Over a decade ago, I joined the construction industry as an early career professional, just as I was finishing my final research assessment at university. My research delivered a sobering conclusion: the industry viewed women with families as a ‘risk.’ Of course, perhaps naively, I thought that I would be one of the females that would benefit from the winds of change that I could see.
Today, we are witnessing a strange new corporate trend addressing the ‘risk’ of wanting a family. Major employers are offering to pay for egg-freezing, which sounds considerate. Yet, simultaneously, they are quietly removing markers and symbols like International Women’s Day from their calendars.
Revisiting my thesis offers a unique perspective on this shift. We have moved from a culture of overt exclusion to a culture of ‘deferred inclusion.’ But why does this matter for me, my peers, and the next generation of women entering the construction industry?
The “False Progress” Narrative
Looking back at my data, a startlingly high percentage of women across all project roles agreed that having a family marked them as less ambitious than their male counterparts. Today, while 31% of general executive roles are held by women, in the construction sector, that number dips to only 20% of females with leadership positions.
So, how do we change this narrative?
In a very modern, overtly egalitarian twist, big tech companies like Google, Apple, and Meta are offering employer-paid egg freezing. On the surface, this looks like a benefit. In reality, it confirms that starting a family is viewed as a ‘productivity disruptor’ – a risk to be managed. Instead of evolving the workplace to accommodate life, women are being asked to medically alter their timelines to fit the industry. By rolling out these schemes to ‘solve’ the risk of family-building, corporations aren’t providing the flexibility that 96% of my survey participants wanted; they are simply providing a deferral. A deferral that comes with invasive procedures, hormonal disruption, increased risks associated with later-life pregnancies, and no guarantee that, when it is time to start a family, the perceived risk to the company will have changed.
“Performative vs. Substantive” – The Symbolism of the Calendar
Visibility and inclusion are fundamental to cultural change. Yet, freezing our eggs, while removing International Women’s Day from our calendars, suggests a “gender-blind” move that downplays the specific biological and social realities women face.
The message feels clear: “We’ve cleared your calendar and chilled your eggs; now let’s get back to your quarterly goals.”
Eliminating a day of recognition is a tone-deaf response to the systemic barriers women continue to navigate—especially when ‘International Donut Day’ remains on the calendar. This move reinforces a frustrating reality: while many employers publicise their support for career-driven women, the vast majority- echoing the 96.3% from my original study – still fundamentally feel undermined in their professional environments.
The Flexibility Paradox
The lockdowns of the early 2020s reformed how we work, and flexibility is now offered by many corporations “on paper.” But this has given rise to a new “flexibility tax.” Many of the roles are still designed around the ‘High Power Distance’ metrics I identified in my thesis—where success is measured by presence and constant availability rather than output. To make real progress, we must move from merely allowing flexibility to normalizing it across all levels of leadership.
The Mentorship Gap
There are more LinkedIn networks and “Women in Construction” groups than ever before, but meaningful, transformational mentorship remains rare. In 2026, mentorship has often become transactional – consisting of brief, scheduled video calls rather than the deep advocacy required to change a career trajectory.
Without senior women in those 20% of leadership roles actively pulling others up—and without men being trained as genuine allies—the “undermining” I initially observed and documented in 2017 will continue. It has simply moved from the site shed to quieter spaces – where it is more shrewdly hidden.
Conclusion
Looking back at my ambitious early career self, a graduate eager to move the needle – I realise that while we’ve made strides in visibility, we are currently at risk of trading genuine cultural reform for corporate convenience.
The next generation of women entering construction doesn’t just need their eggs chilled or their calendars cleared of symbolic holidays. They need what my research asked for nearly a decade ago: a workplace that values their reality, respects their timelines, and provides a clear, unencumbered path to the top. Let’s stop trying to change women to fit the industry and finally finish the job of changing the industry to fit women. It is possible. I am part of a team doing just that right now.
Kirsty Andlovec
