Choose to Challenge #IWD

Michael Attard on International Women's Day in the Construction Industry.

Choose to Challenge is the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day. I write this evening sitting in front of Oprah interviewing Meghan Markle, after a weekend participating in vibrant celebrations in the name of Mardi Gras. There are many relevant messages in this interview to this topic. I write this in the context of national conversations about topics of consent, a time where we are unsure if the #metoo movement is returning or questioning whether it ever stopped. The news before was talking about it being unprecedented times, a quote I am quite frankly sick of for many reasons.

International Women’s Day is a touchstone event for workplaces and moreover industries to take stock. It’s a sensory overload for many as we seek an understanding of where we are, where we were, and where we still are yet to get to. We stocktake the challenges and achievements in doing so. It provokes thoughts, feelings, and likely rage, but without being the angry woman – no one likes her right?

More appropriate is the slogan of today, “Choose to challenge,” which plays to the parties who may feel excluded from today’s events, or still wonder why days as such exist. For in a man’s world, days as such require deep desire from men to challenge.

This is not my first anecdote on the very challenges within the construction industry, but if you’re new to this writing, feel free to read and reflect on some of my past writings (see below). As a manager, as an employee, as an activist, as a member of the LGBTQI+ community, as an advocate for equality, we must move to challenge and rise. For me, it’s a legal requirement in doing so-called continuous improvement.

We owe it to our industry to get closer to a glass ceiling, by removing the concrete that stands in its way. The same industry that continues to struggle to address gender representation for perceptions of masculine work, despite increases in engineering controls and mechanical improvements in the way works are done, or the masculinity required or expected to execute such works. It is easy to read into construction as a wasteland for attempts at addressing women’s rights and representation. You may hear this too especially from women in this industry as their frustration increases in lack of change.

It has been reported that in the last two decades, the Construction industry went backward from 13.8% female representation in 1998 to 12% female representation in 2018, perhaps a testament to frustration or something that warrants further inquiry. After all, it is not a stable industry if you are seeking stable employment, particularly if at any point in time you may be assumed as having to play the home-worker role, or like many women, you are already doing that in addition to the role you play in your workplace. Simple search engine requests on this very topic will stimulate further questions when you’re confronted by statistics that suggest that women in construction resign from their minority-representative roles at 40% higher rates than their male counterparts. I could search for more, but I risk losing you if you’ve got this far.

As a male, I observe a lot of men shrug, distance, and engage in several deep breaths when discussing or navigating the topic of feminism, which has a resurgence on days like International Women’s Day. But I thought I would do something different here, and discuss the opposite ideology, masculinity.

Masculinity is defined as a configuration of practices and norms that are organised in relation to the structures of gender identity and relations. It is quite easy for groupthink to enable then hypermasculinity given the lack of representation in this industry. Masculinity is built on four pillars. The first pillar requires the dismissal of femineity, unless you are the alpha male, or drunk at one of the parties where the most alpha male can be the most feminine. That person could dress up in the most flamboyant dress, and would never be questioned on his perceived sissiness. For others, I would disagree. Secondly achieved by the quest and calculated means to ascend to the top of your respective ladder, no matter what. A quest that if performed by a woman would be confronted with questions or comments about her intentions, her sexuality, and the insecurity any advancement may have if she dare wants to become a mother. Thirdly, the appreciation that you give yourself for being overworked in the hope it is recognised. That is the admiration and adoration that comes with being in the office first, and last to leave, and gloating about it at the pub on a Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday night as you drown and sabotage your relationships externally to the workplace while prioritising the brethren cult-like construction mentality. If you are a woman, you can contribute to this, in fact, it is encouraged. But consider this an opportunity for deeper interrogation into your career motivations by a colleague who may in the future be your boss. The fourth pillar of masculinity being the characterisation of rule-breaking, countering authority, and using force to get outcomes supported by those around you, or whom you seek support from. I recall my point earlier about no one liking the angry woman. I recall my point on the relevance of the message behind this year’s theme, which I believe plays into masculinity, and the role men have today to execute the fourth pillar, but in addressing workplace equity.

I only have one female member within my team. I report to several females and work alongside several more. My workplace is better than most, and likewise as is my employer. But workplaces and employers are not people. They make up people who may not share the same opinions as to the mandates from our corporate offices, nor have the same moral belief that addressing representation is important; hence the challenge.

In recent times I had a discussion about the importance of identity with my team. When you are not part of the system, and you are not represented by the majority, identity is essential. Jokingly there was a response to some role title changes I am working on that said “You can call me a jumbo jet, and I’ll still do my job… I don’t really care.” You could laugh at that, and maybe even agree with that. But I dare say you laugh or agree with that because you may be a male, or you work in a workplace that has this kind of rhetoric sorted.

Roles are an important feature that indicates your experience, the skills, and the level of respect your position warrants. In this profession, respect is hard to come by when you have to contribute information that people may not want to do, or may be perceived as a "handbrake." Roles do play an important role in the pay gap debate too.

Relevant in this conversation is the fact that the Construction Industry has one of the highest gender pay gaps in the nation. In construction terms, a shaft, a non-confined space, which equates to a pay gap of 26.1-29.4% between males and females of the same roles. That obviously begs the question too as to why, and of course how, not without questioning when – when this will be over. I hear too often lunchroom conversations, where people may gawk at or compare a female colleague’s percentage increase in pay to their-own. In doing so, they fail to question the reasons why the pay increase was so high in the first place – she was earning substantially less, therefore warranting the increase to her pay packet which obviously correlates with the diminishing size of the male ego participating in these conversations. It is after all-natural to first reflect on your own experiences in any event, so apologies if you were offended by that prior sentence.

There is a responsibility we have as managers to implement merit-based measures when recruiting and selecting candidates, but we often ignore merit, combined with future strategies in designing workplaces of the future in merit and ethical succession planning measures within our workplaces too. I am yet to see considered designs in such succession plans, which do not inadvertently or even intentionally promote behaviors and systems that again promote hypermasculine ideals. That is working overzealous hours without pay or reward, but perceived incentive at the prospect of having a succession plan executed. I speak from experience in having my own succession plans cock-blocked historically. My experience to date in this industry has not witnessed good examples in any organisational work design or future-oriented histograms. Perhaps the reason for this is the high level of uncertainty that many construction projects have after you’ve earned your stripes on the current one.

This too is an important topic to unpack also. There have been some very disturbing patterns I have seen and experienced when you bring experience to the table, but no first-hand witnesses or advocates of that experience. This renders your experience less than what it may have been as you now seek to appease people who are not as trusting of your experience because you may not be so familiar. You work relentlessly for approval, acceptance, and in doing so become part of the cultural issue that is hypermasculinity in this industry. I have seen and heard questions of some of Australia's most prominent professionals in my industry, questioned amongst men on who she slept with to get to her role, assuming her sexual talent over any business, scientific, or educated success and talent she may have.

People I know well in this industry, with wives and even daughters, do select or preference females based on their maternal status and often perceived maternal status. The latter is even so perverse and disgusting, exploring (read assume) sexuality, as well as breaching privacy laws, or finding social media loopholes using the small incestuous network that construction is, to discover what their significant other (if they exist) does. These calculated considerations are done in open offices, not behind closed doors, in very obvious and cunning ways, which yes impact their decision-making process therein. HR departments made up of largely women, present as part of the problem too in my experience. This is done by either failing to challenge, being scared of challenging the norm, or being undervalued as a profession or in their advice, which may be assumed as having no relevance or connection to site – I am not sure, but I know it is not good enough.

There is a huge disincentive in the current ways of working in this industry for returning mums to come back to work after maternity leave. The fear of being away for extended periods of time or having to argue with working from home arrangements or picking up your child from school if they’re sick is a hard request to make if the project you work on is understaffed, under budget, and simultaneously under-delivering according to the aggressive construction program. Notwithstanding having to constantly defend your decision-making skills. More to the role that HR plays in this industry for returning women in the workplace post-partum. I have seen countless examples of senior women returning to work as administrators, from initially managerial roles. While the pay may remain the same, return your minds to the points I made on identity when you are not part of the majority. If you've got that sorted, maybe have a think about meaningful work in this context, and expecting to sustain your career and motivations.

There are so many more examples that I could provide you, but I am hoping my points here are crystalising into your belief to support change and challenge too. In fact, you can challenge the points I have made in this article, I welcome that too. Less than 7 years ago in a workplace I was working in, one of our recruitment conduits – a labour-hire company – was confronted with an opportunity to recruit a woman. This woman identified herself and approached our workplace directly, forgetting all the internet application rigmarole, and went in old-school and showed incredible face. We needed people always, even if not at that moment, someone was likely to resign from that workplace the day after – turnover was through the roof. The man accepted her resume kindly and advised her that she would hear back from him – a lie that she may not have known she was told. Moments later this same person entered into my area of the office to share what he obviously thought was hilarious; a woman applying for a job on a production line made up of solely men. He said to me so cordially, “I couldn’t employ her, she might be raped!” I quickly responded, “Why did you hire rapists then?” He walked off.

Less than three years ago I was asked to explain and defend my advice for seeking to deploy feminine hygiene bins within the workplace female amenities. This tiring feature of my profession requires me to tell people and explain things ten different ways to ten different people because advice apparently is still needed on what is normal and what is reasonable. A paradox that suggests people are so immune to acting unreasonably, or impractically. My role and the role of the Safety Professional is in itself a problem and a solution – often thankless, and continually having to swallow your pride, as you often whisper “I told you so” to yourself.

I do not have kids, nor a partner, which is perhaps holding my steed in this industry – but that shouldn’t mean I have to succumb to the norms within the workplace which suggest that my work must be prioritised above anything else or else. It means that while I feel the most secure in myself, and in this industry, then I have ever before that I must always choose to challenge. This is because I have the responsibility to challenge the norms as a leader within this industry, and as a cis-white male to connect this topic of equity and equality into workplace health and safety, in the ultimate spirit of continuous improvement.