5 reasons why respect for people isn’t peripheral:

Last week we blogged about the amazing news that the CITB   BE FaIR Framework had gained interest from 148 companies in the construction sector, and that 110 of them had been accepted onto the pilot. Off the back of that blog we had some really positive comments supporting the framework and the work that companies have been doing to drive this agenda forward in the sector.

"So encouraging to see such great take up of this by Main Contractors. Well done to Constructing Equality for helping to make some small steps towards a fairer and more respectful Construction Industry..."

By Nicola Dibb

Unfortunately, we also had some comments, like those from Dan Lewis below: that felt the agenda around respect was peripheral to more important issues in the sector - that resources should only be put into this area when there was a surplus and other factors are dealt with.

"It is peripheral because the focus of a company is on serving its clients and customers. The colour of one's skin, one's gender, or the nationality of one's parents has nothing to do with the mission of the company. As an executive, the first and only requirement of an employee is to serve the company's clients with respect and diligence. Yes, that requires people working together and well. But race, gender, et al have nothing to do with it. Management has to foster an environment built toward service and excellence. In a prosperous market, there are resources and time for such efforts. Most companies have to focus on something else right now. And as Matthew points out, employee development and recognition are important management activities, but that is because it is focused on what is performed, rather than who you are."By Dan Lewis

We feel this sentiment is missing the point and to consider that issues around respect affect only those visibly different from the norm is missing the point. Furthermore, to assume that equality is only an important factor when recruiting misunderstands the challenges faced by individuals in the sector and organisations trying to retain key talent.

Therefore we felt that we should explain why equality and respect for people are not peripheral but at the core of everything a business does.

1.       Innovation - groups of different people are more likely to be more innovative. This is true of personality types and factors like gender and background. A mixed range of experience is more likely to produce innovative solutions - imagine the solutions that would come from 12 people with the same experience and background. Then imagine the response from 12 people with a varied range. Not only does a mixed group have more experience to share, it is also much more likely to feel able to do so.

2.       Procurement - Public sector bodies procuring work in the UK are legally committed to improving equality in the workplace, so are their supply chain. I’m going to credit you all with the smarts to work out why that’s important to your business.

3.       Productive teams - We are at our best when we are happy - we are more productive and encourage productivity around us. Therefore, if members of the team are worried, harassed or unable to build a rapport with colleagues we are not able to get the most out of them. Things seemingly unrelated, like sexual orientation or religion, can have a huge impact here; if a colleague makes jokes and other people laugh it sends a message about how the group feels about other groups and can make individuals less likely to talk about what’s important to them. Imagine if you felt you couldn’t talk about your friends, hobbies, partners and interest for fear of giving away an identity that might be rejected by your colleagues.

4.       Retain Talent - If people don’t feel they are respected and valued within their roles, it is highly likely that they will seek employment elsewhere. Women and minority groups, especially those with a visible indicator, are likely to have a different experience in the construction workplace; usually a more stressful and discriminatory one. This experience is not something that others are aware that they are contributing to or think is something negative, but nonetheless it has a negative impact on careers. For example: - the site manager who protects the female trainee from the site environment by giving her more work in the office; the QS who only employs from their own pool of past colleagues; or the colleague who makes jokes around homosexuality. Whilst these acts might seem inoffensive, they can hold back a career by not providing the right experience and limit the opportunities from those trying to get a start in the sector who are not already in the main pool as well as making people afraid to be themselves and form real friendships in the work environment. You see… race, gender and a host of other factors have a lot to do with people working well together, and whilst you can choose to ignore this it will not stop it affecting you as you watch your key talent walk out the door.

5.       Encourage the best recruits - we know there is a shortage of skills in the sector and this problem is only likely to increase as we come out of the recession. That means the fight to attract the best talent is an important one. A good salary is only half the battle people want to know that their place of employment is committed to respect, and by being able to show this you are much more likely to attract key talent.

So there you have it, 5 reasons why this agenda is so important to your business. Thank you to all those who left comments – even ones we do not agree with; this blog shows they are a great way of furthering the debate, so please continue to let us know your thoughts on this agenda.

Happy Building

Chrissi

Women in the Workplace- did BIS miss the point?

Yesterday the BIS report looking at women in the workplace came out after an extensive period of investigation that included evidence from Architects for Change, WAMT and ourselves, as well as consultation through Mumsnet and Women’s Hour. The conclusion of the report brought up many relevant and important points including flexible working, stereotyping and support for the Public Sector Equality Duties. Whilst I applaud this work and feel it is all vital I can’t help but think it’s missing an important point.

Most of it is designed to: get women into careers, overcome barriers around child-care or support them into senior roles, with very little considering those already in non-stereotypical roles struggling to crack the glass ceiling¹or even just find supportive employment. But although some of the conclusions it covers, like positive action, equality impact assessments and pay-transparency could help, the likelihood in the construction sector is that these things will have little impact.

Whilst I am often met with the assumption that women leave the sector to have children most of the women I know that have left, or are looking to leave, do so before they have even thought about reproducing ^2–5.  This for me highlights a very important point; something else is driving them away.  I know for many this seems like too big, or small, a problem to deal with depending on your mind-set, but I believe the answer is quite simple – support.  Studies have shown that women are more likely to stay, and be loyal to an organisation, if they feel it would support her and looking back over my own career I would agree - it was never the negative instances that bothered me as much as the company’s inability, or refusal,  to do anything about it.

More women are embarking on construction-related degrees every year, but we are losing them just as quickly – a critical mass approach does not seem to be working ^6,7. Without understanding the challenges and barriers that women in the sector face, and putting in adequate measures to support them, as well as talking about dated views and sub-conscious biases that deny them progression opportunities, the encouragement of more women into the sector might simply end up with more women leaving it.

As organisations we need to start understanding that in this situation silence does not equal happiness - we must be proactive in supporting our women without overtly singling them out and understand that they may well be as in-the-dark about what’s holding them back as you are.  This change won’t happen overnight, but by giving your workforce a reason to trust that you understand, or are at least willing to find out about, the real barriers they face and show that you have moved beyond obvious myths, it will come.

Happy Building

Chrissi

1.           Gurjao, S. Inclusivity : the Changing Role of Women in the Construction. CIOB (2006).

2.           Graft-Johnson, A. De, Manley, S. & Greed, C. Why Do Women Leave Architecture?: Research Into the Retention of Women in Architectural Practice. (2003).at <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Why+do+women+leave+architecture+?+Research+into+the+retention+of+women+in+architectural+practice#0>

3.           Bagilhole, B. M., Dainty, A. R. J. & Neale, R. H. A Woman Engineer  ’ s Experiences of Working on British Construction Sites *. Int. J. Engng Ed. 18, 422–429 (2002).

4.           Powell, A., Dainty, A. & Bagilhole, B. A poisoned chalice? Why UK women engineering and technology students may receive more “help” than their male peers. Gender and Education 23, 585–599 (2011).

5.           Bennett, J. F., Davidson, M. J., Galeand, A. W. & Gale, A. W. Women in construction : a comparative investigation into the expectations and experiences of female and male construction undergraduates and employees Women in construction : a comparative investigation into th. Women In Management Review Emerald Article : (2005).

6.           Powell, A., Bagilhole, B. M. & Dainty, A. R. J. The problem of women’s assimilation into UK engineering cultures: can critical mass work? Equal Opportunities International 25, 688–699 (2006).

7.           Greed, C. Women in the Construction Professions: Achieving Critical Mass. Gender, Work and Organization 7, 181–196 (2000).

The Anonymous Blog Strikes Back

At Constructing Equality Ltd. we like to create blogs that are both engaging and interesting for the reader - blogs that stimulate and prompt research and investigation by anyone that may have an opinion, or view, that they feel will contribute to a particular matter related to construction and/or equality and diversity.  We want to use this blog is as platform for discussion; a place where people of all ages, backgrounds and professions can anonymously write their responses to initiate discussion.

Last year we were approached by a woman working in construction who proposed to us the idea of hosting an anonymous blog. She considered some of her experiences as potentially harmful to her career and was unsure what to do - she wasn't so much looking for answers as a platform to let off a bit of steam; a place where she could talk about the experiences and behaviours she had encountered and hopefully interact with others who’d had similar experiences, or who had suggestions as to how to deal with them.

An anonymous blog was suggested as a way of enabling open discussion without fear of reprisal either for her, people like her or those who wish to comment.

The long and short being - we began to host the anonymous blog; a place where people of any age, sex, race, ability etc. can write a blog post, which we will host, and generate vibrant discussion. The anonymous blog has already enabled a number of people to have a platform for debate and gain guidance and resources to support them and their journey.

We want to encourage more of you to use the anonymous to reap the benefits of constructive debate and discussion and there are a number of rules for using the anonymous blog which can found at an earlier blog from last year.

We see this as a tool for industry, and individuals in the industry, and want you to use it as your own, so get blogging!

If you want to add rules, groups or networks, please let Kyle know and we will do what we can to support you.

Construct Away,

Kyle

For all things construction and equality, get yourself over to the Constructing Equality Ltd. website. 

Wedding rings – “To wear or not to wear?”

“I have spoken to people who have said they'd remove engagement or wedding rings before going into a job interview.

Has it become so bad that we perceive ourselves as having to almost lie in order not to be judged as falling into a certain stereotype? I.e. She is engaged and will therefore be married and have kids within a year so she’s not worth employing?”

In an ideal world the answer would be to wear your rings; the law is in place to protect you and make sure that you will not be discriminated against so you should have nothing to worry about.

The problem is we don’t live in an ideal world.  And whilst if you did face discrimination in a job interview because your prospective employers suspected you were newly married and about to start a family you could take legal action, but first of all, you would have to know that was the reason for their decision.  

Secondly, you would need to be able to prove it. Neither of which are particularly easy to do.

Even if you could prove it, the expense of a court case, in terms of finance, time and mental well-being  is high and the pay-outs are low - if you take away the few big pay-outs that are awarded, you find an average of £3/4k.

So what then should you do?

If you need a job, don’t care what job is and just have to pay the mortgage now…then it might be best to leave the ring at home. You see, it’s not just that some people do not employ “women of child bearing age” (a phrase we have heard more often that we would like to admit) or those who are recently married.  Although this direct discrimination is common, it is not the only thing you need to worry about; there is also the problem of inherent bias - subconsciously a lot of people think mums will take more time off, not be fully committed and generally fall short of the work a man can do. It doesn't matter that research has found the opposite to be true and it doesn't matter that you don’t want children; you look like you might have them and, to the under-educated, that makes you a risk not an asset.

If, on the other hand, you have a bit more choice and don’t need to take the first job that comes towards you; wear the ring . You see if you take a job with an employer who does not understand the business argument for equality and supporting working parents, it is likely that you will eventually find out about it (even if you never have children). If you do, this may be made apparent by being given lesser roles and responsibilities and possibly being made to feel unwanted if, and when, you do conceive. If you have the luxury of being able to take the risk let the employer self-select. This will enable you to find yourself an employer who “gets it”, one who knows the importance of supporting and retaining key talent – and don’t just do this because you’ll get extra maternity pay.  It goes further than that - a supportive working environment is more likely to retain key people which has a positive effect on profit; meaning that this is the company more likely to be around in ten or twenty years’ time.

The changes in law mean that men can now take paternity leave so the risk is there - male or female - and with an increasing number of men becoming the main or sole carer, the point should be that the questions and assumptions are made of all or none; failing to do this is denying someone an opportunity because of their gender, not because of their family status. A company deciding to discriminate is doing so despite the fact that it is illegal; whatever your moral position, they are in the wrong.

Happy Building,

Chrissi x

What did Margaret Thatcher do for women?

The recent demise of Baroness Thatcher has prompted much discussion and debate across the globe, both positive and negative. However, we can mull over the various things she did, or didn't do, for the country during her time in office until we are blue in the face; but what I’m sure we can agree on is that she was a charismatic leader that proved women have a voice, even in an era where business was still very much considered to be a ‘man’s world’.

She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century and is the only woman to have held the office. However, what did she actually do for women? Some would say not a lot. A recent article written by Jenni Murray, a journalist at the Guardian newspaper, gave the opinion that she did nothing at all – an opinion that is contentious in itself.

And while you may disagree with this opinion of “The Iron Lady”, she had some pretty stern views on the promotion of women in her cabinet - Baroness Young, a close friend of hers had been the only female elevated. She was leader of the House of Lords from 1981 to 1983, but had never been elected to Parliament. If you read through Thatcher’s autobiography, there is no mention of any woman apart from Young, her daughter, her secretary, Indira Gandhi and the wives or daughters of other statesmen. No Edwina Currie, no Virginia Bottomley, no Gillian Shephard, no Angela Rumbold.

Upon facing Thatcher for the first time in the mid-1980s, Murray explained that she would dismiss apprehensions regarding low pay, lack of childcare facilities, and poverty in old age and would scorn the idea of feminism – a term that simply wasn’t in her vocabulary.

When asked about her proclivity to improve equal opportunities she would recurrently reply with the view that none of the women were good, or proficient, enough to rise through the ranks.  She would dismiss positive action with an authoritative: "But no, a woman must rise through merit. There must be no discrimination." While this may be extent valid point for some, you would have thought she might have found some qualities of leadership in at least one female in her cabinet.

Furthermore, her empathy for other ambitious women, who were not as lucky as her in terms of finding independent wealth through marriage, was entirely absent. So while it is wrong to take joy from someone’s death, as we have seen people do in the media, especially in areas of the country most affected by her decisions regarding some traditional industries, it is understandable that people may feel negatively towards her and how those decisions affected them and their communities she made during  the ‘80’s.  

Construct Away,

Kyle

For all things construction and equality, get yourself over to the Constructing Equality Ltd. website. 

Welfare, construction and why it’s not about scroungers…

Between the bedroom tax, cost of living and the media showcasing of extreme examples of people taking advantage of the system, welfare has developed a bit of a bad reputation at the moment. People who are struggling to make ends meet, whilst holding down jobs, are questioning why others only have to sit in front of the telly all day and receive benefits that, if you read the daily mail, will keep you in the lap of luxury.  

Between political infighting, using benefits as a weapon to showcase how badly the last party dealt with things and the media’s recognition of public hunger for people to name and shame, I can’t help but feel it’s all gotten a little out of hand.  That maybe we need to step back, take the emotion out of it and consider why benefits exist in the first place – and what value are they to those of us that work in the construction industry.

Firstly, I support the benefit system - I know that 0.02% of claims are fraudulent and whilst I would prefer that that number was zero, no system is perfect and constantly flouting small flaws as a means of undermining an entire system won’t get anyone anywhere. 

Whilst the media has encouraged us to look at those who claim benefits as work-shy scroungers there is a bigger picture and it includes me and you. In a transient, project-based industry that is now predominantly dependent on self-employment, labour gaps in employment can be frequent and, occasionally, long. Many save for the low periods but that’s not always enough to get by, especially when there are commitments and dependants to keep. The benefits help to cover that gap; they mean that you don’t fall at the first hurdle in the down-period, but instead, have the chance to pick yourself up and carry on.  They mean that people do not have to sell the tools of their livelihood to get by and that makes it a little easier to get back to work - it also means that when we, as an industry, need the workforce they are ready to start.

I know a few people who feel they are owed a living by the state, but the majority of people I know will avoid benefits till the last moment, only to find that when they do claim (out of necessity not apathy) they are vilified and made to feel somehow unworthy, which is not conducive to raising self-esteem and helping people to win work.

Let’s try and appreciate the scaremongering of Benefits from a different perspective -what if it is simply a political smokescreen to stop us talking about Starbucks not paying tax, or the media taking advantage of our desire to prove we are better than other people. If these things are true we need to fight for, and protect, our benefit system by refusing to further accept the myths that are sold alongside the welfare state.  Instead we should be proud of our heritage of helping those most in need and look at ways of getting people back into work. 

Make no mistake, if the system is allowed to degrade in this manner, it is not just the fabled work-shy scroungers that will suffer; it is society as a whole. 

Happy building, 

Chrissi

For all things construction and equality, get yourself over to the Constructing Equality Ltd. website. 

What is the business case for diversity in the built environment?

There are a number of reasons why considering diversity is good for your business these include:

• To prevent legislative costs,

• To reap the benefits of employing a diverse team,

• To increase success on public sector tenders,

• To create a more supportive working environment.

When considering the business case you really need to think about what area of the business you are focusing on and what the business case means to you for example do you value the bottom line, employee retention or productivity as a priority?

The research is stronger in some areas than others for example women on strategic boards is an area currently receiving a lot of attention due to the Davies report and the direction France, Spain and Norway have taken with regards to quotas. The wonderful catalyst has also been doing great work for 50 years this year looking at the benefits of gender equality.

Yet diversity isn’t all about gender, what about people from different ethnic and religious communities or those who for some other reason experience life in a different way to the majority? In construction there hasn’t been too much research looking at a tangible business argument though there is research from outside of the sector.

The current research suggests that there is an argument for diversity when it is well managed and understood. Unfortunately a badly thought through strategy can have a negative impact on your business which is why I would always advise clients to avoid undertaking a tick box approach – it’s likely to cost you more in the long run.

The idea behind the business model is that you should be attracting a diverse workforce not to predominantly “do the right thing” or “ensure fairness for all” but in fact to strengthen your productivity and bottom line. Here are some examples of how diversity can be a positive to your organisation.

Become an employer of choice.

For minorities in construction, the support they will receive from their employer is an important factor in choosing who they will work for. It therefore stands to reason that if you can promote high retention rates and support services, you will find more interest from not only minorities but the top end of the workforce in general. A series of surveys by Target Jobs in 2008 into construction found work life balance and development opportunities to be the most important factors in deciding upon an employer.

Improve business performance

Here it’s important to note that the research suggests that a well-managed group of diverse employees will improve your productivity and profit in a number of ways which include mirroring your client base, having a wider pool of experience and creativity and being able to tap into more networks. But if the group is not well managed, the same cannot be said.

Change appears to happen at strategic level when there are more than three women on a board; in fact a US study of fortune 500 companies found that those with 3+ women on the board all reported significantly stronger than average profits.

At tactical level research has found that diverse groups outperform more capably homogeneous groups, which backs up the theory that different experiences provide us with different viewpoints and solutions.

Retain knowledge and experience

Research into diversity in construction suggests that more could have been done to stop the majority of women leaving the construction industry. What’s more compelling is the amount of money that could have been saved if we had. A 2009 government report “Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement.” put the cost of replacing an employee roughly equivalent to their salary, once training, corporate knowledge and intellectual capita are considered. The same report found that committed employees are 87% less likely to leave their organisations than those less engaged; they also perform 20% better. Instead of thinking can we afford to support our staff? Isn’t it time we started to question if we can afford not to?

Skills Shortage

The latest skills survey from the CIOB finds 72% of respondents felt there was still a skills shortage. Without recruiting from the entire selection pool we are not only failing to meet demand for numbers but also failing to find the best candidates for the roles available. Increasingly a number of smaller studies have found that young men are also avoiding construction due to its macho image and male dominance. In short, to ensure that we encourage the best recruits, we need to offer the most appealing, diverse and professional environment.

Meet procurement standards and stakeholder requirements

Public authorities need to meet the equality duties of The Equality Act 2010 and more importantly, so do their subcontractors. With 60% of current work coming from this sector that’s big news for contractors. By being able to align your organisation to the needs of your client you are putting yourself in a solid position to win more work.

With a large percentage of women and minorities now making procurement decisions for public sector work they want to see themselves represented in your workforce, so if all you have to offer is middle aged white men, it might not be enough.

Happy building, Chrissi

For all things construction and equality, get yourself over to the Constructing Equality Ltd. website.