ABSTRACT
One of the objectives of the diversity movement in construction is to increase the number of women in the industry. This is generally seen as a good thing to do, presumably based on the assumption that ‘more’ will mean ‘better’ (for women and for the industry) (Greed, 1988, 2000). It is assumed that greater numbers of women will be a clear sign of increased equal opportunities (EO) policy working, and that the women will magically soften and improve the worst aspects of the construction industry culture. Attracting more women will, it is often assumed, lead to more humane forms of management and thus greater productivity and less of a confrontational, conflict-ridden ‘macho pack culture’ and thus more efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It has often been assumed that ‘what is good for women is good for the industry as a whole’, that is, the business case but one must add that ‘what is good for the industry is not necessarily good for women’ (Rhys Jones et al., 1996; Wall and Clarke, 1996; Greed, 1999a,b; Clarke et al., 2004). Expecting a small minority of women to be the change agents to turn around an entire industry is putting a tremendous burden and responsibility upon women entrants. This stance ignores the need for major cultural and organisational change upon the part of the men who comprise 95 per cent of this sector.
