success in their careers.
Knowledge Influences
The knowledge influences pertinent to the stakeholder group of focus study are
considered using Krathwohl’s (2002) revised Bloom’s taxonomy aligned to cognitive processes.
Types of knowledge are factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and
28

metacognitive knowledge. (Krathwohl, 2002). Krathwohl’s 2002 recharacterization of Bloom’s
taxonomy defined factual knowledge as the basic elements, terminology, and information, and
conceptual knowledge as the relationship between elements, categories, principles, and how they
work together. The stakeholders of focus must understand their roles as engineers and define
success (factual) and find pathways to that success (conceptual). Procedural knowledge involves
the methods, techniques, and protocols necessary to leverage knowledge and skills (Krathwohl,
2002). For female engineers at TECH, this is the knowledge of how to use resources effectively
to persist and achieve their goals. Lastly, Krathwohl (2002) described metacognition as
knowledge about one’s cognition and self-knowledge.
Knowledge Influence 1: Female Engineers Need to Know and Understand the Organizational
Gender Barriers That Impact Career Advancement and Retention (Conceptual)
Male-dominated fields present many challenges for women, including gendered barriers
and inequity in the workplace (Amon, 2017; Faulkner, 2009; Powell et al., 2019; Rhoton, 2011).
Successful female engineers typically develop coping strategies that empower them to persist
and take charge of their career development to overcome these obstacles. Khilji and Pumroy
(2018) identified three coping strategies that enabled females to develop their careers and
overcome barriers in their organizations. These strategies included conforming, negotiating, and
defying gendered and organizational roles. Participants in Khilji and Pumroy’s study indicated
that their careers did not progress in straight lines. Still, they were able to take advantage of
opportunities, and they defined success in various ways (Khilji & Pumroy, 2018). By
participating in their career development and understanding what success means to them, women
in engineering can find ways to overcome organizational barriers in the male-dominated
29

engineering environment (Buse et al., 2013; Faulkner, 2009; Khilji & Pumroy, 2018; Servon &
Visser, 2011).
Knowledge Influence 2: Female Engineers Need to Understand How to Leverage the
Resources Available to Assist Them in Their Career Development Goals (Metacognitive).
Female engineers need to understand and reflect on their knowledge, skills, and abilities
in their roles and how it contributes to achieving their personal goals. This benefits female
engineers by providing a framework for their feelings of self-confidence in their roles (Kossek et
al., 2017). Flavell’s (1979) model of metacognition monitoring provided four categories of
metacognition: “(a) metacognitive knowledge; (b) metacognitive experiences; (c) goals (or
tasks); and (d) actions (or strategies)” (p. 906). Flavell further defines metacognitive monitoring
as the ability to identify a task, understand progress, evaluate results, and comprehend the
outcome of the task. Often, engineering students have varying perceptions of what it means to be
a working engineer (Rohde et al., 2019). Per Hawse et al. (2018), engineering encompasses
many domains and bridges social, economic, and political contexts. Understanding how to
conceptualize, design, develop, and implement complex structures and systems is an important
skill set in the workplace and critical to engineering competence (Hawse et al., 2018). When
female engineers reflect on their identity, skills, and knowledge, they develop an engineering
identity that leads to persistence in engineering careers (Buse et al., 2013). This identity enables
female engineers to be confident in their skills and abilities and overcome challenges and
obstacles in the work environment. Table 4 summarizes the knowledge influences and
knowledge types for this study.

30

Table 4
Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Female engineers need to know and understand
the knowledge and skills that enhance career
advancement and retention.
Conceptual
Female engineers need to understand how to
leverage the resources available to assist them
in their career development goals.
Procedural

Motivational Influences
In Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, motivation has three elements:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice requires not only the intention to
pursue a goal but also requires action. Persistence requires focus to maintain progress despite
distraction and competing priorities. Mental effort is a conscious commitment to apply cognitive
skills and time to achieve a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). In studying the organizational gender
barriers to retaining female engineers, motivation plays an integral part in the ability and
capacity to persist in a male-dominated environment. This study evaluated motivation using self-
efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory in this context.
Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy posits that an individual’s belief that they can
accomplish a goal directly impacts their motivation (Bandura, 1997). Wigfield and Eccles (2000)
propose an expectancy-value theory model in which expectancies and values directly influence
achievement, performance, effort, and persistence. An individual’s beliefs about ability,
difficulty, and goals significantly impact motivation, and the more a person values success at a
task, the more motivated they are to complete the task (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For women in
engineering, Buse et al. (2013) described the need to be motivated by the obstacles inherent in
31

engineering and the ability to maintain self-efficacy when facing challenges. In VanAntwerp and
Wilson’s (2018) model for understanding differences in motivation patterns, both men and
women were intrinsically motivated when their needs for autonomy were met and were more
likely to persist in engineering. Women were more likely to drop out mid-career when the
environment did not correlate with their intrinsic interests, which could be met outside of
engineering. For female engineers at TECH, it is important to understand their self-efficacy and
expectations to persist in the highly competitive environment.
Motivation Influence 1: Female Engineers Need to Believe They Have the Skills and
Resources to Achieve Their Career Development Goals
Female engineers at TECH need to believe in their skills and abilities to persist in their
careers. To that end, self-efficacy is a key theory for much of the literature that explains how
women could navigate organizational barriers and stay in engineering (Bandura, 1997). Bandura
(1997) defined self-efficacy as the belief in one’s ability to achieve a goal and theorized that
perceptions of self-efficacy are formed by information from mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and physiological indications. Zeldin and Pajares (2000)
suggested that women in STEM relied on vicarious experiences and social persuasions to
develop self-efficacy and resilience to overcome barriers to their careers. Research by Zeldin et
al. (2008) explored the different sources for self-efficacy beliefs for men and women and
suggested that men and women differ in the foundations for their self-efficacy beliefs, with men
relying primarily on how they interpret their mastery experiences. In contrast, women depend on
vicarious and relational episodes to support their motivation and participation in domains
typically dominated by men (Zeldin et al., 2008). Especially as it relates to motivation,
32

researchers believe that self-efficacy is a significant factor in women being successful in the
male-dominated world of engineering (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad et al., 2015.
Buse et al. (2013) described how female engineers expressed self-efficacy when finding
new assignments, working with problematic people, or undertaking challenging technical
obstacles. Buse and Bilimoria (2014) found that female engineers who were engaged and
committed to their careers expressed self-efficacy and confidence in their abilities to overcome
organizational and situational barriers to success. Cech et al. (2011) and Fouad et al. (2011)
pointed to self-efficacy related to persistence as a key factor for women in engineering. For
female engineers at TECH, belief in what they can contribute to the organization’s mission and
their unique capabilities could increase their motivation to overcome gender barriers in the
organization and persist in engineering.
Motivation Influence 2: Female Engineers Need to Believe That They Will Succeed in
Reaching Their Career Development Goals
Understanding how female engineers at TECH value their work and expect to succeed
are important factors in understanding motivation and success. They must value the work they do
and what they contribute to the organizational mission to overcome barriers. In Wigfield and
Eccles’s (2000) research regarding the expectancy-value theory model, motivation is influenced
by what an individual expects to gain by achieving a task and the task’s value. Value is further
divided into attainment value or importance, intrinsic value, and utility value of the task. This
model is shaped by the perception of the difficulty of tasks, perceived ability, goals, and previous
experience. Although their model was developed to measure students’ performance and choice, it
illustrates how female engineers can create a schema of motivation to overcome organizational
33

gender barriers and develop their careers by defining their task goals and what they value in
attaining those goals.
Singh et al. (2013) noted that women who linked their self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectations had better access to developmental opportunities and were less likely to leave
engineering. Conversely, women who were unable to link engineering tasks and goals with their
aspirations were less likely to feel confident or motivated to excel in the field (Cech et al., 2011).
Researchers from Coqual (2022) surveyed women who were successful in STEM careers and
found that those who succeeded in overcoming barriers were confident in their abilities, bold in
confronting those who would ignore them, proud of their achievements, and actively participated
in networks that supported and sponsored others. Table 5 presents the motivation influences of
self-efficacy and expectancy value as it applies to retaining female engineers.

Table 5
Motivation Influences
Motivation influence Motivation construct
Female engineers need to believe they have the
skills and resources to achieve their career
development goals.
Self-efficacy
Female engineers need to believe that they will
succeed in reaching their career development
goals.
Expectancy value

34

Organizational Influences
While many knowledge and motivation influences revolve around the individual and
individual agency to resolve problems, organizational influences are centered around the
structures and systems that reinforce the cultural models and settings. Faulkner (2009) described
how important culture is for women in engineering:
Workplace cultures are extremely consequential, in two crucial ways. First, they oil the
wheels of the job and the organization. Second, they shape who is included and who is
excluded at work. Getting on with one’s colleagues is, after all, a huge part of how much
people feel they belong– and are felt by others to belong. This in turn can have a subtle
but significant bearing on whether one stays and progresses within a company or
occupation. (p. 5)
Per Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), cultural models are “shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work. The concept incorporates
behavioral (activity) as well as cognitive and affective components” (p. 47). These cultural
models influence the organization’s norms and response to change while often being invisible
and automatic to the organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural
settings as people gathering to achieve value can be further illustrated as the behaviors, policies,
and trends of a cultural model (Rueda, 2011) and are visible characteristics of the environment.
For female engineers, cultural settings may be visible in the organizational policies and
procedures that disadvantage them in the male-dominated workplace.
35

Cultural Model 1: The Organizational Leaders Need to Identify and Address the Systemic
Organizational Barriers That Impact the Retention of Female Engineers
Women in engineering often face both explicit and implicit bias. Engineering can be an
old-boys club that marginalizes women as peers, devalues their work (St. Fleur, 2014), and
where women are not seen as having the hard skills the field requires (Faulkner, 2009). These
biases often permeate engineering organizations, and unless the organization takes steps to
change the culture, women will hesitate to enter the discipline or hasten their departure (Jones et
al., 2013). Fouad et al. (2011) and Aguenza and Som (2018) described a supportive work
environment as one with family-friendly policies that enable employees to balance work and
family responsibilities. Kossek et al. (2017) stated that “organizations with supportive cultures
for women’s values, needs, and goal accomplishments place fewer constraints on women’s
career choices and are more likely to be successful at attracting, retaining, and advancing
women” (p. 233). For women in engineering, a supportive work environment may help them
overcome implicit or explicit biases they encounter.
Cultural Model 2: The Organizational Leaders Need to Foster an Environment That
Embraces and Values Gender Equity at All Levels of Leadership
To provide a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees, regardless of their
gender identity, organizations must evaluate their culture to identify solutions to problems with
its schemas, values, and beliefs that are barriers to true gender diversity. Kossek et al. (2017)
stated that “organizations place more responsibility on women to ‘fit in’ rather than creating fit
for women” and often frame gender diversity efforts as accommodations rather than fundamental
changes to support diversity (p. 233). To effect real change, the organization must support and
reinforce the importance of diversity at every level (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Clark & Estes, 2008).
36

Leadership must be willing to face hard questions regarding the obstacles female engineers face
and power imbalances that perpetuate the status quo (Bilimoria et al., 2008; Smith-Doerr et al.,
2017).
Cultural Setting 1: The Organizational Leaders Need to Create Additional Opportunities for
Female Engineers to Participate in Career Development Activities
Women’s career development rarely matches traditional career development, where an
employee stays with one organization and follows a predictable linear promotion path
(Hatmaker, 2012). Women's career paths may involve breaks, part-time work, and lateral moves
as methods to integrate work and home life (Hewlett et al., 2008). In typical engineering
organizations, Buse et al. (2013) and Khilji and Pumroy (2018) described significant
organizational barriers to career development for female engineers, including a lack of clear
career paths, low rates of retention, and a bias for White males. Fouad et al. (2016) and Singh et
al. (2018) found that a lack of progress in career development increased the likelihood that a
female engineer would leave the engineering profession and often spurred job search activities.
Conversely, organizations whose best practices support a wide range of career development
options and meaningful work create environments that encourage female engineers’ retention
(Buse et al., 2013; Cardador & Hill, 2018; Fouad et al., 2015). An organizational culture that is
gender-supportive and designed to create equal participation and access to opportunities to
advance enhances career equity for women (Kossek & Buzzanell, 2018). Opportunities for
continuous learning and engagement in innovative technologies provide career development
possibilities and foster persistence in the engineering field.
37

Cultural Setting 2: The Organizational Leaders Need to Offer Additional Avenues in Which to
Participate in Mentorship Opportunities for Its Female Engineers
According to Dasgupta and Stout (2014), there are few female engineer role models and
mentors in either academic or professional environments. The lack of female mentors may stunt
opportunities for women in engineering to successfully move from student to professionals,
curtail network connections, and affect women’s perception of their work environment
(Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Fouad et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2008). Mentoring may provide
benefits beyond just learning and development opportunities. An AAUW report from 2016 states
that contact with effective networks is vital to career development and that networking with
influential employees is as important as accomplishments. In a report from the SWE (2019b),
26.5% of respondents cited training, development, and mentorship as one of the benefits most
important to them. For engineers newly entering the workforce, a mentor may provide guidance
on how to negotiate the transition between engineering in academia to engineering in the
workforce and help them acclimate more quickly (Anderson, 2018). For the mentors, mentoring
provides benefits, including sharing knowledge, improving productivity, and adding to their
professional reputation (Anderson, 2018). Table 6 shows the organizational cultural models and
setting influences that have the most significant impact on the barriers and challenges for the
stakeholders of focus, the female engineers at TECH.

38

Table 6
Organizational Influences
Organizational influences Organizational influence
category
The organizational leaders need to identify and address the
systemic organizational barriers that impact the retention of
female engineers.
Cultural Model 1
The organizational leaders need to foster an environment that
embraces and values gender equity at all levels of leadership.
Cultural Model 2
The organizational leaders need to create additional opportunities
for female engineers to participate in career development
activities.
Cultural Setting 1
The organizational leaders need to offer additional avenues in
which to participate in mentorship opportunities for female
engineers.
Cultural Setting 2

Conceptual Framework
As described by Maxwell (2013), a study’s conceptual framework provides a model that
incorporates the purpose of the research with the justification, concepts, influences, and variables
and aligns the relationships between each component. According to Antonenko (2014), a
conceptual theory incorporates the “content of practice, theory, and methodology,” or what is
referred to as the “trifecta of inquiry” (p. 59). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) observed that the
terms conceptual framework and theoretical framework are frequently used interchangeably and
identify the scaffolding that underlies the research process as the theoretical framework.
The conceptual framework for this research links the KMO factors that present
organizational barriers to gender diversity at TECH with the cultural models and settings that
influence how female engineers perceive and overcome those barriers. Figure 4 represents this
relationship and the interactions of the KMO influences.
39

Figure 4
Concept Map

Summary
This literature review provided an overview of the research pertaining to the
organizational barriers to gender diversity and the issues that affect women in engineering. These
issues include a chilly work environment, gender inequity in engineering, implicit bias, lack of a
supportive work environment, isolation, and stereotype threat. This review also addressed the
40

areas of KMO influences that factor into organizational barriers to gender diversity at the TECH
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). A review of the conceptual framework informed by the
literature was explored. Chapter Three will detail the research design and methodology used for
this study.
41

Chapter Three: Methodology
The study’s research design and data collection methods and analysis are presented in
Chapter Three. The chapter begins with the study questions and approaches employed in this
study, and the following section reviews ethics and roles of the researcher.
Research Questions
1. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the organizational gender barriers, if any,
that may exist at TECH?
2. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge and motivation required to
remain in their careers at TECH?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to favorably impact the retention of female
engineers?
Overview of Methodology
The methodological approach used for this study was Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis. The use of gap analysis enabled me to investigate and evaluate TECH female
engineers’ knowledge of organizational barriers, self-efficacy, and expectancy related to
organizational barriers and TECH’s organizational climate and culture as it relates to their
retention. Qualitative data collection utilized purposeful interviews to explore the participants’
perceptions and lived experiences at the TECH organization.
Per Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research attempts to understand the
meaning, either individual or group, associated with a complex problem through questioning and
narrative. Qualitative research aligns with the study’s purpose by examining the participants’
experiences in the context of the organization and not approaching the research with a hypothesis
42

already in mind. The research design provided credible results as applied to TECH, although
they may not transfer in full to other organizations. However, the research design allowed
dependability and confirmability with the accurate recording of results and careful, responsible
data handling. Table 7 shows the relationship between the research questions and the data
sources.

Table 7
Data Sources
Research questions Method 1
Interviews
Method 2
Document
analysis
What are female engineers’ perceptions of the
organizational gender barriers that may exist at TECH?
X X
What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge
and motivation required to remain in their careers at
TECH?
X
What are the recommendations for organizational
practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources to favorably impact the
retention of female engineers?
X

43

Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan
For this research, a phenomenological study was performed by interviewing participants
to understand how they experienced the structure and culture of the organization and how it
influenced their perceptions and intentions to remain. Per Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and
Neubauer et al. (2019), phenomenological studies look at how people make sense of their
surroundings and interpret that experience. This inquiry strategy aligned with the constructivist
paradigm that framed the research by exploring how organizational factors interact and influence
the study participants’ perceptions.
Instrumentation
This study used interviews as a primary data collection method. The primary data
collection method, qualitative interviews, is an instrument for collecting rich, in-depth
information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Although data collection via interviews typically
utilizes fewer study participants, interview questions were open-ended and result in detailed
qualitative data (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Participating Stakeholders
The participants were female engineers at TECH. The study used purposeful sampling,
defined by Creswell and Creswell (2018) as the selection of individuals for the research who will
help understand the problem. The target population was individuals who identified as female,
were classified (or had been classified) in the engineering discipline, and were currently
employed at TECH. Additionally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants who had worked
at TECH for a year or more were sought, as the remote work paradigm may have influenced their
perceptions and lived experiences. The target number of participants was 10 to 12. The target
population included women in various engineering disciplines, including electrical, mechanical,
44

microwave, and optical communications, as well as a range of tenures at TECH. Including
women with a wide variety of backgrounds, experience, and tenure enabled the collection of rich
data on their perceptions and observations of the KMO factors at TECH that enhance or
discourage retention.
Sampling Criterion
Criterion 1
Participants had to currently identify as female and be employed at TECH in an
engineering or engineering management discipline. This pool of employees was about 21% of
the employees at TECH, roughly 1,300 people. Employees at TECH may move in and out of
technical roles throughout their careers, but experience in the engineering discipline was the
focus of this study.
Criterion 2
The second requirement for participation was to be an engineer who had been at TECH
for at least 12 months. Employees with fewer than 12 months of experience at TECH may not be
comfortable in their roles, and their inexperience may put them at a disadvantage in
understanding the institution’s inner workings or organizational culture. Additionally, the
COVID-19 pandemic required working from home for most TECH employees, and this new
paradigm may not have reflected the broader organizational climate and culture. This pool of
possible participants was smaller and estimated to number about 1,000.
Purposeful sampling was used to select participants from this pool who offered a range of
perspectives, tenure, and experience. TECH is divided into sectors by function and engineering
discipline. I selected a few possible participants from each area using sector affiliation to
diversify the population included in the initial sample. Employee numbers are issued
45

chronologically, and I selected for Criteron 2 by avoiding newly issued numbers. Assuming a
roughly 30% response rate to my solicitation to participate, an initial list of 33 potential
participants who met both criteria was generated. From this list of 33 female engineers contacted,
12 responded that they wanted to participate in the research. Due to scheduling issues, two were
unable to participate and ten interviews were completed.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection commenced with an email to the 33 female engineers in the initial sample
population. This email is incorporated in this document as Appendix A. The email explained the
research purpose and the interview process and requested contact information if the recipient
wanted to participate. Per the guidelines for qualitative research described by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), the announcement included caveats that participation was voluntary and optional,
and all information obtained through interviews or any interactions with me would be
confidential. Prior to the interview, informed consent was fully described verbally and via email.
Interviewees did not receive compensation for their participation.
Data collection involved using open-ended interview questions designed to elicit the
participants’ lived experiences and perceptions of TECH’s culture and organization. The
interview questions were aligned with the research questions and were designed to explore facets
of the participants’ knowledge and motivation and the organizational barriers to achieving their
goals. The interview questions and prompts were intended to draw out the participants’
perceptions of the organizational culture.
Interviews lasted approximately 24 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes, and due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, were conducted via Zoom, a virtual meeting software. Interviews were
recorded as disclosed in Appendix B and discussed verbally prior to the beginning of each
46

interview. Recordings were transcribed using the Otter.ai software and were then reviewed
closely to ensure that the transcript accurately reflected the interview contents. The transcripts
were coded by hand and with the software application NVivo, which is specifically designed for
qualitative research.
The interviews were in a semi-structured format, starting from a list of questions per the
interview protocol as attached in Appendix C. Per Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the semi-
structured interview format provides flexibility and explores issues as they arise, rather than
adhering to a single set of questions that must be answered. As described in Creswell and
Creswell (2018), the interview protocol began with basic information about the participant and
moved through introductions for both the participant and me. The opening questions queried
basic job and role information and were targeted to put the participant at ease by starting with
simple questions. The next few questions related to the organization and were designed to help
answer Research Question 1, exploring the participants’ knowledge, motivation, and perceptions
of the organization’s goals and barriers in the recruitment and retention of women.
Additional questions focused on Research Question 2, querying experiences as female
engineers at TECH and the factors influencing perceptions of the organizational culture and
support structures. The final set of interview questions looked at the participants’ perceptions of
cultural and organizational factors that influenced them to stay at TECH and their perception of
areas that required improvement or attention (Research Question 3). In addition to the interview
questions, I prepared a set of probe questions to further examine areas of interest or ask for
additional information. The semi-structured format allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of
the participants’ experiences and clarify my interpretation of the data. The interview protocol
finished with closing statements by thanking the participant and providing information about the
47

final product. All participants were offered the opportunity to review the transcript to ensure
accuracy, but all declined.
At the beginning of each interview, I reminded the interviewee that their participation and
individual responses would not be shared with the organization and would not impact any aspect
of their relationship or standing in the organization. The content of Appendix D was shared with
them via email prior to the interview and verbally prior to commencing the interview. I closely
examined any internally held biases prior to beginning the interviews and mitigated via self-
reflection any biases or preconceptions before this stage of research began.
Data Analysis
Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that data analysis requires winnowing the data into
themes to make sense of the rich data obtained from interviews. I utilized NVivo, a qualitative
software program to store, locate and analyze the data obtained from the interviews to assist in
this process. The analysis process began with organizing the data and studying the information
collected from the interviews. An important step was reflecting upon the participants’ responses,
carefully examining their perspectives and experiences, and interrogating any biases. The next
step was reviewing the transcripts line by line and coding the information obtained. Creswell and
Creswell (2018) defined coding as identifying the themes in the data and assigning them into
categories. The coding process assisted in the next step of identifying patterns, similar phrases,
and differences in the participants’ interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The coded data were
then organized and described interpreting the findings for representation in the final product.
Document analysis was used to provide background information for the data and enhance
the validity of the data collected via interviews (Locke et al., 2010). Data from listening sessions
was shared through widely available channels and enabled me to explore which organizational
48

factors were important for the organization using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework. Analysis and categorization of listening session data presented themes related to
areas that require improvement within the organizational culture and provided context for the
KMO influences that factor into retaining female engineers.
Validity and Reliability
Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Locke et al. (2010) stressed the importance of validity
and reliability when conducting qualitative research. In accordance with Creswell and Creswell’s
definition of qualitative data procedures, rich, thick descriptions of the findings were used to
develop validity in the collection process, the data, and the study’s findings. These descriptions
of the findings increased the data’s credibility and internal validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I acknowledge the implicit biases inherent in being a long-term employee of the
institution of focus in this research and being a member of the organization’s management team.
It is important to note that I did not supervise or manage any employees in the technical or
engineering disciplines, and none of the participants reported directly or indirectly to me. I did
not have any input to nor influence on performance evaluations or coaching sessions with the
technical and engineering employees. It was crucial for me to self-reflect and ensure that
perceptions of the work environment did not impact how the interviews were conducted nor
influence how the questions were asked. This was accomplished by following the interview
protocol and allowing participants the option of declining to answer any question or stopping the
interview at any time. Although none of the participants reported directly or indirectly to me, it
was vital for me to be mindful of any power imbalances implicit in the interviewer/interviewee
situation because of my position in management. To further reduce the possibility of any power
49

imbalances, a proxy was used to interview the two participants who were not in manager or
supervisor positions. I also interrogated my experiences as a middle-aged, indigenous, cis-
gendered female before interacting with the participants, acknowledging my current privilege,
and understanding that their lived experiences and challenges would vary widely.
Reliability in qualitative research involves a consistent approach across different
researchers and projects (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Due to the unique nature of the TECH
organization, findings from this study may not apply to women engineers in general but may be
relevant to research and development organizations. I used a semi-structured interview protocol
(Appendix C) to ensure a consistent approach with each participant that allowed them freedom to
discuss and explore their own lived experience as female engineers.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the strategies used to enhance the credibility or
internal validity of qualitative research, defined as how closely the findings of the research hew
to reality and if the researcher truly sees what they think they are observing. Because qualitative
research is based on human experience, it can be useful to use strategies to increase the
credibility of information obtained via interviews. Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) suggestions
included using multiple methods, sources of data, investigators, and theories to confirm the
interpretation of qualitative data. For this study, careful analysis of the data from semi-structured
qualitative interviews was the primary method because the research was being centered around
the participants’ perceptions of organizational barriers to gender diversity. Additional methods to
ensure credibility and trustworthiness and create a clear audit trail included the careful handling
of the raw data and the transcribed interviews and adherence to the institutional review board’s
(IRB) guidelines.
50

Ethics and Role of Researcher
In gathering and interpreting data, the researcher takes on the role of the key instrument
in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Locke et al., 2010; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To
maintain objectivity, the researcher must carefully examine their relationship with the
participants, the data, and the research to be aware of their personal biases (Locke et al., 2010;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Self-reflection is key to rendering an objective review of the data
provided by the participants and acquired in secondary data analysis.
I was a part of the organization in this study but not in a technical group or function. I
held a management role at TECH but did not supervise or coach any technical or engineering
employees. This separation minimized unintentional power dynamics. I clarified to the potential
participants that the information was collected in the interviewer’s role as a doctoral student, not
as an employee of TECH. To allay concerns of undue influence or retaliation, I used
pseudonyms for participants and stored all information regarding them, the interviews, and the
resulting data on a personal (not work) computer in a password-protected folder. Additionally,
the computer required password authentication to open any application. The participants’
identities were further protected by using the audio function of the Zoom software to perform the
interviews and not requiring the use of video. Permission to record was requested prior to
beginning the interviews. In all interactions with participants, I reminded them that the
interviews were strictly voluntary and could end at any time. As described by Creswell and
Creswell (2018), and in accordance with the University of Southern California research
guidelines, the research proposal was reviewed and approved by IRB prior to the commencement
of the study, and I conformed to guidance provided by the IRB to ensure the protection of human
rights and reduce any ethical concerns.
51

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The focus of this study was to examine the organizational barriers that impact gender
diversity in engineering. The study investigated the KMO needs and assets for female engineers
to overcome barriers to career development at the organization. Specifically, the study focused
on the organizational issues that participants perceived as obstacles to their success and career
development. By identifying and eliminating organizational barriers, employers will benefit by
retaining valuable talent and knowledge and cultivating a desirable working environment for all
employees. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the organizational gender barriers, if any,
that may exist at TECH?
2. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge and motivation required to
remain in their careers at TECH?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to favorably impact female engineers’
retention?
As described in Chapter Three, qualitative research was performed to collect data for this
study. Ten interviews were conducted with females with a wide range of tenure and experiences
across several engineering disciplines at TECH. The interviews were semi-structured using a list
of IRB-approved questions and designed to enable discussions around the research questions.
Not every interview covered all the questions, but conversations were allowed to flow depending
on each interviewee’s experiences and perceptions Two participants, Pat and Willa did not
answer question 12 as the interviews had exceeded the time available. However, a close review
52

of the transcripts from the two interviews did not provide any indications that the findings would
be altered in any way. This chapter will present the results of the data analysis, beginning with a
description of the interviewees.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for this study were 10 female engineers currently
employed at TECH. Each was currently working as an engineer or in an engineering
management role. All had been employed at TECH for more than a year, and several volunteered
that they had been employed at TECH for 20 years or more. Table 8 details the participants’
roles.

Table 8
Interview Participants
Pseudonym Interview
number
Manager/Non-manager
Alice 1 Manager
Bianca 2 Manager
Kelly 3 Individual contributor
Alyssa 4 Individual contributor
Susan 5 Manager
Willa 6 Manager
Pat 7 Manager
Vicky 8 Manager
Mary 9 Manager
Lana 10 Manager

53

Interviews
Interviews were semi-structured. All interview questions were open-ended, allowing the
participants to share their perceptions and experiences. A set of follow-up questions was
constructed to explore and expand the responses to the initial queries. The questions addressed
the following: (a) role, function, and responsibilities within the organization, (b) perceptions of
career development pathways and expectations, (c) support and resources within the
organization, (d) mentors and co-workers, and (e) perceptions and experiences with
organizational bias or barriers.
Participation in the interviews was solicited via email using my University of Southern
California email (Appendix A). I selected participants from a wide range of engineering
disciplines and functions using purposeful sampling to produce a sample that spanned several job
titles, functions, and divisions across the organization. A proxy who was fully trained in working
with human subjects and approved by the IRB interviewed individuals who did not hold a
supervisory or management position in the organization. Interviews were conducted over Zoom
and lasted from 24 minutes to 75 minutes, with an average interview length of 45 minutes. I
assigned pseudonyms to interviewees to protect their privacy, as described in the information
notice I provided in the email solicitation and before the interview.
Data Analysis
Audio files from each interview were downloaded from Zoom onto my laptop into a
password-protected folder. I then transcribed audio files using Otter.ai, an application that uses
artificial intelligence for transcription. Once the transcriptions were complete, I downloaded
them, compared them to the corresponding audio files for accuracy, and corrected discrepancies.
I initially hand-coded the transcribed files and then loaded them into the NVIVO qualitative data
54

analysis software to be coded again and analyzed. Initially, I used a priori codes but continued
updating and refining coding throughout data analysis. I reviewed each transcript several times to
ensure consistency and continuity in the analysis process.
Determination of Needs and Assets
Chapter Two introduced KMO influences as guidance to investigate possible gaps in
understanding influences on the organization when exploring female engineers’ perceptions. The
chapter presented research regarding several facets of the engineering environment and culture
and described best practices. In this chapter, findings from the interviews are interpreted and
summarized according to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences identified in
Chapter Two.
If data from the interviews indicated that four or more of the participants perceived the
influence as an area for improvement, it was validated as a need. Influences were validated as an
asset if five or more of the participants perceived the knowledge, motivation, or organizational
influence as an area of strength. In addition, data from document analysis was considered as
context but did not determine the cut score as I was not involved in the listening sessions.
Detailed analysis of the KMO influences follows with a summary of each area.
Knowledge Influence Findings
Chapter Two identified knowledge influences that affected how female engineers
perceived the organizational barriers at TECH. Influences were an understanding of the skills
and knowledge that enhanced career development and knowledge of how to leverage resources
to assist in achieving career development goals.
55

Influence 1: Female Engineers Need to Know and Understand the Knowledge and Skills
That Enhance Career Advancement and Retention
TECH is a highly competitive environment that rewards long hours and an intense
dedication to the work, typical for an engineering workplace as described by Fouad et al. (2011).
Ettinger et al. (2019) noted that women in engineering have to navigate workplace politics and
deal with “more complicated, nuanced” cultural and organizational standards for behavior (p.
227). interview subjects mentioned several knowledge areas that they perceived to be helpful to
them in achieving career success and navigating this complex workplace dynamic. The
behaviors, knowledge, and skills most frequently mentioned were speaking up, knowing the
channels to get work accomplished, and asserting their understanding of the issues and solutions.
As described by Buse et al. (2013) and Faulkner (2009), women in engineering must show that
they have the skills to succeed. All of the interviewees demonstrated that they adapted to the
high-pressure environment and learned the skills necessary for success.
Interview Findings
Mary described overcoming cultural issues and a career change as challenging. Early in
her career, she thought working hard and getting the job done would lead to recognition and
promotion, but that was not true. In her academic career, women were typically taught that their
accomplishments would speak for themselves and that women should not brag about what they
have done. Her work experiences informed her that a quiet persona would not enable career
progress in a competitive, fast-paced engineering environment. She learned to speak up in
meetings and hold her ground when her knowledge was challenged. She stated, “You will be
ignored or assigned menial tasks. You must speak up, must stand your ground when you know
you are right, and you must highlight accomplishments because it isn’t bragging.”
56

Willa echoed Mary’s experiences, as she attributed her career success to being outspoken
and not afraid to speak up. She was secure in her knowledge and skills and said she was not
afraid to express dissatisfaction with a person or project. She stated,
If you’re a quieter person, it’s harder for you to get your viewpoint and your ideas out on
the table. And I think that can be compensated for by just people stopping at times and
saying, “Hey, do you have something to say? You’ve been listening the whole time.” and
inviting them to your work to invite people to the conversation if they’re not necessarily
joining in right away? Because a lot of times you’ll find people really do have something
to say.
Vicky encountered challenges in her early career and felt that she had to work harder and
persist in demonstrating her knowledge and skills. She attributed her career development to
“personality, persistence, being resilient, not taking no for an answer.” She volunteered for small
tasks that would expand her experience. She also said that it was important not to become
discouraged and to persist in her efforts. In her words, “I didn’t take no for an answer.”
Susan also felt that persistence and confidence in her skills were an important part of her
career success and her longevity in the engineering field. Lana said that she learned very early in
her career that it was important to speak up and speak out, or the men in the room would assume
she did not have the knowledge to contribute to the discussion. Overall, all the women
interviewed were confident in their skills and their engineering ability.
Summary
No interviewees mentioned a lack of knowledge or skills to be successful in their current
position. One participant talked about the challenges of transitioning from an academic
environment to a professional environment, but she felt that the transition was positive, and she
57

had the skills and knowledge she needed to be effective in her role. Interview participants took
on new challenges and looked for opportunities to expand their skill sets. The women
interviewed felt they had worked hard to attain the engineering knowledge and skills to be good
engineers, and this was an asset when analyzing the knowledge influence. This influence was
validated as an asset.
Influence 2: Female Engineers Need to Understand How to Leverage the Resources
Available to Assist Them in Their Career Development Goals
Career development for women in engineering is typically described as non-traditional or
a series of off-and-on ramps (O’Neil et al., 2008). A study by Khilji and Pumroy (2018) found
that women in engineering described their careers as “serendipitous, unplanned, and non‐linear”
(p. 1044). Research from O’Neil et al. (2008) regarding career development found that many
organizations still hew to the traditional view of full-time employment with gradual progression
of status and salary. Even the language regarding women’s career development, which frequently
uses phrases like “off-ramp” and “opt-out” can subtly influence how non-linear career
progression is viewed (O’Neil et al., 2008, p. 735). Cardador (2017) noted that women in
engineering are frequently routed into management roles rather than positions that require active,
hands-on engineering skills.
Interview Findings
Analysis of the interview data suggested that resources were available to assist engineers
in their career development, but career development was not a one-size-fits-all program.
Interviewees noted that the availability of resources, communication of the availability of
resources, influence from supervisors or managers, and the time allowed to take advantage of
opportunities varied widely within the institution. Seven participants provided examples of
58

where they leveraged resources to improve their skill sets, expand their knowledge, and take on
more challenging tasks. Overall, most interviewees knew how to leverage the available resources
to assist them in their career development goals. For example, Willa stated,
My manager and the section manager have both made recommendations for things that I
can do to improve the possibility of me moving into other positions. [They] have
provided me with the ability to do professional development, so I can earn different
certifications that would improve my chances of being put back into that role.
Direct supervisors or managers presented female engineers with many career development
opportunities. Alice stated, “I work for a manager who’s very supportive and has always
provided me opportunities to have the spotlight on me.” Others found that they could explore
options on their own according to their interests. Bianca said, “It’s not like I had a very clear path
in mind. It was that I wanted to find things that were interesting and meaningful to me because I
have a real passion for science.” Mary’s advice to other women in engineering was, “It’s
important that if you’re interested in other things, you should go do them, go ask, go seek them
out.”
Although confident in her current skill set, Alyssa struggled to find a path out of her
current position. She did not have management support for her career development, and the lack
of a formal mentorship program or support for networking made her feel “stuck” despite having
a strong engineering background and extensive experience. She did not feel she had the
resources available to explore additional training or career development.
Participants noted that they wanted to help others in their training and development goals.
Vicky discussed how she felt the opportunities were “endless,” and looking at the organization
both horizontally and vertically would help others find ways to achieve their goals. She said the
59

TECH organization is complicated, and it takes time to find a “fit.” By thinking about career
goals and understanding the line organization and project teams, Vicky found she could leverage
her skills to achieve career success.
Career development resources at TECH included training activities including in-person,
instructor-led training, self-directed training paths that could be completed online, institutional
courses in workmanship, training completed offsite, conferences, and poster sessions. Employee
Resource Groups (ERGs) also offered limited opportunities for training and development.
Summary
Overall, the interview participants were knowledgeable about leveraging resources to
support them in their career development goals and relied on connections with supervisors or
managers or their peer network to take advantage of challenging work assignments. However,
these peer networks and management connections were not available to all. Several took on
additional assignments to gain new knowledge and expand their skill sets. Participants also
expressed a desire to share their knowledge with others to help them succeed. Although
perceptions varied among the participants, all ten interviewees indicated confidence in their
knowledge and skills, and seven were confident in their ability to leverage resources. This
influence was validated as an asset for female engineers.
Motivation Influence Findings
Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy hypothesizes that an individual’s belief
regarding whether they can accomplish a goal directly impacts their motivation (Bandura, 1997).
In this study, self-efficacy appeared to be important to participants’ success at TECH. Chapter
Two described TECH female engineers’ motivation influences as (a) their belief that they have
60

the skills and resources to advance their career development and (b) that they will succeed in
reaching their career development goals.
Influence 1: Female Engineers Need to Believe They Have the Skills and Resources to
Achieve Their Career Development Goals
Studies suggest that self-efficacy is a significant factor in women’s success in the male-
dominated engineering world. Buse et al. (2013) examined how female engineers expressed self-
efficacy when finding new assignments, working with problematic people, or undertaking
challenging technical obstacles. Women who were engaged and committed to their careers
expressed self-efficacy and confidence in their abilities to overcome organizational and
situational barriers to success (Buse & Bilimoria, 2014).
Interview Findings
Two participants mentioned the availability or lack of resources and that they felt they
lacked the skills to advance. Eight discussed the role of a supervisor or manager that
communicated the skill sets needed to advance and made resources available to them. This
encouragement and interest in their skills and knowledge played a large part in their motivation
to strive to advance, gain knowledge, and seek out new growth opportunities. Without believing
that they have the knowledge and skills to advance, female engineers find themselves stuck in
unfulfilling roles and often look to leave the institution or leave engineering entirely (Fouad et
al., 2017). Mary spoke about her motivation to stay despite the challenges she faced, saying,
Unfortunately, at the time, because I did not have a lot of background, I was assigned
tasks that were peripheral [to my skills]. So, it took me a few years to kind of work my
way and prove with my quality of work and product to show that I’m capable of handling
the [tasks]. But most importantly, it was not that I was not letting myself get down or
61

change direction. I think it was a combination of personality, persistence, being resilient,
not taking no for an answer.
Mary’s early career situation mirrored the experience of other interviewees. Although
they came into TECH with significant engineering education and skills, their career progression
required resilience and confidence in their abilities to navigate the engineering environment.
Bianca talked about learning the skills and knowledge that she needed to advance as a “random
walk,” where she looked for jobs that needed to be done and learned how to do them. The
difficulty, she stated, in this career development path was that she “was also trying to balance
being a mom and being a spouse and all this other stuff. And so, you get used to juggling and
balancing any number of things. And this is just one more thing, right?”
Bianca’s statement about balancing the demands of family needs and career expectations
ties into the difficulties women face in the engineering culture (Carr et al., 2003, Cech et al.,
2018). As Singh et al. (2013) noted, working with others who hold biased views of their
technical abilities makes it difficult for women to maintain their work and family commitments
and “chip away at their attachment toward a profession that is characterized as being
incongruous with women’s social roles” (p. 909). Without appropriate workplace and
management support, conflicting work and family life may cause an engineer to resign.
Despite being confident in her skills and knowledge, Kelly encountered challenges in her
career and perceived that some were due to balancing career success and parenthood and the
biases she encountered. She said,
They challenge your competency. They challenge your opinion. They challenge a
commitment if you’ve a family. I think coming in, we have been so unsupported through
the years, that when the people that you’re working with, even if it is not everyone, all it
62

takes is just a couple, maybe you’re already questioning yourself, you’re already your
doubts. And then they question your commitment and competency.
Both Kelly and Bianca described a fundamental issue for women in engineering; the
perception that they are not as dedicated or available. Maternal wall bias, described by Williams
et al. (2016), is the perception that women are less dedicated and less likely to put in long hours
due to childcare needs. Whether explicit or implicit, this bias is pervasive in this environment.
Although both were confident in their skills and knowledge, they still perceived biases in their
work environments.
Summary
All the participants were confident in their knowledge and skills to be successful, even if
their career paths were not linear, validating this influence as an asset. Two interviewees
perceived challenges centered around biases in their work environments but credited their self-
efficacy and persistence for their success despite obstacles in accommodating work and family
needs.
Influence 2: Female Engineers Need to Believe That They Will Succeed in Reaching Their
Career Development Goals
As Hatmaker (2012) stated, the fact that the qualifier “women” or “female” is used when
talking about engineers reinforces the differences between the genders in the engineering culture.
In this male-dominated environment, women must construct a professional identity at work to
overcome barriers. In research from the Center for Talent Innovation (2020), women who had
achieved their STEM career development goals were proud of what they had achieved, confident
in their skills and knowledge, courageous in advocating for themselves, and active in mentor and
professional networks.
63

Interview Findings
Participant responses to interview questions about this subject were mixed, with strong
feelings at both extremes. Two respondents felt that there were strong barriers to advancing
along their career paths and that success would be very difficult to achieve. Three respondents
were pleased with their career development and felt that they had achieved their goals. Five
participants had mixed feelings regarding their career development; they had not necessarily met
their initial goals but were content in their current position. For example, Willa stated,
I don’t need to keep moving up to be happy. I like to have a challenging job. And just
because I didn’t move up the management chain doesn’t mean I don’t have a completely
new job that’s super challenging. I would say yes. My job now is maybe more
challenging than my last job, even though it’s the same job, but it’s a harder job. And I
think my last job helped get me ready for this job.
Willa navigated the barriers within the TECH organization and found that lateral
movement was challenging and fulfilling. In contrast, Alyssa felt very stifled in her career path
and unsupported by management. She described interactions with her boss that left her feeling as
if her career development had been stifled:
I tried to, at my yearly meeting, bring up career advancement with my boss, and he
refused to discuss or engage. They tried to discuss [a position] that was actually me going
backwards in my career, and I was like, no, no. I do not want to go back. No, I currently
feel very, very stuck.
The lack of workplace support and feeling “stuck” are both factors that negatively impact
motivation and could lead to Alyssa leaving engineering (Fouad et al., 2017).
64

Despite “not getting as far” as she wanted, Susan knew that she had made important
contributions to her field of expertise and was a role model for women just starting their
engineering careers. She discussed the challenges of being one of the few female engineers early
in her career and how engineering was not seen as “cool” in popular culture. Overall, she felt
satisfied with her career development and was still looking forward to new opportunities and
challenges at the TECH organization.
Summary
This influence was not validated as an asset in terms of motivation. Experiences varied
widely among the participants and were not associated with one particular area or discipline but
were dependent on the workplace supports perceived by the interview participants. If the women
perceived that they were supported by their management and by the organization, they were
more likely to believe they would reach their career goals. Prior research has found that women
who persist in engineering careers often cite supportive supervisors as the impetus to stay in
engineering (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2013). Supervisors engaged and
interested in their employees create supportive environments and a workplace culture that
encourages flexibility and growth.
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings
How people within an organization interact with each other and how the organization
achieves its culture influences its goals. Chapter Two presented four organizational influences as
contributing to the overall culture and environment for female engineers. The first was the need
to identify and address the organization’s systemic barriers that affect female engineers’
retention. The second was the need to foster an organizational environment that embraces and
values diversity across the organization. The third was the creation of additional opportunities for
65

female engineers to participate in career development activities, and the fourth was additional
avenues for female engineers to participate in mentorship activities.
Cultural Models
Influence 1: The Organizational Leadership Needs to Identify and Address the Systemic
Organizational Barriers That Impact the Retention of Female Engineers
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (n.d.) noted that systemic barriers are
entrenched in an organization’s social and administrative structures. Barriers may also be
physical, affecting the accessibility of an organization. Systemic barriers may also be embedded
in an organization’s policies, daily practices and decision-making processes, and social culture
and climate. A study by Fouad et al. (2011) found that both positive and negative workplace
climates had a significant influence on retaining women in engineering, with incivility and
undermining behaviors leading to reduced job satisfaction and increasing employee
disengagement. Kossek et al. (2017) state that “organizations with supportive cultures for
women’s values, needs, and goal accomplishments place fewer constraints on women’s career
choices and are more likely to be successful at attracting, retaining, and advancing women” (p.
233).
Interview Findings. Overall, the interviewees stated that the organization is working to
improve the environment for female engineers, but challenges persist. Alyssa noted,
It’s hard because some of the time, it’s hard to explicitly point and say that so and so is
being sexist. It’s a lot more subtle. The projects I usually get assigned to are smaller and
not like a main project. Not being selected for the ones that lead to more visibility and
advancement, I would say, is definitely an obstacle. Another thing is giving excessively
gendered feedback. Like almost every single review I’ve had, I’ve been told I’m too
66

blunt, too assertive, too loud, too direct. I need to come down. You’re not telling guys
this.
Alyssa’s perceptions reflect the implicit and explicit biases that women engineers
experience in the workplace, and her example of being too loud and too direct is an illustration of
tightrope bias (Buse et al., 2013; Corbett & Hill, 2015; Fouad et al., 2017; Hatmaker, 2012;
Hewlett et al., 2008). Tightrope bias describes situations when women must walk a fine line or
tightrope between being seen as feminine but not respected or too masculine and not liked (Li et
al., 2017). Studies have found that female engineers experience “bias in hiring, workplace
networking and promotion” (SWE, 2016; Williams et al., 2016, para. 3). As Hatmaker (2012)
noted, women also have to walk a fine line between being perceived as too soft or criticized for
being too loud, too assertive, or too masculine. Bianca echoed this observation and shared her
own experiences:
Like anyone else my age, I encounter plenty of sexist talk, small amount of sexual
harassment, that sort of thing. Nothing super serious. And again, my personality is such
that I tend not to be intimidated by that. And my response is usually to get more angry
and tell people off, which, I guess, could be more or less positive.
Bianca’s response to the question about organizational barriers reflects the everyday
obstacles, including casual sexist behavior, that women face in the engineering environment.
Hatmaker (2012) found that difficult workplace interactions were often centered on being
identified as a female first rather than as an engineer first. Bianca successfully navigated the
environment by pushing back and creating an identity as someone who did not “go along” with
sexist behavior.
67

Lana described a recent situation at work where a male co-worker called her a “little
girl.” She ignored the comment’s inappropriateness to minimize contact with the person, but the
explicit bias in this exchange stayed with her and made her uncomfortable engaging with this
person again. This encounter demonstrates the casual bias that may impact women’s feelings of
belonging and make them question staying with the organization (Fouad et al., 2015).
Lana noted the prevalence of “Prove-It-Again” bias, described in Chapter Three as the
perception that there is a need for women to prove competence and knowledge repeatedly to gain
a level of respect that White men typically receive without question (Li et al., 2017). Pat stated
that she was aware of prove-it-again bias and knew that her co-workers were encountering it. She
stated, “Some of the younger women still kind of gripe a little bit about why do I have to prove
myself more than the guys have to prove themselves?” Pat coached other women who
encountered prove-it-again bias to be assertive and to speak up, and she interceded when women
on her team were talked over or ignored. Prove-it-again bias is not unique to the TECH
organization. Faulkner (2009) noted,
Even really senior, older women engineers told me they have to (re)establish their
engineering credentials every time they encounter a new colleague, associate, or client for
the first time. This is an extra layer of practitioner identity work that women, and not
men, have to do throughout their careers in order to be taken seriously as engineers (p.
174).
Pat had been with the TECH organization for several years and noted that organizational
changes have resulted in a more inclusive workplace. Now, she encounters less explicit bias, but
early in her career, she discovered she was being paid less than a male colleague performing the
same work. She confronted her management about the problem, challenged the mindset that she
68

was worth less than her male colleagues, and received raises to be on par with male engineers in
her same discipline. However, Alyssa recently found that she was getting paid less than her male
peers, albeit through an informal channel:
There is an informal spreadsheet that people did at (TECH), and I can tell that I’m getting
underpaid compared to my male colleagues. They’ve been there less time, or they’ve had
less experience and quality and are getting paid more than I am.
Alyssa’s situation is an example of the persistent gender wage gap in engineering (Cech,
2013, Fleming, 2018; Michelmore & Sassler, 2016). Fleming (2018) noted that women
graduating with science and engineering degrees are paid less from the moment they start
working. Michelmore and Sassler (2016) analyzed years of data from the National Science
Foundation’s Scientist and Engineers Statistical Data System and found that engineering and
computer science, both fields with fewer females, had persistent gender pay gaps. The gender
wage gap is exacerbated by the large number of current engineering and computer science
workers and the forecast for a great number of future workers (Michelmore & Sassler, 2016).
The lack of salary transparency and the persistent wage gap require that the institution apply
resources to this need.
Susan noted that over her tenure at TECH, the organization had put resources or policies
in place to lessen the burden of systemic barriers with varying success. For example, the
childcare center was the result of an initiative from employees to have a facility near the
worksite. However, the high cost of childcare at the center means that the childcare center
remains out of reach for many employees, especially recent graduates, which limits the impact of
this resource.
69

Other participants had radically different experiences. Willa stated that she had been
promoted almost too quickly, stating, “I actually have warned people not to rise up through
management too fast because you’ve got to spend years doing the hard work.” In her career, she
felt that in order to be a proficient and effective engineer, one had to take on a variety of roles
and spend time in each.
Vicky’s experience was similar to Willa and Susan’s. In her career at TECH, she noted
that the organization had “evolved,” and, initially, opportunities for female engineers were quite
limited. However, in the last decade, the organization made several changes that were moving it
in the right direction and changing it to a more inclusive environment. She stated, “Opening up
the organization’s leadership, being more supportive of female engineers, recognizing the subject
of inclusion has started to surface a lot more than you had before.” Vicky also noted this effort
towards a more inclusive environment. She spoke about organizational efforts to identify implicit
bias and support a diverse workforce, including training and more focus on diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Most of the women interviewed noted that training opportunities, including classes to
recognize implicit biases and bystander training, were helpful in bringing these topics into the
open and initiating discussion, but they described lasting change as incremental and slow.
Summary. The statements from these interviews reflect findings from several studies
describing the climate for women in a male-dominated field like engineering (Britton, 2017;
Cech et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2010; Hunt, 2016). Patronizing behavior and condescending
attitudes are frequently experienced by women in the competitive, hard-driving engineering
environment (Fouad et al.,2011). Overall, participants rated the institution highly for its sense of
shared purpose and work that is important to the planet, but all ten participants perceived
lingering systemic organizational barriers, including biases in work assignments, casual sexist
70

behavior, pay inequity, and both tightrope and prove-it-again biases. Due to the participants’
perceptions of the systemic organizational barriers, this influence was validated as a need for the
organization.
Influence 2: Organizational Leadership Needs to Foster an Environment That Embraces and
Values Gender Equity at All Levels of Leadership
Cech’s (2013) work on social and technical dualism in engineering discusses the cultural
ideologies within professions that determine how skill sets and contributions are valued within
an organization. By placing a higher value on technical skills, the environment sets expectations
regarding the suitability of women and men in career paths in engineering disciplines and
management (Blair-Loy, 2013; Cardador & Hill, 2018; Cech, 2013). However, an environment
that values contributions towards both social and technical skills in engineering would provide
more equitable opportunities.
Interview Findings. Responses to interview questions regarding the environment for
female engineers varied, but most responses centered around the gap between how men and
women are treated differently in the engineering environment. Susan discussed how women in
engineering were finding career success in middle management, but advancement into executive
management was slow. She said,
And it gets harder as you go up the chain. That’s where you tend to have come in at the
lower levels. You’re with your peers, and the world has changed in that. That has
changed. As you go up, you get more of the old network, right? So they, people are
comfortable with people like them. And, so, it’s a little harder to break through the
barriers at the top.
71

In Susan’s experience, the “glass ceiling” was very real. Her experience is mirrored in the
research of Cardador and Hill (2018), Fouad et al. (2020), and Hewlett et al. (2008), who
examined women’s career paths and persistence in engineering and found that women left
engineering at a higher rate than men and had a higher rate of attrition at mid-career. Cardador
and Hill (2018) noted significant differences between men and women, especially for those
women in an engineering management career. Women in engineering management were more
likely to report an intention to leave engineering and identified less with other engineers, male or
female. They also experienced less satisfaction with work than male engineering managers
(Cardador & Hill, 2018).
Alyssa described situations that women, despite being engineers, would be asked to take
on more social or administrative duties simply because they were identified as female:
We noticed that all of the female engineers were being pulled out of what we were doing
to go take notes for meetings. And I talked to some manager and several levels above me.
We’re in the same room at some point [and I said,] “Oh, so, we noticed that you’ve
mainly pulled us female engineers out for taking minutes.” And my multiple-level-higher
manager, basically, the head of that office said, “Oh, well, that’s because you’re better at
it.”
Alyssa’s experience is an example of explicit bias, and Fouad et al. (2011) noted that for female
engineers, “people made assumptions regarding their intelligence level, personality, and/or skill
ability” (p. 81). Alyssa’s manager assumed that since she was female, she would not mind taking
notes or doing other administrative tasks. Alyssa noted that there were few women in her
workgroup, and they were all frequently asked to take notes or plan social events, creating an
environment ripe for implicit bias.
72

Kelly expressed her concerns about the environment created by the lack of women in her
workgroup and how it affected her interactions with her co-workers. She said, “They call it
unconscious bias where they challenge your competency. They challenge your opinion. They
challenge a commitment if you have a family. They’re like, ‘Well, you’re a mom.’” Her
statements reflect the experience of not only prove-it-again bias and maternal wall bias (Li et al.,
2017). Dealing with bias every day can create a hostile climate, and Li et al. (2017) stated that a
hostile environment will cause women to leave to find a job with a better work climate and
culture.
Some participants believed that institutional leadership rewarded behaviors that
contribute to a hostile environment. Interviewees suggested that if a mission was successful, “all
is forgiven,” and the project management team was promoted into more visible roles with more
responsibility despite undesirable management behavior. Pat discussed how she had seen people
with poor management skills get promoted:
Yeah, I’ve definitely seen the people who are poor communicators who don’t treat other
people on the team well … They solve a real issue or problem, where they produce
something and get it there on time, they get promoted, regardless of bad behavior or, or,
poor skills outside of the technical area. And that’s just acceptable because they got the
job done.
In the male-dominated field of engineering, women often have to accomplish extra work
or take on additional tasks to be seen as competent, but men may just become loud and
aggressive to achieve their goals (Hatmaker, 2012). In contrast, other interviewees were the only
females in their workgroup but did not perceive the gender disparity to be an issue in their daily
work or interactions with others. Alice discussed feeling that her perspective was valued due to
73

the lack of gender diversity in her group and that she did not feel as though she was singled out
or treated differently:
I am the only woman in my group. There have been other women in the group in the past,
but right now, I’m the only woman who’s there. My manager has made the comment that
he appreciates having me there because he thinks it gives a different perspective on some
of the discussions. I also kind of think that the men in the group keep their language a
little cleaner because they’re in the presence of a woman. But I see that pretty much in
our section as a whole. I don’t really see a lot of people who I don’t notice people treating
women any differently.
Alice’s workgroup leader supported her and respected her opinions. This behavior by a leader
created an environment that reduced Alice’s experiences and perceptions of implicit bias. Willa
mentioned the gender disparity in her work group, but it did not present any issues for her:
[Others may find] they’re the only female, and they feel a little bit, you know. They look
around, and it happens with many others. Sometimes, I’ll go someplace, and I don’t think
about it, and then all of a sudden, I’ll look around. I’ll be the only female in the room.
And that still happens a lot, but I’ve never felt suppressed by it.
Willa’s experiences in the organization illustrate the importance of workplace support. Although
she knew she would frequently be the only female on a team, it did not present any issues for her
because she was certain of her management’s support and of her skills and abilities.
Bianca’s recent experience was in a gender-balanced workgroup, and she felt that the
environment created a positive atmosphere. She stated,
I think it’s certainly a supportive environment for women. And the fact that there are so
many other women there, I think, makes it means that people feel more empowered to
74

speak up because they don’t feel inhibited being the only woman there. There’s always
an awkwardness associated with that.
Bianca added that the gender-balanced environment was the result of both an organizational
decision to be more diverse and the influence of leaders in her section. She added,
[With] explicit policies, it sends a message that women belong in positions of authority,
and people come to view it as natural. When someone first enters a role like that, more
traditional people might question it, but the more people become used to it, the next
person who comes along is going to receive less pushback and perhaps less resistance.
For Bianca, the women in leadership roles in her workgroup produced an environment that
reduced implicit and explicit biases, centered around diverse voices and perspectives. Group
members felt empowered to speak up and be heard, and Bianca felt comfortable and valued in
her role on the team.
Summary. Half of the study participants did not feel that the organization valued their
contributions as highly as male engineers. Some had been asked to perform duties that would
most likely not be requested of their male counterparts, such as taking notes or setting up social
activities. Two of the participants noted that they knew they had been or were getting paid less
than a male counterpart performing the same work. Conversely, the other half recognized they
were typically in the minority but did not perceive that it harmed their career development or
work environment. However, most did state that there was room for improvement, and this
influence was validated as a need for the organization.
75

Cultural Settings
Influence 1: The Organizational Leadership Needs to Create Additional Opportunities for
Female Engineers to Participate in Career Development Activities
The research that discusses career development for women in STEM careers often
identifies the lack of clear paths for advancement as a barrier to achieving their career goals
(Fouad et al., 2011; Frehill, 2008; Hewlett et al., 2008; Hunt, 2012). If female engineers interpret
the lack of opportunities for training and development as a lack of support for them, it creates
lower levels of commitment to the organization and lower self-efficacy (Singh et al., 2013).
Interview Findings. The cultural setting of creating career development opportunities for
female engineers appeared to be centered around supervisors’ interests and support. Supportive
supervisors were engaged in developing female engineers and discussed opportunities and
pathways for career movement. Supervisors who were not supportive either did not take any
action or were dismissive of career development requests made to them. Unsupportive
supervisors directed interview participants to smaller and less visible projects and focused on
weaknesses in skill sets rather than providing avenues for development. Some interview
participants noted being passed over for opportunities that would help their career development
or not being selected for lead positions. The lead was given to a male engineer with less
experience. Mary said,
I definitely feel that I would have been where I am in my career years ago … if I had
organizational support: not only mentoring and training but also providing opportunities.
Those are the key areas that I felt that I didn’t get, as compared to my male colleagues.
76

Mary overcame her early career experience and lack of support from her management through
persistence and resiliency in the face of organizational barriers. Not all interview participants felt
that they could overcome these obstacles.
Alyssa did not feel that she was receiving any career development guidance and, in fact,
felt as if her supervisor sidelined her. She said,
The projects I usually get assigned to are smaller and on the side and not a main project.
At one point, I was being considered for [a lead function]. Instead, I was pulled out of
there and put on a side project. It was still an important component, but as far as
opportunities for advancement go, one has a clear path for getting to know a lot of team
members, but mine was going off to work with a vendor. So, the availability of projects
and being selected for the ones that lead to more visibility and advancement definitely
impacts your career.
For Alyssa, being directed to smaller, less visible projects felt as though she was viewed
as less capable or less skilled than her male colleagues. Kelly spoke about issues that she
experienced in career development and the experiences of her peers. In her career development,
she felt there were different standards for men and women. She stated,
Yes, there are barriers to advancement. The obstacles in the technical field, like
engineering, you think that this should be just merit-based? Okay. I think the idea of it
being merit-based and being recognized for what you do really applies if you’re a man,
and specifically a White male. All bets are off for everyone else.
Kelly felt that the traditional engineering career path was targeted towards the dominant White
male population, creating an obstacle for everyone who was not White and male. Kelly knew of
other women at TECH who faced a similar lack of career development opportunities and
77

assignments, saying,
[There is] a female right now who literally told me last week. I found out she had applied
for work elsewhere because she’s been asking to have new challenges. And they can, and
they gave her paperwork to do. And she’s like, “I’m an experienced engineer.” And she’s
like, “My stuff is in space right now, and they want me to do paperwork.”
Kelly’s experiences and those of her peers speak to an environment that is male-
dominated and not inclusive. However, all the participants did not have the same perceptions of
their career development opportunities. One of the engineers who felt very supported by the
organization was Alice, who stated,
I work for a manager who’s very supportive and has always provided me opportunities to
have the spotlight on me. My manager and the section manager have both made
recommendations for things that I can do to improve the possibility of me moving into
other positions.
Alice enjoyed strong management support for her career development goals and did not feel that
she was treated any differently than her White male colleagues. Willa also felt that she had been
offered development opportunities throughout her career while acknowledging that her
experience may not have been typical: “I’ve been around awhile, and I know the different
sections and the different divisions, and they all have different cultures. And I kind of learned
what to expect from each of them.”
Willa brought up an important point: the organization is not monolithic, and experiences
vary by workgroup and management objectives. Some areas of the organization are very male-
dominated and traditional, but some women recently filled leadership positions. Vicky discussed
78

the changes in the organization over her career, including the leadership changes, and stated it
had changed for the better.
Summary. Data from the interviews were split, with some interviewees feeling
supported while others discussed feeling that management did not support their career
development. Overall interview findings validated that this was a need for the organization.
Influence 2: Organizational Leaderships Need to Offer Additional Avenues in Which to
Participate in Mentorship Opportunities for Female Engineers
According to Dasgupta and Stout (2014), there are few female role models and mentors
in either academic or professional environments for female engineers. The lack of female
mentors may stunt opportunities for women in engineering to move from student to professional
life, curtail network connections, and affect women’s perception of their work environment
(Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Fouad et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2008).
For several years, the organization provided a formal mentoring program facilitated by an
employee in the Human Resources group. The formal program focused on early career hires,
relying on the administrative staff to recruit and assign mentors. Participation in the program was
not required nor evaluated on a regular basis. Upon retirement of the person who led the
program, it ended.
Interview Findings. Many participants had skipped the now terminated formal
mentorship program early in their careers but benefited from informal mentoring relationships
throughout their tenure. However, many also participated as mentors, both formally and
informally, having recognized the benefits and wanting to help new and mid-career employees.
Bianca managed her career development without a formal mentor but said that she “certainly
could have benefited many times from the more official mentoring relationship, but for the past
79

two decades, I’ve just kind of invented the roles that I filled.” “Finding your own path” was a
common theme in the interview, especially from those participants who looked for gaps or needs
and took the initiative to learn what needed to be accomplished. Bianca’s advice to new
employees was to start building an informal network early by having coffee with co-workers or
just reaching out to someone who had an interesting job and asking them about it. `
Susan described the lack of female role models in engineering in her early career and
how important it was to her to have someone to connect with and discuss issues. She mentioned
that all of her informal mentors in her early career were men, and she appreciated their assistance
and support. However, the women she considered informal mentors now offered perspectives
and experiences that would not otherwise be available to her.
Having a mentor changed Alyssa’s career path immensely. She talked about the
difference it made for her:
The most change in advancement I had at TECH was when a friend was like, “I know
this guy who’s the best mentor ever.” And he believed in me, he worked with me, and he
gave me chances and talked with other teams, and I got to try out different things. So, that
was amazing just having someone talk with you and believe in you and help you try
opportunities. His support and belief in me was amazing.
Alyssa’s important mentoring relationship allowed her to gain knowledge from the mentor, and
she appreciated his support for her career development. For others, mentoring was not made
available or was a poor-quality experience, which indicates a significant gap in the
organizational influences.
As a mid-career employee, Kelly had asked for a mentor and was told that there were no
mentorships available for someone with her level of experience because she was looking to
80

expand her skill set. This affected her career development as well as her job satisfaction and
morale. Her advice to new employees was to find someone they admired and connect with them
to establish a mentoring relationship early.
Willa expressed concern that the current fast pace and heavy workload at TECH was
robbing new employees of the benefit of informal mentoring and the time to talk over issues with
co-workers. She described the gap:
There’s no time for any of that kind of mentoring. Now, we throw people into even
harder jobs than what I had when I started 30 years ago. We have higher expectations. I
look at what we expect our new hires, and it’s shocking how much we expect from them.
So, we expect more from our new hires. And we don’t have the time to train and mentor
them like we used to. So that’s, there’s something I think we can improve on.
Willa’s concerns about the lack of a mentoring program and minimal support for new employees
show a gap in the organizational commitment to supporting employees throughout their careers.
She understood the difference that mentoring made for her and felt that new employees were not
getting the benefit that mentoring can provide.
Lana credited ERGs as a significant contributor to building a supportive community to
overcome the lack of a formal mentoring program or networking. These ERGs are usually
formed around a common interest and are important for organizational change and innovation
(Welbourne et al., 2017). Researchers found that ERGs can provide a learning and development
platform for employees to learn communication, networking, and intercultural skills that may be
difficult to learn elsewhere (Bastian, 2019; Green, 2018; Human Resource Management
International, 2019; Kirilin & Varis, 2021).
81

Summary. Mentorship opportunities were a need. For participants who found a
mentoring relationship that functioned for them, it was a valuable experience that provided
support, knowledge transfer, and networking opportunities. However, the current lack of a
formal mentoring program across both early career and experienced employees created the
perception of a lack of support for career development and knowledge transfer.
Document Analysis
Although this research was centered on the perceptions of women in engineering and
required no triangulation to validate this information, analysis of listening session transcripts and
notes from 2019 through 2021 showed similar themes to the interview data. The organization
initiated a series of listening sessions to gather information from employees to understand the
challenges they faced prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. These sessions were
typically held at a workgroup level and were intended to be a forum to bring forth problems and
concerns.
Notes or transcripts made available from three listening sessions were reviewed and
analyzed. Bias in the work environment, a lack of career development, and the desire for mentors
were mentioned in listening sessions and by interview participants. Table 9 summarizes findings
from the document analysis.

82

Table 9
Document analysis
Document Example Quote/Statement Issue
Listening session
one
I am told I am not technical enough to move ahead Bias
Asked to take notes in meetings Bias

Male leader explaining things “so the ladies will
understand”
Bias
Being talked over in a meeting Bias

Wished I had more guidance about career paths Career
Development
Don’t want to be a manager, but want to progress Career
Development
Want more women mentors Mentor Program

Mentoring should be important to management Mentor Program

Want to be paired with a technical mentor Mentor Program

Listening session
two
Being asked to perform administrative duties as an
engineer, just because I am female
Bias

Being told I am a diversity hire Bias

Management makes me prove myself and being held
to higher standards
Bias

Others taking credit for my work while I am stuck Career
development

Listening session
three
Being interrupted because they assume you are just
“chatting” since it is two women talking
Bias

As an expert, having a male non-expert explain
something
Bias

Being expected to do all the listening while they do
all the talking
Bias

Having a male coworker promoted above you on a
project you led
Career
development
83

Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Data
This chapter presented an analysis of the data gathered from interviews with 10 female
engineers at the TECH organization to understand their perceptions of the KMO influences that
impact gender diversity and retention. This analysis suggests that the interviewees’ knowledge
influences were validated as assets. The motivational influences were split as a need and an
asset, with a need expressed for workplace support for career development for women to succeed
in their career goals. Among the four organizational factors, influences were validated as needs
in both the cultural models and settings. Table 10 provides a summary of the categories,
influences, and results.

84

Table 10
Summary of Categories, Influences, and Results
Knowledge influence Need Asset
Female engineers need to know and understand the knowledge and skills
that enhance career advancement and retention
X

Female engineers need to understand how to leverage the resources
available to assist them in their career development goals.
X
Motivation influence Need Asset
Female engineers need to believe they have the skills and resources to
achieve their career development goals
X

Female engineers need to believe that they will succeed in reaching their
career development goals.
X
Organizational influence Need Asset
Organizational leadership needs to identify and address the systemic
organizational barriers that impact the retention of female engineers.
X

Organizational leadership needs to foster an environment that embraces
and values gender equity at all levels of leadership.
X

Organizational leadership needs to create additional opportunities for
female engineers to participate in career development activities.
X

Organizational leadership needs to offer additional avenues in which to
participate in mentorship opportunities for its female engineers.
X

Chapter Five will provide recommendations based on the results to address the
organizational areas validated as needs. Chapter Five’s recommendations will enable the
organization to support the goal of organizational leaders to identify and address the
organizational barriers to gender diversity to retain female engineers.

85

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Chapter Five encompasses a summary of the KMO gap analysis findings in Chapter Four
and recommendations for strategic actions for improvement. These recommendations are based
on the literature described in Chapter Two, the research findings discussed in Chapter Four, and
targeted towards specific needs explored in this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion
of the limitations and delimitations of the study and recommendations for further research.
Discussion of Findings and Results
This study was conducted to examine if female engineers perceived barriers to gender
diversity within the TECH organization and if those perceptions impacted their career
development and retention. Chapter Two included a review of relevant literature and introduced
Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO factor gap analysis used to address the research questions. The
research questions that formed the basis for this study were
1. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the organizational gender barriers, if any,
that may exist at TECH?
2. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge and motivation required to
remain in their careers at TECH?
Chapter Three described the qualitative methodology design used for the study, and
Chapter Four discussed the findings from the 10 interviews comprising the research. Analysis of
the interview data indicated that the two knowledge influences for female engineers at TECH
were assets. All interviewees felt they had the right background and skills to perform the jobs
they were hired to perform initially and the roles they were currently performing. Several of the
interviewees expressed the importance of learning on the job, volunteering to take on new tasks,
and their experiences making lateral moves within the organization to gain more knowledge.
86

They spoke about their experiences in overcoming cultural issues and learning to work in a high-
pressure environment. The participants shared essential skills learned on the job that included
speaking up, being assertive, and knowing the right people and channels to get tasks completed.
Consistent with the literature (Buse et al., 2013; Ettinger et al., 2019; Faulkner, 2009; Fouad et
al., 2011; Fouad et al., 2015), the engineers had the knowledge and skills to meet the
requirements of their assignments.
An important facet of knowledge and success is understanding how to leverage resources
to achieve career development goals. As described in the research, the participants leveraged
management support, established peer networks, and dealt with the challenges of the culture to
be successful (Cech et al., 2018; Fouad et al., 2015; O’Neill et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2013). The
interviewees often took on extra work or sought tasks to expand their skill set and advance in
their careers.
The two motivation influences were analyzed, but responses to interview questions
regarding motivation had a greater variance in perceptions and experiences. All participants
understood the requirements of their jobs and described themselves as effective in their roles,
aligning with Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy which suggests that an individual’s belief that
they can accomplish a goal directly impacts their motivation (Bandura, 1997). This motivation
influence was found to be an asset. Most expected to succeed in their career development goals;
some felt that they had exceeded their own goals and were content in their current role and job
function. These perceptions aligned with the research on expectancy-value theory, where an
individual’s beliefs about ability, difficulty, and goals significantly impact motivation, and the
more a person values success at a task, the more motivated they are to complete the task
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). However, two participants felt stymied by their managers and unable
87

to advance under their current supervisor. An important finding was that workplace and
management support for career development was critical to female engineers achieving their
career goals and was a need (Buse et al., 2013; Buse & Bilimoria, 2014; Fouad et al., 2015).
The organizational influences were validated as needs through the data analysis.
Although participants enjoyed being a part of the organization and understood the overall
mission and goals, not all of the participants felt that the organization fully supported career
development pathways, or they perceived that their work environments were not conducive to
retaining female engineers, correlating with the literature regarding retention and career
development (Aguenza & Som, 2018; Buse & Bilimoria, 2014; Faulkner, 2009; Fouad et al.,
2011; Kossek et al., 2017). Most felt that they had missed opportunities to advance in their
careers due to biases or a lack of understanding from supervisors and managers (Buse et al.,
2013; Hatmaker, 2012, Hewlett et al., 2008; Khilji & Pumroy, 2018). The lack of a formal or
informal mentoring program to assist with knowledge transfer and career development (Dworkin
et al., 2013; Turner-Moffatt, 2019; Kodate et al., 2014; Wong et al., 2018) was a gap. Several
participants noted improvements over time and recognized that the organization had made strides
in creating a diverse and equitable workplace but noted that implicit and explicit biases were
stubbornly persistent (Cech et al., 2018; Fouad et al., 2015; Hatmaker, 2012, Li et al., 2017;
Pritlove, 2019).
Recommendations for Practice
The third research question asked, “What are the recommendations for organizational
practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources to favorably impact
female engineers’ retention?” The answer to that question guides recommendations supported by
literature to address the gaps in motivation and organizational influences identified by this study.
88

There were no validated gaps for the knowledge influences. As a result, this chapter will focus
on motivation and organizational influence recommendations. Table 11 summarizes the needs
validated in the areas of motivation and self-efficacy for female engineers regarding career
development and the organizational influences that impact gender diversity, retention of female
engineers, career development, and mentorship.
Table 11
Summary of Needs and Recommendations
Validated motivational need Context-specific recommendation
Female engineers need to expect
that they can achieve their career
development goals
Effective training for group supervisors and managers on
how to encourage career development and create a
supportive environment, integrated into formal
mentoring program (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad et al.,
2015; Singh et al., 2013)
Validated Institutional Need Context-Specific Recommendation
Organizational leadership needs to
identify and address the
systemic organizational barriers
that impact the retention of
female engineers.
Provide salary transparency, information on how pay is
determined, and publish more in-depth demographic
information (Carnegie, 2022; Cooper, 2021; Heisler,
2021)
Organizational leadership needs to
foster an environment that
embraces and values gender
equity at all levels of leadership.
Support ERGs, a formal 3-part mentoring program, and
support pay transparency. (Allsup, 2016; Bastian, 2019;
Buse et al., 2013; Carnegie, 2022; Cooper, 2021;
Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Fouad et al., 2011; Fouad et
al., 2015; Green, 2018; Heisler, 2021; Hewlett et al.,
2008; Krilin & Varis, 2021; Singh et al., 2013)
Organizational leadership needs to
create additional opportunities
for female engineers to
participate in career
development activities.
Employee resource groups provide important workplace
support and community. Provide stable funding to
ERGs (Allsup, 2016; Bastian, 2019; Green, 2018;
Kirilin & Varis, 2021).
Organizational leadership needs to
offer additional avenues in
which to participate in
mentorship opportunities for its
female engineers.
Initiate a formal mentoring program for new hires, new
managers, and mid-career employees (Dasgupta &
Stout, 2014; Fouad et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2008).

89

Motivation Influence Recommendation: Include New Managers in the Mentoring Program
and Provide Additional Training on Career Development and Coaching
Motivation influences for this study were partially validated, but data suggested that
interviewees were not confident that they would achieve their career development goals.
Experiences regarding career development varied widely, and the participants’ responses ranged
from being confident and content in their achievements to experiencing a sense of loss and ennui
in struggling to find a way forward.
Research has shown that a supportive workplace environment includes career
development and coaching (Buse et al., 2013; Fouad et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2013). At TECH,
the responsibility for career development is split between the individual employee, who must be
self-motivated to seek additional opportunities for advancement, and the manager, who is
responsible for coaching and task assignment. Many new managers could be unsure of how to
approach career development discussions and how to coach employees effectively. By
incorporating new managers into the mentorship program and matching them with experienced
and effective mentors, the managers will enhance their own skillsets and add value to their teams
(Burke et al., 1994; Ettinger et al., 2019; Turner-Moffatt, 2019, Wong et al., 2018). Incorporating
the new manager training into the mentorship program creates a cross-cutting solution for the
gap in the motivation influence and for gaps in organizational influences.
Organizational Influences Recommendations
Organizational influences for this study were validated as needs. For each organizational
influence, the data revealed gaps. The recommendations that follow are intended to address these
gaps.
90

Recommendation 1: The Organization Needs to Fund, Develop, and Implement a Formal
Mentoring Program Accessible to Newly Hired Employees, Newly Appointed Managers, and
Mid-Career Employees.
This recommendation addresses the gaps in several areas, including identifying and
addressing systemic organizational barriers, embracing gender equity, and remedying the lack of
career development and mentoring opportunities. Many of the participants discussed mentoring,
either having not participated in a formal mentoring program or not gaining a significant benefit
from participation. Mentoring, as defined by Murray (2001), is the “pairing…with the mutually
agreed goal of having the less skilled person grow and develop specific competencies” (p. 13).
By not facilitating a formal mentoring program that fits employees’ needs in multiple phases of
their careers, the TECH organization is missing opportunities for increased engagement and
retention (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014; Fouad et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2008; Uhunoma et al.,
2021). The TECH organization had a formal mentoring program, but it ended when the program
lead retired. An employee group on Slack, Women in Technology, initiated an informal program,
but it had limited outreach and could be a significant drain on the women who volunteered to
mentor and perform the administrative duties to keep the program running, as well as leaving out
the male workforce.
Therefore, the recommendation is to develop and initiate a new formal mentoring
program with a three-pronged approach. The first prong is a mentoring course for required new
employees, including new graduates or experienced hires. The second is a mentoring course for
required new group supervisors, and the third is a mentoring course for experienced employees
who would like assistance with career development or insight into different career paths.
Through a program that addresses more than just new employees, the organization would
91

encourage a learning culture, provide workplace support for all participants, improve career
development pathways, and increase networking (Burke et al., 1994; Kodate et al., 2014;
Murray, 2013; Uhunoma et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2018). The mentoring program should also
include avenues for lateral career moves and information about skill enrichment to assist female
engineers who may not be on a typical linear career path (Ayre et al., 2013; Ettinger et al., 2019;
Kodate et al., 2014).
Recommendation 2: Increased Funding for Employee Support Resources, including
Employee Resource Groups
This recommendation addresses the systemic organizational barriers and the need for an
environment that embraces gender equity at all levels of leadership by providing workplace
support. There are several active ERGs at the TECH organization. Typically, employee
volunteers staff ERGs, but the organization sponsors them (Green, 2018). The first ERGs were
started at Xerox Corporation in the 1960s and were formed as a caucus group to support and
engage Black employees to fight for equity in the workplace and address discrimination issues
(Green, 2018). These groups evolved over time, are centered around a variety of interests and
identities, and often provide a social community for employees. Sponsoring organizations may
call them affinity groups, ERGs, or business resource groups. As the Human Research
Management International Digest (2019) described, ERGs provide many benefits to the
employees who participate, such as inclusion, additional visibility, and encountering less bias.
The organizations that incorporate ERGs are viewed as valuing diverse viewpoints and
encouraging open environments (Human Management Research Digest, 2019). A qualitative
study by Green (2018) found that ERGs provide benefits to the organization by increasing the
integration and inclusion of minority groups. Although much of this work benefits the
92

organization, it also benefits the employee community at large. Typically, volunteers run ERGs,
and administrative duties take considerable time, usually during non-working hours.
The ERGs at TECH plan events to disseminate information, bring in speakers with wide
appeal, and provide networking and peer support, especially to marginalized groups. The Asian
American ERG sponsors a working group to address anti-Asian hate and supports its members
via a venue to express concerns and issues. The Native/Indigenous peoples group frequently
participates in conferences such as the American Indian Science and Engineering Society and
partners with other groups to encourage recruiting diverse candidates for job openings. The ERG
formed by African American employees holds networking events, brings in speakers, and
supports employees through informational seminars. The women’s ERG facilitates speakers who
are experts in networking, work/life accommodations, and addressing burn-out issues. ERGs are
part of a comprehensive workplace support system that lays the foundation for retention of
employees by providing important information and networking opportunities. Workplace support
is crucial for the retention of women in the engineering workplace and ERGs are part of the
support framework (Fouad et al., 2011; Kossek & Buzzanell, 2018; Singh et al., 2011).
Facilitating networking and retention will pave the way for more women in leadership positions,
increasing connections in the workplace and the employee community (Fouad & Santana, 2017;
Singh et al., 2018). ERGs provide a benefit to the organization that should be compensated.
The recommendation is to provide an overhead funding pool, determined by the number
of the ERGs’ members, to compensate the groups’ leaders or administrators for planning and
providing events and training that benefit the organization. The funding would theoretically
cover 2 to 4 hours per week or a set number of hours per month to perform the duties that enable
them to provide social and cultural support for marginalized groups. As Clark and Estes (2008)
93

and Schein (2017) stated, the organization communicates what is important to it through its
resource allocation. By providing funding to support the administration of ERGs, the
organization will promote an environment that is welcoming to a diverse community of
employees.
Recommendation 3: The Organization Should Provide Transparency and Access to
Demographic and Salary Data
This recommendation addresses the systemic organizational barrier of pay inequity.
According to Heisler (2021), the lack of salary transparency contributes to this gap. Although
one interviewee had the issue of her earning less than her male peers corrected, another felt she
had no recourse to address with her supervisors that men with the same experience, in the same
discipline, doing the same work, were earning more than she was. According to Heisler (2021),
“If businesses were more transparent in what employees are paid, or if employees could share
more easily with others what they are paid, greater pressure would be placed on organizations to
achieve gender pay equity” (p. 74). There are both benefits and concerns to pay transparency,
and most organizations are on a continuum (Trotter et al., 2017). Benefits, including the
communication of how pay rates are determined, can motivate and engage employees (Heisler,
2021; Trotter et al., 2017). However, if the information is not communicated well or is poorly
used, employees can feel the process is unfair, become less satisfied with their work and
employer, and be less productive (Heisler, 2021; Zenger, 2016).
Using the levels of pay transparency (Table 12) as presented by Heisler (2021), TECH
could increase communication regarding its salary determinations and reach a medium level of
transparency. By reaching the medium level of transparency, the organization could address
gender inequity in pay levels, increase understanding of how pay is determined, and provide
94

increased transparency without the pitfalls of sharing individual salaries (Heisler, 2021; Zenger,
2016). Reaching this transparency would balance the need for fairness and equity in pay while
respecting employees’ desire for privacy (Carnegie, 2022; Heisler, 2021).

95

Table 12
Levels of Pay Transparency
Dimension No
transparency
Low transparency Medium
transparency
High
transparency
Company pay
process
No
information
provided to
employees
about how
pay is
determined
Provision to all
employees of a
general overview
of pay policy and
principles (e.g.,
compensation
philosophy,
market-based
approach,
competitive pay
levels, etc.)
Provision to all
employees of a
substantive
description of
how pay is
determined
(e.g.,
explanation of
job analysis
and job-
evaluation
processes, use
of salary
surveys, etc.)
Training for
managers
and
employees
of how pay
is
determined
Pay for the job No disclosure
of pay
grades/range
s to
employees
Disclosure of pay
grades/ranges to
employees and job
applicants
Disclosure to
each employee
of pay
grades/ranges
for the
employee’s
job family and
career path
Disclosure to
all
employees
of pay
grades/range
s for all jobs
in the
company
Individual
employee pay
No disclosure
of individual
wage/salary
data to
anyone
except the
employee
Avoidance of
restrictions on
employee
discussions of
pay; provision of
annual total
compensation
statement to
employees
Disclosure to
employees of
salaries of co-
workers in the
same job
classification
Disclosure of
salaries of
all
employees in
the
organization

Note. From “Increasing Pay Transparency: A Guide for Change” by W. Heisler, 2021. Business
Horizons, 64(1), 73–81. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.09.005)

96

Integrated Motivation and Organizational Recommendations
This study’s findings were compiled to produce recommendations to identify and reduce
the motivation and organizational barriers to gender diversity at the TECH organization. The
recommendations for practice guide the implementation and evaluation of the organizational
change process to address the motivation and organizational gaps. The Kellogg Logic Model
(Kellogg, 2004) is a suitable model to implement and evaluate the recommendations suggested
by this study. The model systematically shows the inputs and desired results from change efforts
and has five components: resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The logic model
provides a framework and linkages for these five components and can be a visual representation
of the pathway for implementation and evaluation (Kellogg, 2004). By illustrating a roadmap for
the change process, it can encourage participation and effectively communicate the necessary
steps for implementation.
Following the Kellogg (2004) model, implementing the recommendations would start
with gathering resources, including support from TECH leadership and HR. Resources come in
many forms, and buy-in from organizational leadership and HR stakeholders would prove that
the organization is vested in creating an environment that welcomes diversity. Activities in the
model include developing and implementing a three-part mentoring program, addressing some of
the gaps discovered in this research. The model's output consists of initial interest and
participation in the mentoring program and the ERGs. Improved retention of female engineers
and increased representation of women in leadership positions in the organization are the short-
term implementation outcomes. Impacts in the long-term would include fewer organizational
barriers to gender diversity and TECH remaining an employer of choice.
97

Kellogg’s (2004) project-level evaluation combines context, implementation, and
outcome components to “improve project effective and promote future sustainability and
growth” (p. 20). Utilizing context may mean reviewing the values of the subject organization and
the relationships within the project and organization and exploring the culture and leadership
characteristics. Implementation evaluation looks at the critical components of the core activities
and how they interact and connect. Evaluation of the outcome assesses the results and
effectiveness, magnitude, and satisfaction with the change project. The logic model in Figure 5
represents the process and resources to implement the recommendations presented.

98

Figure 5
Logic Model to Implement Recommendations

Resources/Inputs
-Support and resources from leadership
-Support and resources from HR for a formal
mentoring program
-Funding for an expanded mentorship program
-Funding for ERG leadership activities

Activities
-Expand and enhance the mentorship program by
making it mandatory for new employees and adding
programs for new managers and mid-career
employees
-Provide opportunities for female engineers to
network and share information
-Provide support by funding ERG leadership

Outputs
-200-300 people will participate in the mentoring
program
-Participation in the ERGs will increase by at least 10%
-ERG leadership will stay in place for at least one year.

Outcomes
-In the short term, 1 to 3 years, the updated mentoring
program will become standard practice resulting in
better retention of female engineers.
-Project and organizational leadership will include
more women

Impacts in years 3 –5
- In the long term, organizational barriers to women
succeeding in engineering will have been eliminated,
and women will achieve equity with men in
representation and pay.
-TECH will be an employer of choice for the nation ’s
top engineering and science graduates

99

The visual representation of the logic model shows the connection between the planned
work (resources and activities) and the intended results (outputs, outcomes, and impacts) and
communicates the significance of each component (Kellogg, 2004). Data points to evaluate the
success of the implementation would include 100% participation in the mentoring program for
new employees, and the inclusion of new supervisors and mid-career employees in the program,
estimated to be 200-300 employees per year in the first three years. Long term success could be
measured by100% of female engineers making the choice to stay with TECH while recognizing
that there will always be attrition due to retirements, terminations, and other needs.
Limitations and Delimitations
Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Theofanidis and Fountouki (2019) defined limitations
as weaknesses out of the researcher’s control and acknowledged to prevent future studies from
encountering the same issues. These limitations may restrict methodology and may impact the
conclusions of the research. For this study, interviews were the primary method of collecting
data, and the information gathered may have reflected participants’ biases. Interviewees may not
have been completely truthful, or they may have failed to convey information at the desired
level. This limitation was mitigated by carefully handling the data and the analysis of document
transcripts from listening sessions. It should be noted that this study involved the collection of
the perceptions of the female engineers, and their perceptions did not require additional data to
validate or reinforce the information they provided. The study of the listening session transcripts
simply provided additional context for the themes used in data analysis.
Theofanidis and Fountouki (2019) defined delimitations as restrictions or boundaries set
by the researcher and within the researcher’s control. The subject organization for this study was
unique in its role in developing cutting-edge technologies and its many scientific and engineering
100

accomplishments. This uniqueness may prevent the generalization of the study’s results to other
organizations. The stakeholder group for this study was limited to female engineers, although
other stakeholder groups could have provided useful information and their perceptions of the
organizational culture. However, the scope and duration of this study were limited and prevented
expansion to other groups.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was narrow in focus and performed in a limited time frame. The data
collection process yielded additional possible avenues and topics for study. Future research could
expand into organizational barriers for different fields at TECH, including science and business.
The interviews brought to light the wide differences in experiences for women in different areas
of TECH. Exploring the similarities and differences between the various divisions and
workgroups could parse out additional needs or assets. Another area of study could focus on the
impact of ERGs or mentorship on career development and employee retention rates. Further
research could explore how intersectionality influences perceptions of the institution, especially
for engineers and scientists in the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities. Analysis
of the data obtained from this research suggested that a longer-term study may provide
opportunities for in-depth analysis of hiring patterns and the impact of an increased focus on
diversity, equity, and inclusion on the environment and culture of the organization.
Conclusion
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore participants’ perceptions and
lived experiences of the engineering environment’s organizational barriers by evaluating its
KMO influences. The qualitative research was performed by interviewing 10 female engineers,
and findings from the study identified gaps in motivation and organizational influences. The
101

results show that female engineers still face an inequitable workplace despite years of
challenging the status quo. Perceptions of workplace support depended on the ability and
knowledge of supervisors and management to provide career development opportunities and
varied widely across the organization. The findings validated existing research and showed that
work remains to be done to provide equitable and fair opportunities to increase retention for
women in engineering.
Women belong in engineering, and organizations that create supportive environments
will benefit from the diversity of thought and experiences women bring to the workplace.
Barriers to gender diversity in engineering are not confined to just research and development
institutions but are found in every industry and every engineering discipline. If steps were taken
to reduce the factors that contribute to these barriers, the organizations would encourage a civil
and supportive environment for all employees and more female engineers would make the choice
to stay in engineering.

102

References
Aerospace Industries Association. (2019). 2019 Facts & figures U.S. aerospace and defense.
https://www.aia-aerospace.org/2019-facts-and-figures/
Aguenza, B. B., & Som, A. P. M. (2018). Motivational factors of employee retention and
engagement in organizations. International Journal of Advances in Management and
Economics, 1(6), 88–95.
Allen, M.W., Armstrong, D.J., Reid, M.F. & Riemenschneider, C.K. (2008). Factors impacting
the perceived organizational support of IT employees. Information & Management, Vol.
45(8), 556-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.09.003
Allsup, M. (2016). Employee resource groups can help boost bottom line. [Institute of
Management & Administration]. HRFocus, 93(11), 13.
American Association of University Women. (2016). Barriers and bias: The status of women in
leadership. https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/barrier-bias
Amon, M. J. (2017). Looking through the glass ceiling: A qualitative study of STEM women’s
career narratives. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1 – 10.
Anderson, J. (2018). Mentoring in the workplace. Structure.
https://www.structuremag.org/?p=12998
Antonenko, P. (2014). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational
technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 53–71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
Appendix 1: Glossary of human rights terms. Appendix 1: Glossary of human rights terms |
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2022, from
103

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/teaching-human-rights-ontario-guide-ontario-
schools/appendix-1-glossary-human-rights-terms
Ayre, M., Mills, J., & Gill, J. (2013). ‘Yes, I do belong’: The women who stay in engineering.
Engineering Studies, 5(3), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2013.855781
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini
encyclopedia of psychology (4th ed., p. 1534). John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
Bastian, R. (2019, August 26). How mentorship can make workplaces more equitable. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebekahbastian/2019/08/26/how-mentorship-can-make-
workplaces-more-equitable/?sh=a0dfc3126c26
Beede, D., Doms, M., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., & Khan, B. (2011) Women in
STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief
No. 04-11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964782
Bell, A., Spencer, S., Iserman, E., & Logel, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and women’s
performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(4), 307-312.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00774.x
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons
of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in Academic Science and
Engineering. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 423–441.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225
104

Birkinshaw, J., & Cable, D. (2017). The dark side of transparency. McKinsey Quarterly.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/ourinsights/the-dark-side-of-
transparency
Blair-Loy, M. 2013. The persistence of male power and prestige in the professions: Report on
the professions of law, medicine, and science and engineering. Center for Research on
Gender in the Professions.
Block, K., Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., Inness, M., & Croft, E. (2018). Should I stay or should I
go? Women’s implicit stereotypic associations predict their commitment and fit in
STEM. Social Psychology, 49(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000343
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
Jossey-Bass.
Branham, L. (2004). 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs and
act before it’s too late. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Britton, D. (2017). Beyond the chilly climate. Gender & Society, 31(1), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216681494
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. Simon & Schuster.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Labor force statistics from the current population survey,
demographics. https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#women
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1994). Benefits of mentoring in organizations:
The mentor’s perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(3), 23–32.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949410062556
105

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., Hitchcock, J. H., & Patton, M. Q. (2020).
Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. SAGE
Publications.
Buse, K. R., & Bilimoria, D. (2014). Personal vision: Enhancing work engagement and the
retention of women in the engineering profession. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01400
Buse, K., Bilimoria, D., & Perelli, S. (2013). Why they stay: Women persisting in US
engineering careers. Career Development International, 18(2), 139–154.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2012-0108
Byars-Winston, A., Fouad, N., & Wen, Y. (2015). Race/ethnicity and sex in U.S. Occupations,
1970-2010: Implications for research, practice, and policy. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 87, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.12.003
Cardador, M. T. (2017). Promoted up but also out? the unintended consequences of increasing
women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering. Organization Science, 28(4),
597–617. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1132
Cardador, M., & Hill, P. (2018). Career paths in engineering firms: Gendered patterns and
implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 95–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716679987
Carnegie, M. (2022, March 22). The entirely predictable impact of salary transparency. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/story/salary-transparency-gender-pay-gap/?utm_source=pocket-
newtab
Carr, J., Schmidt, A., Ford, J., & DeShon, R. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-
analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
106

individual level work outcomes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 605–619.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605
Cech, E. (2013). Ideological wage inequalities? The technical/social dualism and the gender
wage gap in engineering. Social Forces, 91(4), 1147–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot024
Cech, E., Blair-Loy, M., & Rogers, L. (2018). Recognizing chilliness: How schemas of
inequality shape views of culture and climate in work environments. American Journal of
Cultural Sociology, 6(1), 125–160. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-016-0019-1
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and
gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 641–666.
libproxy1.usc.edu/. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420815
Choi, S. (2011). Diversity and representation in the U.S. federal government: Analysis of the
trends of federal employment. Public Personnel Management, 40(1), 25–46.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601104000103
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cohn, D., & Taylor, P. (2010). Baby boomers approach 65 - glumly. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/12/20/baby-boomers-approach-65-glumly/
Cooper, B. B. (2021). Pros and cons of salary transparency. Culture Amp. Retrieved February
16, 2022, from https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/salary-transparency
Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s success in
engineering and computing. American Association of University Women.
http://www.aauw.org/files/2015/03/Solving-the-Equation-report-nsa.pdf
107

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dahle, R., Eagleston, L., & Jockers, L. (2017). Bridging the gap between academia and industry
to reduce female attrition from engineering. 2017 IEEE Women in Engineering Forum
USA East, 2017, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIE.2017.8285612
Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy
Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
De Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for
women PhD students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and
Technology, 3(3), 571–595.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. (2
nd

ed.). McGraw-Hill. “
Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The
importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry,
22(4), 265-269. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935
Dworkin, T. M., Ramaswami, A., & Schipani, C. A. (2013). The role of networks, mentors and
the law in overcoming barriers to organizational leadership for women with children.
SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2388674
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). Stem. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved September 26,
2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/STEM-education
108

“ERGs (employee resource groups) benefit employee wellbeing.” (2019). Human Resource
Management International Digest, 27(1), 45–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-02-
2019-0028
Ettinger, L., Conroy, N., & Barr, W. I. I., II. (2019). What late-career and retired women
engineers tell us: Gender challenges in historical context. Engineering Studies, 11(3),
217-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2019.1663201
Faulkner, W. (2009). “Nuts and Bolts and People”: Gender-troubled engineering identities.
Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706072175
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. libproxy2.usc.edu/.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fleming, N. (2018). How the gender pay gap permeates science and engineering. New Scientist,
237(3167), 22–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(18)30389-0
Fouad, N., Chang, W., Wan, M., & Singh, R. (2017). Women’s reasons for leaving the
engineering field. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 875–875.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00875
Fouad, N., Fitzpatrick, M., & Liu, J. P. (2011). Persistence of women in engineering careers: A
qualitative study of current and former female engineers. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(1), 69–96.
https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.v17.i1.60
Fouad, N., Kozlowski, M., Singh, R., Linneman, N., Schams, S., & Weber, K. (2020). Exploring
the odds: Gender differences in departing the engineering profession. Journal of Career
Assessment, 28(3), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072719876892
109

Fouad, N., & Santana, M. (2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields:
Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324
Fouad, N. A., & Singh, R. (2011). Stemming the tide: Why women leave engineering. Women in
Engineering. www.studyofwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NSF_Women-
Executive-Summary-0314.pdf
Fouad, N. A., Singh, R., Cappaert, K., Chang, W., & Wan, M. (2015). Comparison of women
engineers who persist in or depart from engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92,
79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.002
Frehill, L. M. (2013). Comparing women’s and men’s attrition from engineering: Summary of
findings from Society of Women Engineers’ surveys. The Society of Women Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21080.49921
Frehill, L. (2012). Gender and career outcomes of U.S. engineers. International Journal of
Gender, Science and Technology, 4(2), 149–166.
Frehill, L. (2008). Why do women leave the engineering workforce? SWE: Magazine of the
Society of Women Engineers, Winter, 24–26.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Ghosh, P., Satyawadi, R., Prasad Joshi, J., & Shadman, M. (2013). Who stays with you? Factors
predicting employees’ intention to stay. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 21(3), 288–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-Sep-2011-0511
110

Glaze-Crampes, A. (2020). Leveraging communities of practice as professional learning
communities in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) education. Education
Sciences, 10, 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080190
Gonzales, H. B. May 12, 2015. The America COMPETES Acts: An overview. Congressional
Research Service Report. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816039/
m2/1/high_res_d/R43880_2015May12.pdf
Green, W. M. (2018). Employee resource groups as learning communities. Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion, 37(7), 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0085
Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S., & Beilock, S. (2011). The role of parents and teachers in
the development of gender related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3), 153-166.
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project on
the Status and Education of Women. Association of American Colleges.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED215628.pdf
Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity
threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological & Personality
Science, 6(5), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615572637
Hatmaker, D. (2012). Engineering identity: Gender and professional identity negotiation among
women engineers. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(4), 382–396.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00589.x
Hawse, S., & Wood, L. N. (2019). Designing workplace induction programs to support the
transition of new-career engineers to practice. Higher Education, Skills and Work - Based
Learning, 9(1), 18-29. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/HESWBL-02-2018-
0014
111

Heisler, W. (2021). Increasing pay transparency: A guide for change. Business Horizons, 64(1),
73–81. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.09.005
Hewlett, S., Luce, C., Servon, L., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., & Sumberg, K. (2008).
The Athena factor: reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and technology.
Harvard Business Press.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/03/why-so-few-research.pdf
Hunt, J. (2016). Why do women leave science and engineering? Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 69(1), 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915594597
Jacobs, J., & Bleeker, M. (2004). Girls’ and boys’ developing interests in math and science: Do
parents matter? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2004(106), 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.113
Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., & Paretti, M. (2013). The impact of engineering identification and
stereotypes on undergraduate women’s achievement and persistence in engineering.
Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-
9222-x
Kellogg Foundation. (2004, January1). Logic model development guide.
https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resources/2004/01/logic-model-development-
guide
Khilji, S. E., & Pumroy, K. H. (2019). We are strong and we are resilient: Career experiences of
women engineers. Gender, Work, and Organization, 26(7), 1032-1052.
https://10.1111/gwao.12322
112

Kodate, N., Kodate, K., & Kodate, T. (2014). Paving the way and passing the torch: Mentors’
motivation and experience of supporting women in optical engineering. European
Journal of Engineering Education– 39(6), 648–665.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.899323
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krosgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.312
Kossek, E. E., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2018). Women’s career equality and leadership in
organizations: Creating an evidence-based positive change. Human Resource
Management, 57, 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21936
Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives
on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of
Management, 43, 228–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671582
Kirilin, A., & Varis, K. (2021). Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) – an under-utilized and
under-organized way of developing new staff, management and organizational culture.
Journal of Management and Strategy, 12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/jms.v12n1p1
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science
and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259–280.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714547770
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. Jossey-Bass.
113

Lent, R., & Brown, S. D. (2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in
career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 12–35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072705281364
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
45, 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career
choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36
Li, S., Rincon, R., & Williams, J. C. (2017, June), Climate control: Gender and racial bias in
engineering? [Paper presentation]. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
Columbus, Ohio, USA. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28038
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of
psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate--Employee performance
relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219–238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.507
Marra, R., Kim, S. M., Plumb, C., Hacker, D., & Bossaller, S. (2017). Beyond the technical:
Developing life long learning and metacognition for the engineering workplace” in
Proceedings of the Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Society for
Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--27659
114

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publishing.
McCall, M. (2020). Getting the story straight: How conflicting narratives about communication
impact women in engineering. Technical Communication Quarterly, 29(1). Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1774661
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdall, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Michelmore, K., & Sassler, S. (2016). Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex
composition matter? The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences: RSF,
2(4), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.4.07
Murray, M. (2001). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring. Jossey-Bass.
Nationalacademies.org. (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2020, from
https://www.nationalacademies.org/
National Academy of Engineering. (2014). Career choices of female engineers: A summary of a
Workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18810
National Academy of Engineering. (2018). Understanding the educational and career pathways
of engineers. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25284
National Science Board. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018 (NSB-2018-1).
National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, Minorities, and Persons
with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019 (Special Report NSF 19-304).
National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
115

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). 2013 Scientists and engineers
statistical data system (SESTAT) Education Codes and Groups. National Science
Foundation. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/us-workforce/2013/SES2013_TTB_1.html
Naz, S., Li, C., Nisar, Q. A., Khan, M. A. S., Ahmad, N., & Anwar, F. (2020). A study in the
relationship between supportive work environment and employee retention: Role of
organizational commitment and person-organization fit as mediators. SAGE Open, 10.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020924694
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn
from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 90–97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
Noeth, R. J., Cruce, T., & Harmston, M. T. (2003). Maintaining strong engineering workforce
[Policy brief]. ACT Research. https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research.html
Noonan, R. (2017). Women in STEM: 2017 update (ESA Issue Brief #06-17). U.S. Department
of Commerce. https://www.esa.gov/reports/women-stem-2017-update
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publishing.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Women’s careers at the start of the 21st
century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 727-743.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9465-6
Pew Research Center. (2018). Racial and ethnic group representation in STEM occupations.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-
over-workplace-equity/ps_2018-01-09_stem_a-06/
Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2009). How women engineers do and undo gender.
Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work & Organization, 16. 411-28.
116

Pritlove, C., Juando-Prats, C., Ala-Leppilampi, K., & Parsons, J. A. (2019). The good, the bad,
and the ugly of implicit bias. Lancet, 393(10171), 502–504.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32267-0
Rhoton, L. A. (2011). Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding women scientist’s gender
practices. Gender & Society, 25, 696-716.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publishing.
Rohde, J., Musselman, L., Benedict, B., Verdin, D., Godwin, A., Kirn, A., Benson, L., & Potvin,
G. (2019). Design experiences, engineering identity, and belongingness in early career
electrical and computer engineering students. IEEE Transactions on Education 62(3),
165-172. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE/.2019.2913356
Roy, J. (2019) Engineering by the numbers. Engineering College Profiles and Statistics Book.
https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Saxena, M., Geiselman, T. A., & Zhang, S. (2019). Workplace incivility against women in
STEM: Insights and best practices. Business Horizons, 62, 589–594. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.005
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schomer, S. (2022). Why employee resource groups may be the key to more inclusive cultures
and benefits utilization. Employee Benefit News (Online).
Seo, E., Shen, Y., & Alfaro, E. C. (2019). Adolescents’ beliefs about math ability and their
relations to STEM career attainment: Joint consideration of race/ethnicity and gender.
117

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-
0911-9
Servon, L., & Visser, M. (2011). Progress hindered: The retention and advancement of women in
science, engineering and technology careers. Human Resource Management Journal,
21(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00152.x
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2011). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’
and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66, 175–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
Singh, R., Fouad, N. A., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Liu, J. P., Cappaert, K. J., & Figuereido, C. (2013).
Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers’ intentions to leave. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 83, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.007
Singh, R., Zhang, Y., Wan, M. M., & Fouad, N. A. (2018). Why do women engineers leave the
engineering profession? The roles of work-family conflict, occupational commitment,
and perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 57, 901–914.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21900
Smith, K. N., & Gayles, J. G. (2017). “Girl Power”: Gendered Academic and Workplace
Experiences of College Women in Engineering. Social Sciences, 7(1), 11.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7010011
Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S., & Sacco, T. (2017). How diversity matters in the US science and
engineering workforce: A critical review considering integration in teams, fields, and
organizational contexts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 139–153.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.142
118

Society of Women Engineers. (2019a). People at work women in engineering talent pulse report.
https://research.swe.org/wp-content/uploads/site/2/2019/10/Compressed-People-At-
Work_SWE_Talent-Pulse-Report.pdf
Society of Women Engineers. (2019b). SWE research update: Women in engineering by the
numbers. Press release. https://alltogether.swe.org/2019/11/swe-research-update-women-
in-engineering-by-the-numbers-nov-2019
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. The American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.52.6.613
Strachan, R., Peixoto, A., Emembolu, I., & Restove, M. T. (2018, April 18–20) Women in
engineering: Addressing the gender gap, exploring trust and our unconscious bias [Paper
presentation]. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, Tenerife, Canary
Islands, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.86363497
St. Fleur, N. (2014, August 12). Many women leave engineering, blame the work culture.
National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/sections/allthingsconsidered/2014/08/12/
339638726/many-women-leave-engineering-blame-the-work-culture
Success stories: Hiring women in stem: Glassdoor. Hiring women in STEM. (n.d.). Retrieved
September 8, 2020, from https://resources.glassdoor.com/success-stories-hiring-women-
in-stem.html
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative nursing, 7(3), 155-163. http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Trubswetter, A., Genz, K., Hochfeld, K., & Schraudner, M. (2016). Corporate culture matters -
what kinds of workplaces appeal to highly skilled engineers? International Journal of
119

Gender, Science and Technology, 8(1), 46–66.
http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/397
Trotter, R. G., Zacur, S. R., & Stickney, L. T. (2017). The new age of pay transparency. Business
Horizons, 60(4), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.03.011
Turner-Moffatt, C. (2019). The power of mentorship. Professional Safety, 64(8), 17–19.
Uhunoma, O., Lim, D. H., & Kim, W. (2021). The mediating role of informal learning on work
engagement: older workers in the US public sector. European Journal of Training and
Development, 45(2/3), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-04-2020-0062
Vanantwerp, J. J., & Wilson, D. (2018) Differences in motivation patterns among early and mid-
career engineers. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 24(3),
227-259. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieng.2018019616
Welbourne, T. M., Rolf, S., & Schlachter, S. (2017). The case for Employee Resource Groups.
Personnel Review, 46(8), 1816–1834. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2016-0004
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-Value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. W. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns
working women should know. New York University Press.
Williams, J., Li, S., Rincon, R., & Finn, P. (2016). Climate control: Gender and racial bias in
engineering? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4014946
Women in science and security. Women in Science and Security | CRDF Global. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://www.crdfglobal.org/what-we-do/women-science-
and-security
120

Wonder women in STEM & the companies that Champion Them: Gender equality. Coqual.
(2022, February 16). Retrieved February 20, 2022, from
https://coqual.org/reports/wonder-women-in-stem-and-the-companies-that-champion-
them/
Wong, S. S. K., Cross, J. A., & Mueller, P. S. (2018). Impact of mentoring on practicing
engineers: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(6), 415–441.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2017-0097
Woolston, C. (2021). Gender wage gap persists. Nature, 590(7847), 677.
Xu, Y. J. (2016). Attrition of women in Stem. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633787
Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor
Review. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/
Yonemura, R., & Wilson, D. (2016). Exploring barriers in the engineering workplace: Hostile,
unsupportive, and otherwise chilly conditions. American Society for Engineering
Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26843
Zak, P. J. (2017). The trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies.
American Management Association.
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy
beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20195
121

Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001215
Zenger, T. (2016, September 30). The case against pay transparency. Harvard Business Review.
Available at https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-case-against-pay-transparency

122

Appendix A: Email to Participate in Interviews
My name is Catherine Rice and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California (USC). I am also a TECH employee and work
on the business team in the technology directorate.
As part of my research in USC’s Organizational Change and Leadership program, I am
focusing on the organizational barriers to gender diversity that influence the retention of female
engineers at TECH. I am examining the different knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that have an impact on women in engineering at TECH.
I would appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about your experience at TECH, and
your perceptions of the organizational culture and environment. The interview would take place
over Zoom and would last no more than an hour. I will record the audio portion of the interview,
but no video will be retained to protect your anonymity. Your participation is voluntary. I have
included a sample of the informed consent form which describes your rights in participating in
this study, including your right to end participation at any time.
I appreciate your consideration of my request to participate. Please let me know if we can
schedule an interview at your convenience.

Best regards,

Catherine Rice
123

Appendix B: Research Questions and Influences by Category
1. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the organizational gender barriers, if any,
that exist at TECH?
2. What are female engineers’ perceptions of the knowledge and motivation required to
remain in their careers at TECH?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to favorably impact female engineers’
retention?

124

Table B1
Assumed Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Female engineers need to know and understand
the knowledge and skills that enhance career
advancement and retention.
Conceptual
Female engineers need to understand how to
leverage the resources available to assist them
in their career development goals.
Procedural
Motivation Influence Motivation construct
Female engineers need to believe they have the
skills and resources to achieve their career
development goals.
Self-efficacy
Female engineers need to believe that they will
succeed in reaching their career development
goals.
Expectancy value
Organizational influences Organizational influence category
The organizational leaders need to identify and
address the systemic organizational barriers
that impact the retention of female engineers.
Cultural Model 1
The organizational leaders need to foster an
environment that embraces and values gender
equity at all levels of leadership.
Cultural Model 2
The organizational leaders need to create
additional opportunities for female engineers
to participate in career development activities.
Cultural Setting 1
The organizational leaders need to offer
additional avenues in which to participate in
mentorship opportunities for its female
engineers.
Cultural Setting 2

125

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Respondent type: Current employees of the TECH organization who identify as female,
working in the engineering job discipline, and have been employed at the TECH organization for
at least 12 months.
Introduction to the interview:
Good morning/afternoon
Query if this is still a good time to talk
Brief introductions
How are you doing during this pandemic?
Share Information Sheet for Exempt Research
As I mentioned in my email, I am conducting interviews with female engineers to find out
more about organizational barriers to gender diversity and your career as an engineer within
the organization. I would like to reiterate that the interview is completely confidential, and
your information will be anonymized and secured with no identifying data. Thank you for
agreeing to be interviewed: you may change your mind at any time. Please note that this
interview is taking place via the Zoom application, and it generates a recording and transcript,
as described in the notice of consent. I will be using this transcript for data analysis, but I will
remove names from the transcript and no video will be saved. Want to get started?

126

Table C1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes
What kind of work have you done at TECH? How would you characterize your role?
Could you describe your experience being a
female engineer at TECH?
What is your most memorable experience as
an engineer?
Do you believe any barriers exist to your
advancement at TECH? What are they?
Can you describe a time when you overcame
a barrier or obstacle? Is your engineering
career what you expected? Does it still
inspire you?
Have you experienced any gender-related issues
in your career – bias, inequity, or harassment?
Have they impacted your career
advancement? Do you see the organization
working to prevent these issues?
What kinds of strategies have you developed to
face organizational barriers in your work?
How did you develop these strategies?
Have you faced any challenges working at
TECH? Has the organization addressed
organizational gender barriers since you have
been employed here?
Can you describe a time when you faced a
barrier? What happened? Under what
circumstances? What was the outcome?
Any policy changes?
What do you think have been the most important
organizational and personal factors in your
career?
Do you believe you have the tools you need
to succeed in overcoming organizational
gender barriers?
How do you feel about your career goal
development in this organization?
What kind of support have you received?
What kind of support did you need?
How would you describe the environment of
TECH for female engineers?
How do you think others see it?
If I were a new employee, what would be the
most important thing for me to know?
Could you describe anything that surprised
you about TECH?
What type of mentorship opportunities have you
been offered throughout the course of your
career?
Any at TECH? Would it have an impact on
your career?
When you describe working at TECH to others,
what words do you use?
Is there anything else you would want to
share about your experience at TECH?

127

Conclusion to the interview:
Those are all the questions I have. Do you have any questions?
Thank you so much for your time and for sharing your experiences. I appreciate your
willingness to share your thoughts and ideas about this subject. Again, your identity will remain
anonymous. I would be happy to share the results of the research if you would like.

128

Appendix D: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Study Title: Organizational Barriers to Gender Diversity in Engineering
Principal Investigator: Catherine Rice
Faculty Advisor: Alexandra McDermott Wilcox, JD, MFA, EdD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
Purpose
The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore and understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors that impact women in engineering. We hope to learn more
about the perceptions and experiences of female engineers in the organizational culture, and to
understand the factors that support employees and the areas for improvement You are invited as
a possible participant because you are an employee who identifies as female who is now or has
previously worked in the engineering discipline, and you have been employed with this
organization for more than 12 months.
Participant Involvement
This qualitative research study involves semi-structured interviews with participants.
These interviews are strictly confidential and completely voluntary. The interviews will be
conducted using Zoom, are anticipated to take from 45 to 60 minutes and will be scheduled at a
date and time that is convenient for you. The interviews will be recorded to enable transcription
but no video will be used. Participants may decline to be recorded and refuse to answer any
129

questions. If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an interview consisting of
10 to 15 questions.
Payment/Compensation for Participation
You will not be compensated for your participation in the interview. However, your
participation will add to the knowledge base of retention factors and may lead to improvements
in organizational culture.
Confidentiality
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Information will be housed in the researcher’s personal computer, which is secured in
their home office. The computer is protected with a login credential. Data files and analysis files
will be password-protected to add additional security.
The interview data will be destroyed after the study is published.
You may choose to obscure your identity in the recording by masking your name in the
Zoom application. You may choose to delete or change any of your answers during the interview
process. You may request that a copy of the transcript be provided to you.
Investigator Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Catherine Rice at
crrice@usc.edu or Dr. Alexandra Wilcox at amwilcox@usc.edu.

130

IRB Contact Information
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

131

Appendix E: Crosswalk of KMO Influences With Interview Questions and Research
Questions
Knowledge influence

Knowledge type Interview question Research
question
Female engineers need to
know and understand
the organizational
gender barriers that
impact the career
advancement and
retention.

Conceptual Do you believe any barriers
exist to your advancement
at TECH? What are they?
Have you experienced any
gender related issues in
your career – bias,
inequity, or harassment?
Have they impacted your
career advancement?
RQ1
Female engineers need to
know and reflect on
their skills and abilities
to overcome
organizational gender
barriers
Metacognitive What kinds of strategies
have you developed to
face organizational
barriers in your work
RQ2
Female engineers need to
believe in their ability
to overcome
organizational gender
barriers.
Self-efficacy Do you believe you have the
tools you need to succeed
in overcoming
organizational gender
barriers? Could you
describe any obstacles
you’ve encountered? Can
you share a time when you
overcame an obstacle?
RQ1/RQ2
Female engineers need to
expect that they will
succeed in overcoming
organizational gender
barriers and reach their
career development
goals.
Expectancy value What drew you to
engineering? Could you
describe your experience
being a female engineer at
TECH? What do you
enjoy the most about your
engineering career? Do
you believe you will
succeed in overcoming
organizational gender
barriers in your career and
reaching your career
goals? What would help
you? Can you describe a
RQ1/RQ2
132

Knowledge influence

Knowledge type Interview question Research
question
time when you overcame a
barrier or obstacle? ...
The organization needs to
identify and address
the systemic
organizational barriers
that impact the
retention of female
engineers.
Cultural Model 1 Has the organization
addressed organizational
gender barriers since you
have been employed here?
Can you describe a time
when you have
encountered a barrier?
What happened? Under
what circumstances? What
was the outcome? Any
policy changes?
RQ1
The organization needs to
foster an environment
that embraces gender
equity at all levels of
leadership.
Cultural Model 2 Have you experienced any
gender related issues in
your career – bias,
inequity, or harassment?
Do you see the
organization working to
prevent these issues?
RQ2
The organization needs to
create additional
opportunities for
female engineers to
participate in career
development activities.
Cultural Setting 1

How do you feel about your
career development in this
organization? What kind
of support have you
received? What kind of
support did you need?
RQ1/RQ2
The organization needs to
offer additional
avenues in which to
participate in
mentorship
opportunities for its
female engineers.
Cultural Setting 2 What type of mentorship
opportunities have you
been offered throughout
the course of your career?
Any at TECH? Would it
have an impact on your
career? Is there anything
unique about TECH that
keeps you engaged as an
engineer?
RQ2

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Women in engineering remain a minority despite years of efforts to increase representation and address challenges in this environment. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore female engineers’ perceptions and lived experiences of the engineering environment’s organizational barriers by evaluating the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within the organization. Using a qualitative research design and a gap analysis framework, 10 interviewees described their experiences as engineers and their perceptions of workplace climate, culture, and support. Data were coded and combined with pertinent literature to provide recommendations to better support women in engineering. The findings reinforced the need for organizational transparency and career development opportunities. Recommendations focus on organizational actions to design, develop, and implement a robust, three-part mentoring program, share wage and demographic data, and provide additional non-linear career opportunities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Addressing employee retention in the technology industry: improving access to corporate social responsibility programs

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

The resilience of immigrant Asian American women professional engineers in the construction industry

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition

PDF

IRB insiders: perspectives from within the institutional review board

PDF

Solving for the luck factor: leveling access to leadership through an organization-based sponsorship program

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

The leadership labyrinth: women's journey to chief future officer

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

First-generation professionals: career transition and success

PDF

Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

ReQLes technology's this is your life: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Rice, Catherine Rae Argy (author)

Core Title Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/28/2022

Defense Date 04/13/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career development,OAI-PMH Harvest,women in engineering

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wilcox, Alexandra McDermott (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Krop, Cathy Sloane (committee member)

Creator Email crrice@usc.edu,kecacat@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136629

Unique identifier UC111136629

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rice, Catherine Rae Argy

Type texts

Source 20220428-usctheses-batch-934 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu