Leadership Diversity and Its Influence on Equality

Initiatives and Performance: Insights for

Construction Management
Marzena Baker, Ph.D. 1; Muhammad Ali, Ph.D. 2; and Erica French, Ph.D. 3

Abstract: Gender-diverse leadership shapes the design and delivery of policies, programs, and practices implemented to address diversity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

management. Drawing on stakeholder theory, this paper proposes and tests the positive impacts of board gender diversity and top manage-
ment team gender diversity on diversity-related human resource initiatives and work–life initiatives. Moreover, using strategic human re-
source management theory and ability–motivation–opportunity theory, this study proposes and tests the positive effects of human resource
and work–life initiatives on organizational financial performance. Based on contingency theory, it proposes and tests the moderating effect of
an inclusive diversity environment on the initiatives and financial performance relationship. Using time-lagged archival data collected from
367 Australian organizations, findings indicate board gender diversity is positively associated with both human resource and work–life
initiatives designed and implemented to address diversity management. Work–life initiatives are positively associated with both increased
operating revenue and profit before tax. Further, the work–life initiatives–profit before tax relationship was strongly positive for organizations
with a high diversity environment. We discuss theoretical and research contributions and practical implications. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0002147. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Gender equality; Board diversity; Top management team diversity; Human resource initiatives; Work–life initiatives;
Financial performance.

Introduction Kamardeen 2017; Baker et al. 2019a), improving gender-diversity

The construction, property development, and manufacturing indus-
tries are significant contributors to the economic performance and
employment markets worldwide (Albattah et al. 2015; Choi et al.
2018). Although these industries may differ in their markets, prod-
ucts, levels of uncertainties and risks, they are traditionally project-
based (Lester 2017; Pacagnella et al. 2019), experience vertical and
horizontal gender role segregation (Baker et al. 2019b; Kucera and
Milberg 2000), and implement a range of gender-based initiatives
to improve gender diversity (WGEA Data Explorer 2020). Their
employment share is expected to significantly increase into the fu-
ture, exposing them to potential labor shortages (Goldman 2009;
PMI 2017) because these industries continue to be typically male-
dominated in developed countries. In Australia, women represent
13.1% of board directors in construction, 25.9% in property, and
20.6% in manufacturing, and 15.1% of the top management team
(TMT) in construction, 26.0% in property, and 23.0% in manufac-
turing (WGEA Data Explorer 2020). Increasing leadership gender
diversity in these industries could be key to addressing the chal-
lenge of skills shortages (Sang and Powell 2012; Sunindijo and
1
Lecturer, Univ. of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4108-5325. Email: marzena.baker@
sydney.edu.au
2
Senior Lecturer, Queensland Univ. of Technology, GPO Box 2434,
Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia (corresponding author). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-5641-8033. Email: m3.ali@qut.edu.au
3
Associate Professor, Queensland Univ. of Technology, GPO Box 2434,
Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia. Email: e.french@qut.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 2, 2021; approved on
May 14, 2021; published online on August 2, 2021. Discussion period open
until January 2, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
supportive human resource (HR) and work–life (WL) initiatives
(Ali and Konrad 2017), and improving performance (Post and
Byron 2015).
Organizational leaders have the power to make strategic deci-
sions that shape diversity management and influence outcomes
(Post and Byron 2015; Pfeffer 1981; Zahra and Pearce 1989). Lead-
ers’ demographic characteristics, such as gender, can significantly
impact the types of policies, programs, and practices implemented
within the organization (Hambrick and Mason 1984). In addition,
leaders’ gender may shape their attitudes and focus attention on
initiatives often titled “diversity management” (Dansky et al. 2003;
Lee and James 2007; Ng and Burke 2010; Ng and Sears 2017).
Diversity management includes a range of HR initiatives, including
diversity policy statements, active recruitment, training, and devel-
opment, compensation, and management accountability, as well as
WL initiatives related to improving workforce equity and diversity
(Ng and Wyrick 2011). However, limited research has been under-
taken to understand the role of gender diversity in the TMT for
advancing diversity management (Ali and Konrad 2017; Abramovic
and Traavik 2017; Anderson and Billings-Harris 2010; Guillaume
et al. 2014). Further, no investigation has yet been undertaken into
the relationship between board gender diversity and diversity man-
agement (Fitzsimmons et al. 2020; Howell and Costley 2006).
Past research indicates mixed results on whether diversity man-
agement leads to higher performance outcomes for organizations.
For instance, Ali (2016) found gender-focused policies and practices
lead to higher employee productivity and perceived market perfor-
mance. In contrast, Kidder et al. (2004) argued gender/ethnicity-
focused policies and practices may result in a backlash from men/
majority employees and may have negative effects on performance.
Research also suggests mixed signals for the impact of WL initiatives
on firm performance (e.g., Bloom et al. 2009; Shepard et al.
1996; Collins and Clark 2003; George 2005; Lee and Kim 2010;

© ASCE 04021123-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123

 Yamamoto and Matsuura 2014). For example, Bloom et al. (2009)
studied 700þ organizations in Europe and the US and found no
relationship between WL initiatives and productivity when control-
ling for good management practice. On the other hand, Konrad and
Mangel (2000) found organizations employing larger percentages of
women achieved more productivity gains from WL programs. No
research has investigated the relationship between both diversity
management HR and WL initiatives and performance outcomes.
The inconclusive findings of any HR initiatives–performance
and WL initiatives–performance relationships have encouraged re-
searchers to test for contextual moderating variables (Johns 2006;
Ollier-Malaterre 2009). Some of the variables studied include gen-
der diversity of lower through middle management (LTMM) (Ali
and Konrad 2017), age and gender diversity (Perry-Smith and Blum
2000), presence of labor unions, wage level, industry (Wood and de
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Menezes 2010; Yanadori and Kato 2009), management practices
(Bloom et al. 2009), organizational commitment (Oyewobi et al.
2019), and organizational size (Akter et al. 2021). Härtel (2004)
posited that gender-diverse organizations implementing multiple
supportive diversity management initiatives create an environment
where diversity is embraced and differences are celebrated. Still,
very little is known about how a diversity environment moderates
the relationship between diversity initiatives and organizational
performance. Analyzing the moderating effects of a diversity
environment may help refine past findings and achieve a “more
precise and specific understanding” of the diversity-management
initiatives–performance relationship (Rosenberg 1968, p. 100).
This study offers important contributions to the gender diver-
sity management and construction management literature. First,
this study tests stakeholder theory (Freeman and Reed 1983), stra-
tegic human resource management (SHRM) theory (Huselid 1995;
Huselid et al. 1997), and ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO)
theory (Appelbaum et al. 2000). Specifically, drawing on stakeholder
theory, it predicts that gender-diverse leadership in the construction,
property development, and manufacturing industries will have a pos-
itive effect on the development of diversity management initiatives
(Fig. 1). Based on SHRM and AMO theories, it further proposes that
gender-equality HR and WL initiatives impact organizational finan-
cial performance. Second, responding to the call to examine contex-
tual variables, this study extends contingency theory (Galbraith
1995) to predict and explain how the diversity environment moder-
ates the relationship between HR/WL initiatives and organizational
performance (Donaldson 2001; Kopelman et al. 1990).
Third, the findings can stimulate industry awareness of the value
of gender-diverse leadership, its impact on diversity initiative
Board Gender Diversity Human Resource Initiatives
TMT Gender Diversity Work-life Initiatives
2017 2018
Fig. 1. Research framework.
© ASCE 04021123-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
offerings, and, in turn, on organizational financial performance
(Akter et al. 2021). Fourth, the current study’s design helps
strengthen the evidence for a business case for both gender-diverse
leadership and diversity management. The predictions are tested
using archival data with a 1-year time lag between leadership di-
versity (2017), diversity management implementation (2018), and
performance (2019), thereby allowing the predictor to precede the
outcomes (Barney and Mackey 2005). The study also uses the two
performance measures of profit before tax and operating revenue,
enhancing the construct validity of the outcome measures
(Lumpkin and Dess 1996).
Theoretical Underpinning and Hypotheses
Development
Leadership Gender Diversity and Gender-Equality
Initiatives
We used stakeholder theory (Freeman and Reed 1983) because it
offers a strong relationship focus for the corporate governance de-
bate of strategic management (Freeman and Reed 1983). Moving
the strategic direction of corporate governance from shareholder to
stakeholder, Freeman and Reed (1983) built on Ansoff (1965), who
advocated that the “responsibilities” and “objectives” of governance
decisions are not necessarily synonymous, but they can be made
“one” through “stakeholder theory.” Further, they argued for the in-
clusion of a wide sense of who is a stakeholder as being any group or
individual who can affect the achievement of an organization’s ob-
jectives (Freeman and Reed 1983); following Dill (1975), Freeman
and Reed (1983) agreed that the focus moves from stakeholder in-
fluence toward stakeholder participation in governance.
Stakeholder theory is instrumental in examining the connections
between the practice of stakeholder management and corporate per-
formance goals. The principal focus of interest has been the propo-
sition that corporations practicing stakeholder management will, all
things being equal, be successful in conventional performance terms
(Donaldson and Preston 1995). Harrison et al. (2010) stated that
stakeholder theory involves “managing for stakeholders” by attend-
ing to their interests and well-being. Encompassing stakeholders in
decisions relevant to them encourages a synergy (Parmar et al. 2010;
Tantalo and Priem 2014) that influences the attitudes and behaviors
of stakeholder groups and between groups (Cording et al. 2014; du
Luque et al. 2008). This concept is known as “generalized exchange”
and is the core differentiating aspect of the theory (Ekeh 1974;
Harrison et al. 2015).
Diversity Environment
2018
Operating Revenue
Profit before Tax
2019
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Stakeholder theory is significant in its acknowledgment of the
importance of team decision making in strategic management, fi-
nance, accounting, human resources management, production, in-
formation technology, marketing, law, health care, public policy,
business ethics, and corporate social responsibility (Parmar et al.
2010). Freeman’s (1984) original position was about managing
the broadest range of stakeholders in an organization, proposing
a management theory based on the moral treatment of stakeholders
that offered the potential for value-adding not only in finance but
also in other major areas (Phillips et al. 2003; Harrison et al. 2010;
Jensen 2001).
A focus on team member attributes in decision outcomes stems
from work in the 1980s (Nielsen 2010) that individual character-
istics strongly influence interpretations in strategic decision making
(Hambrick and Mason 1984) and in the choices selected (Nielsen
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Nielsen 2011; Tanikawa and Jung 2016). Including women on
boards has been identified as an indication of an organization’s
commitment to stakeholders (Francoeur et al. 2008). Fernandez
and Thams (2019) identified board diversity in terms of internation-
alization, gender, and race, which are all positively related to facili-
tating effective stakeholder management such that the board is able
to manage their obligations effectively and, according to Harjoto
et al. (2015), satisfy the needs of broader groups of stakeholders.
Diversity has also been accepted as a resource in terms of informa-
tion, knowledge, and expertise (van Knippenberg and van Ginkel
2010), broadening the task-relevant information and perspectives
available to the team.
A more tailored, team-focused approach to the design of diver-
sity management practices may also further enhance the relevance
and effectiveness of such practices (Joshi and Roh 2009). Personal
attributes of TMT members are an important causal variable in
performance outcomes (Pfeffer 1983; Nielsen 2010). Therefore, en-
suring gender diversity on the organization’s TMT potentially pro-
vides the senior team with the wherewithal and ultimately the
experience to make better decisions when designing HR initiatives
to meet stakeholder needs. Indeed, including women on the TMT
has been identified as significant in the design of diversity and
equity management systems (Ali and Konrad 2017). Additionally,
this diversity in decision making potentially creates recognizable
senior leader support (Giscombe and Mattis 2002). Thus, we offer
the following hypotheses:
H1: Board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity will
have a positive relationship with HR initiatives.
H2: Board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity will
have a positive relationship with WL initiatives.
Gender-Equality Initiatives and Organizational
Performance
The introduction of equal-opportunity legislation and growing sup-
port for a business case for increasing demographic diversity has
resulted in a sharp increase in the number and type of diversity
initiatives offered by organizations (Baker et al. 2021). SHRM
theory relates to developing and implementing HR and WL initia-
tives that contribute to business objectives and suggests that gender
equality and diversity initiatives contribute to firm performance
(Chenevert and Tremblay 2009; MacDuffie 1995; Subramony
2009). This occurs through impacting individual employee perfor-
mance: where performance increases, the performance of various
business departments increases, and, in turn, escalations in firm
performance are an outcome (Uysal 2015).
Further, Appelbaum et al. (2000) suggested that AMO theory
explains how HR and WL initiatives influence organizational
performance by providing diverse employees with the ability,
© ASCE 04021123-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
motivation, and opportunity to contribute to achieving organiza-
tional goals (Armstrong et al. 2010). These initiatives attract di-
verse employees with a range of abilities and skills (Kalev et al.
2006) and enhance their motivation levels (Allen 2001; Grover
and Crooker 1995) as well as provide them with opportunities
to contribute (Casper and Harris 2008).
Selection and recruitment diversity initiatives support the hiring
of diverse employees and can create opportunities for diverse em-
ployees to work together to contribute to the organization (Richard
et al. 2013). Further, innovation in managing organizational prob-
lems and opportunities has also been shown to increase when a
diverse group applies a greater variety of information, skills, knowl-
edge, and perspectives (Bassett-Jones 2005) and works together to
solve problems and change work processes to improve efficiency
(Appelbaum et al. 2000). In addition, diversity initiatives that are
related to the career advancement of diverse groups of employees
have been identified as motivating employees to work toward
achieving organizational goals. Moreover, equality and diversity
initiatives communicate to employees that the organization values
diversity and further motivates them to utilize their knowledge,
skills, perspectives, and experience to take advantage of opportu-
nities and advance the attainment of organizational objectives
(Chrobot-Mason and Aramovich 2013; Richard et al. 2013).
Ali and Konrad (2017) found WL initiatives lead to a higher
return on assets in organizations with higher levels of gender diver-
sity in management because managers utilize initiatives to reduce
WL conflicts and enhance WL enrichment. Further, WL initiatives
communicate to employees that the organization cares about them,
values and supports gender equality, and offers flexible work ar-
rangements to support those with family and caring responsibilities
(Allen 2001; Casper and Harris 2008; Ryan and Kossek 2008). The
availability of WL initiatives is critical to employees’ perceptions
of organizational support (Casper and Harris 2008), leading to
higher levels of job commitment and satisfaction (Allen and
Montgomery 2001) and therefore may lead to a higher likelihood
of employees working toward achieving organizational outcomes.
Research supports the notion that diversity management initia-
tives produce superior organizational outcomes. For instance,
Armstrong et al. (2010) studied the impact of 17 diversity/equality
management practices and found those practices helped improve
labor productivity, workplace innovation, and helped reduce em-
ployee turnover. Konrad and Mangel (2000) found that the produc-
tivity impact of WL initiatives may be stronger in organizations
employing a higher percentage of professionals and women. Thus,
we offer the following hypotheses:
H3: HR initiatives will have a positive relationship with organi-
zational performance.
H4: WL initiatives will have a positive relationship with
organizational performance.
Moderating Effect of an Inclusive Diversity
Environment
This study also draws on organizational contingency theory
(Galbraith 1973) to predict a moderation of the relationship between
offering both gender-equality HR/WL initiatives and organizational
performance. We argue that the relationship will be contingent upon
the strength of the diversity environment. The diversity environment
comprises policies and practices that support a diverse workforce
(Saks and McCarthy 2006). It involves broader individual participa-
tion and influences the decision-making processes to ensure
employees contribute fully and effectively in diversity management
(Roberson and Stevens 2006).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 In organizations with a low supportive diversity environment,
offering gender-equality HR and WL initiatives may still improve
financial performance, but this relationship will be less salient due
to the weak processes suggested by SHRM and AMO. For instance,
the strategic contribution of HR/WL initiatives to organizational
financial performance will be reduced given that this effect is
not supported by the diversity environment. Employees may think
that the organization does not “walk the talk”; that is, although the
organization offers HR/WL initiatives, it does not provide a sup-
portive environment for diversity to thrive (Allen 2001). Further,
a low-diversity environment will reduce the influence of HR/
WL initiatives on providing diverse employees with the ability
and motivation to contribute to achieving organizational goals
(Armstrong et al. 2010). Recruitment HR initiatives may attract
fewer employees with diverse skillsets and abilities (Kalev et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2006); career advancement HR initiatives may have a reduced im-
pact on enhancing employees’ motivation levels (Allen 2001;
Grover and Crooker 1995), and WL initiatives may have a reduced
impact in reducing WL conflict and flexibility and less impact on
enhancing creativity, innovation, and improved problem-solving
(Casper and Harris 2008; Rae 2007). In the absence of a fully sup-
portive diversity environment, employees may see these HR/WL
initiatives as serving a reporting requirement only (Allen 2001).
As a result, employees may engage with fewer opportunities to con-
tribute to organizational goals and, therefore, performance.
Alternatively, in organizations with a highly supportive diversity
environment, offering gender-equality HR and WL initiatives will
have a stronger positive effect on financial performance due to the
enhanced processes suggested by SHRM and AMO theories. Spe-
cifically, the strategic alignment of HR/WL initiatives and the
diversity environment will have a strong impact on financial per-
formance (Ali and Konrad 2017). Moreover, a highly supportive
diversity environment will increase diverse employees’ percep-
tions about the organizational efforts to help them integrate
and succeed (Mor-Barak and Cherin 1998), which can result in
broader participation (Richard et al. 2013). The HR initiatives re-
lated to recruitment and career advancement will attract a broader
group of diverse employees with a variety of different skills
(Kalev et al. 2006). The resulting innovation in managing organi-
zational problems and opportunities (Bassett-Jones 2005), to-
gether with increased WL enrichment and flexibility for staff
from supporting WL initiatives (Ali and Konrad 2017), will en-
hance their motivational levels, job commitment, and satisfaction
(Allen and Montgomery 2001), and provide opportunities for em-
ployees to work toward achieving organizational outcomes. Thus,
we offer the following hypotheses:
H5: The diversity environment moderates the relationship be-
tween HR initiatives and organizational performance such that the
positive relationship will be stronger in organizations with a sup-
portive diversity environment than in their counterparts.
H6: The diversity environment moderates the relationship be-
tween WL initiatives and organizational performance such that the
positive relationship will be stronger in organizations with a sup-
portive, inclusive diversity environment than in their counterparts.
Methods
We used a time-lagged research design and data from multiple
archival sources [Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) da-
tabase and Orbis database], ensuring a 1-year time lag between
board/TMT gender diversity and gender-equality initiatives and,
in turn, between gender-equality initiatives and financial perfor-
mance (Ali 2016; Wright et al. 2005).
© ASCE 04021123-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
Sample and Data Collection
The population of this research comprises all construction, property
development, and manufacturing organizations operating in
Australia. The initial sample consisted of all organizations from
these industries that submitted their annual gender equality reports
to the WGEA in 2017. Data collected from the WGEA database on
board gender diversity, TMT gender diversity, organization size,
industry type, LTMM gender diversity, and nonmanagement gen-
der diversity for the year 2017 were matched with the data collected
from the WGEA database on HR and WL initiatives for the year
2018. Subsequently, these data were matched with data on operat-
ing revenue and profit before tax for the year 2019, collected from
the Orbis database. The final sample of 367 organizations belonged
to the three industries as follows: 71% manufacturing, 25% con-
struction, and 4% property development.
Measures
Predictors
Board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity were calculated
using Blau’s index of heterogeneity for categorical variables (Blau
1977). Heterogeneity equals 1 − Σpi2 , where pi represents the
fractions of the population in each category; for example, 0.7 for
male managers and 0.3 for female managers. The index ranges
from zero, representing homogeneity (0/100 gender proportions),
to 0.5, representing maximum gender diversity (50/50 gender
proportions).
Intermediate Outcomes/Predictors
We used HR and WL initiatives as outcomes of leadership gender
diversity and predictors of financial performance (Baker et al.
2019b). HR initiatives comprised nine items from the following
areas: recruitment, retention, performance management process,
promotions, talent identification, succession planning, training and
development, key performance indicators, and overall gender
equality (the Supplemental Materials gives the list items, response
choices, and coding). The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.89.
WL initiatives comprised five items (the Supplemental Materials
gives the list items, response choices, and coding). The Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale was 0.72.
Outcomes
We used two performance measures relevant to gender diversity,
namely (1) operating revenue (in millions of Australian dollars),
and (2) profit before tax (in millions of Australian dollars), because
using multiple measures is more effective than using a single per-
formance measure (Veen-Dirks 2010).
Moderator
Diversity environment was measured using eight items from the
WGEA annual reports (the Supplemental Materials gives a list of
items, response choices, and coding). The Cronbach’s alpha for the
scale was 0.66.
Controls
The analyses controlled for the possible effects of organization size,
industry type (manufacturing versus construction and property de-
velopment), LTMM gender diversity, and nonmanagement gender
diversity. Organization size was measured as the number of employ-
ees (Ali 2016). Industry type was coded as manufacturing as 0 and
construction and property development as 1 (Baker et al. 2019a).
LTMM and nonmanagement gender diversity were calculated using
Blau’s index of heterogeneity for categorical variables (Blau 1977).
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Controls
1. Organization size 570.02 899.78 — — — — — — — — — —
2. Industry type (0 = manufacturing, 0.28 0.45 −0.03 — — — — — — — — —
1 = construction, property development)
3. LTMM gender diversity 0.24 0.15 0.11* −0.07 — — — — — — — —
4. Nonmanagement gender diversity 0.32 0.13 −0.05 −0.07 0.56** — — — — — — —
Predictors
5. Board gender diversity 0.18 0.19 0.04 −0.10 0.17** 0.14** — — — — — —
6. TMT gender diversity 0.16 0.18 0.13* 0.03 0.21** 0.23** 0.18** — — — — —
Intermediate outcomes/predictors
7. HR initiatives 11.01 6.25 0.00 −0.03 0.05 0.10* 0.20** 0.08 — — — —
8. WL initiatives 8.48 6.45 0.13 *
0.05 0.14 **
0.15** 0.26** 0.10 0.43** — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Moderators
9. Diversity environment 7.57 3.13 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.29** 0.10 0.54** 0.57** — —
Outcomes
10. Operating revenue (millions AUD) 597.99 2,083.67 0.18** −0.02 −0.05 0.00 0.15** 0.07 0.14** 0.26** 0.22** —
11. Profit before tax (millions AUD) 57.07 325.67 0.20** −0.04 0.01 0.02 0.13* 0.05 0.16** 0.26** 0.20** 0.83**
Note: SD = standard deviation. 2-tailed.  p < 0.05, and  p < 0.01.

Results the following two interaction terms: HR initiatives × diversity envi-

ronment, and WL initiatives × diversity environment. Continuing
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation with the hierarchical regression analyses conducted for testing Hy-
coefficients for all variables. Low to moderate correlations between potheses 3 and 4, we entered the diversity environment and the two
control variables and predictors suggested that multicollinearity created interaction terms in Step 3 (Model 3 columns in Table 3).
was not an issue. Model 3 results indicated that only interaction term WL initiatives
We used hierarchical multiple regression to test the hypotheses. × diversity environment was significant for profit before tax (β ¼
Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive association between both board 0.602 and p < 0.05). We probed the significant interaction term us-
gender diversity and TMT gender diversity and HR initiatives. Hy- ing the Modprobe macro (Hayes and Matthes 2009).
pothesis 2 proposed a positive association between both board gen- Fig. 2 illustrates the relationships between WL initiatives
der diversity and TMT gender diversity and WL initiatives. To test and profit before tax for low and high values of diversity environ-
these two hypotheses for HR and WL initiatives, each outcome was ment. The relationship was nonsignificant for organizations with a
regressed on both board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity low value for diversity environment [b ¼ −1.061, non-significant
(Table 2). Controls were entered in Step 1 (Model 1 columns in
(n.s.)] but was significant and strongly positive in organizations
Table 2), and board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity
with a high value for diversity environment (b ¼ 13.881 and
were entered in Step 2 (Model 2 columns in Table 2). The results
p < 0.001). A strong and significant positive relationship was
supported Hypotheses 1 and 2 for board gender diversity. Board
consistent with Hypothesis 6. Thus, we found partial support for
gender diversity had a significant positive effect on HR initiatives
Hypothesis 6. No support was found for Hypothesis 5 because
(β ¼ 0.182 and p < 0.01) and on WL initiatives (β ¼ 0.241 and
p < 0.001) (Model 2 columns in Table 2). The effects of TMT gen-
der diversity on HR and WL initiatives were nonsignificant. Thus,
we found partial support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. Table 2. Hierarchical regression results: Hypotheses 1 and 2
Hypothesis 3 proposed a positive relationship between HR ini- HR initiatives WL initiatives
tiatives and organizational performance. Hypothesis 4 proposed a
β β β β
positive relationship between WL initiatives and organizational Variable (Model 1) (Model 2) (Model 1) (Model 2)
performance. To test these two hypotheses, operating revenue
and profit before tax were separately regressed on both HR initia- Organization size 0.000 −0.009 0.133* 0.126*
tives and WL initiatives (Table 3). Controls were entered in Step 1 Industry type −0.017 −0.004 0.066 0.086
LTMM gender diversity −0.007 −0.034 0.060 0.028
(Model 1 columns in Table 3), and HR initiatives and WL initia-
Nonmanagement 0.100 0.081 0.117 0.101
tives were entered in Step 2 (Model 2 columns in Table 3). The gender diversity
results supported Hypothesis 4. WL initiatives had a significant
positive effect on both operating revenue (β ¼ 0.231 and Predictors
p < 0.001) and profit before tax (β ¼ 0.217 and p < 0.001) (Model Board gender diversity — 0.182** — 0.241***
2 columns in Table 3). The effects of HR initiatives on both oper- TMT gender diversity — 0.037 — 0.009
ating revenue and profit before tax were nonsignificant. Thus, we Model summary
found no support for Hypothesis 3. R2 0.010 0.045 0.046 0.102
Hypothesis 5 proposed the moderating effect of diversity envi- F 0.878 2.789* 4.321** 6.802***
ronment on the relationship between HR initiatives and organiza- ΔR2 0.010 0.035 0.046 0.056
tional performance. Hypothesis 6 proposed the moderating effect of F for ΔR2 0.878 6.557** 4.321** 11.273***
diversity environment on the relationship between WL initiatives Note: n ¼ 366 (HR initiatives) and 366 (WL initiatives). Standardized
and organizational performance. To test Hypothesis 5, we created regression coefficients are reported.  p < 0.05,  p < 0.01, and  p < 0.001.

© ASCE 04021123-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123

 Table 3. Hierarchical regression results: Hypotheses 3 and 6
Operating revenue Profit before tax
Variable β (Model 1) β (Model 2) β (Model 3) β (Model 1) β (Model 2) β (Model 3)
*** ** ** *** **
Organization size 0.198 0.167 0.156 0.206 0.177 0.158**
Industry type −0.020 −0.034 −0.048 −0.032 −0.045 −0.063
LTMM gender diversity −0.106 −0.119 −0.116 −0.044 −0.056 −0.046
Nonmanagement gender diversity 0.064 0.032 0.030 0.049 0.016 0.007
Predictors
HR initiatives — 0.044 0.125 — 0.071 0.140
WL initiatives — 0.231*** −0.050 — 0.217*** −0.232
Moderator
Diversity environment — — 0.090 — — −0.067
Interaction term
HR initiatives × diversity environment — — −0.210 — — −0.162
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

WL initiatives × diversity environment — — 0.346 — — 0.602*

Model summary
R2 0.042 0.103 0.115 0.043 0.106 0.126
F 3.903** 6.838*** 5.107*** 4.029** 7.039*** 5.683***
ΔR2 0.042 0.061 0.012 0.043 0.063 0.020
F for ΔR2 3.903** 12.221*** 1.580 4.029 12.542 2.764
Note: n ¼ 365 (operating revenue) and 365 (profit before tax). Standardized regression coefficients are reported.  p < 0.05, 
p < 0.01, and 
p < 0.001.

Fig. 2. Moderating effect of diversity environment.

the interaction term HR initiatives × diversity environment was
nonsignificant for both operating revenue and profit before tax.
Discussion
The main objectives of this study were to investigate (1) whether
leadership gender diversity is positively associated with gender-
equality HR and WL initiatives, (2) whether HR/WL initiatives
are positively associated with organizational financial performance,
and (3) the moderating effect of the diversity environment. The
findings of this study provide evidence for these relationships.
Leadership Gender Diversity and Gender-Equality HR
and WL Initiatives
We found board gender diversity was positively associated with
offering gender-equality HR and WL initiatives. The findings sup-
port stakeholder theory (Freeman and Reed 1983) and suggest a
gender-balanced board indicates their care for stakeholders through
the promotion of gender-equality HR and WL initiatives. These
pioneering findings contribute to strengthening the business case
for board gender diversity. However, we did not find a significant
relationship between TMT gender diversity and offering either
gender-equality HR or WL initiatives. These findings are somewhat
inconsistent with past research, which has reported a positive

© ASCE 04021123-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123

 association between TMT gender diversity and diversity manage-
ment practices (e.g., Ali and Konrad 2017; Jayne and Dipboye
2004; Broughton and Strebler 2008). Our finding of a nonsignifi-
cant relationship for TMT diversity may be explained by the fact
that in this study, we included both board gender diversity and TMT
gender diversity in the regression equation.
It may be argued that boards operate at a more strategic level, and
thus their diversity and strategic direction overshadowed the diversity
of the TMT in this case (Harjoto et al. 2015; Francoeur et al. 2008).
Further, Baker et al. (2019a) suggested that women in TMT are
unlikely to use WL initiatives for fear of limiting career progress
and therefore may not be supporting their implementation in their
organizations. Their findings of nonsignificant moderating effect
of WL initiatives for women in TMT was also explained by few
project-based organizations having high representation of women
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in TMT.
Gender-Equality Initiatives and Organizational
Performance
We found a positive relationship between WL initiatives and finan-
cial outcomes of increased operating revenue and profit before tax.
These results support SHRM (Huselid 1995; Way and Johnson
2005) and AMO (Appelbaum et al. 2000) theories. These findings
also support Bloom et al. (2009), Perry-Smith and Blum (2000),
and Sands and Harper (2007), who found a positive relationship
between WL initiatives and organizational performance. However,
our study did not find a relationship between gender-equality HR
initiatives and organizational financial performance.
This is broadly inconsistent with past research, which has re-
ported a positive relationship between diversity management prac-
tices and financial performance (Ali 2016; Armstrong et al. 2010);
however, this finding does support Lingard and Francis (2005),
who suggested WL initiatives are more appreciated by employees
than HR initiatives, possibly due to employees’ still experiencing a
poor WL balance. Our nonsignificant HR initiatives–performance
relationship can also be explained by past research in Australia,
which found that only few project-based organizations, such as con-
struction and manufacturing firms, implement proactive gender-
based HR strategies in the areas of recruitment, promotion, and
development of women (e.g., French and Strachan 2015). However,
we posit that WL initiatives are utilized to placate employees experi-
encing a lack of WL balance, allowing them greater flexibility, rather
than well-implemented gender-equality HR initiatives that address
serious structural and systemic inequality (French and Strachan
2015).
Moderating Effect of Diversity Environment
We found evidence that a diversity environment moderates the re-
lationship between WL initiatives and profit before tax, such that
the relationship was strongly positive for organizations with a
highly supportive diversity environment. A nonsignificant effect
was found in organizations with a low supportive diversity environ-
ment. These findings are pioneering but can be considered broadly
consistent with earlier research, which identified the positive effects
of diversity environment on the diversity management–organiza-
tional performance relationship (Harrison and Klein 2007; Jackson
and Joshi 2004; Williams and O’Reilly 1998). The effects of HR
diversity initiatives on financial performance remain nonsignificant
regardless of the diversity environment. Again, we propose that this
may be due to the poor implementation of HR diversity initiatives
(French and Strachan 2015).
© ASCE 04021123-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
Theoretical and Research Contributions
The significant effect of board gender diversity on both gender-
equality HR and WL initiatives provides strong support for stake-
holder theory (Freeman and Reed 1983). Women board members
influence their organizations in the offering of diversity initiatives
to effectively manage their commitment and obligations and satisfy
the needs of a diverse employee stakeholder group (Harjoto et al.
2015; Francoeur et al. 2008).
The significant positive impact of WL initiatives on organiza-
tional financial performance also supports SHRM theory (Way
and Johnson 2005) and AMO theory (Appelbaum et al. 2000),
which suggest that offering WL initiatives is a strategic imperative
and that it is best done through a diverse management board. WL
diversity initiatives can lead to improved financial performance
through contributing to business objectives (Chenevert and Tremblay
2009; MacDuffie 1995; Subramony 2009). The ability, motivation,
and opportunity processes of AMO theory suggest that WL initia-
tives may attract employees with diverse experiences (Kalev et al.
2006) and enhance employees’ motivational levels by providing a
balance between work and life (Allen 2001; Grover and Crooker
1995). WL initiatives can also create improved opportunities for em-
ployees through flexible work arrangements (Casper and Harris
2008). Furthermore, the significant moderating effect of a diversity
environment on the WL initiatives–performance relationship sup-
ports contingency theory (Galbraith 1973). This study extends con-
tingency theory by examining the contextual variable of diversity
environment and provides evidence that organizations offering
WL initiatives along with a strong diversity environment can expect
improved performance (Donaldson 2001; Kopelman et al. 1990).
This study addresses important gaps in the literature. We inves-
tigated both board gender diversity and TMT gender diversity and
their effect on offering gender-equality HR and WL initiatives. We
found a significant impact of board gender diversity (but not TMT
gender diversity) on gender-equality HR and WL initiatives. Future
research could examine chief executive officer (CEO) gender diver-
sity as well as management gender diversity as predictors of HR
and WL diversity initiatives (Ali and Konrad 2017; Nielsen
2010). We also investigated both gender-equality HR and WL ini-
tiatives and their impact on organizational financial performance. In
the future, qualitative research could be adopted to investigate why
employees respond more positively to WL initiatives rather than
HR initiatives (Baker et al. 2021). The current study also provides
pioneering evidence for the significant moderating effect of diver-
sity environment on the WL initiatives–performance relationship.
Diversity environment has a significant influence on the diversity
initiatives–financial performance relationship. Future research
could investigate additional moderators; for instance, the degree
of an organization’s focus on innovation may moderate the impact
of diversity initiatives on performance (Dezso and Ross 2012).
Practical Implications
The findings of this study have implications for managers. First,
our study highlights the importance of increasing leadership gender
diversity, particularly board diversity in the construction, property
development, and manufacturing industries, in order to improve di-
versity initiatives and, in turn, improve organizational financial out-
comes. Currently, the construction and manufacturing industries
are experiencing and lamenting the issues of a looming workforce
turnover (Hickey and Cui 2020; Malone and Issa 2014), skilled
labor shortage (Fiori 2003; Naoum et al. 2020), and loss of com-
petitiveness (Forbes 2008). Nearly 30 years ago, Foley (1994)
wrote that to remain competitive, the construction-engineering in-
dustry must attract the brightest and most capable new talent,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 including women and minorities, and they must adapt management
and HR policies to a diverse workforce; the alternative will lead to
skill shortages, high turnover, decreased productivity, and organi-
zational ineffectiveness, “all with severe impacts to the bottom line”
(Foley 1994, p. 127).
Nonetheless, the lack of gender diversity on boards in those in-
dustries still remains a major challenge to future economic success
in the US and other countries (Bhandari et al. 2006; Morello et al.
2018). In Australia, women represent only 13.1% of board directors
in construction, 25.9% in property, and 20.6% in manufacturing
(WGEA Data Explorer 2020). Yet, women on boards can affect
how firms select and implement equality/diversity initiatives for
the material benefit of organizational outcomes (Schwartz 1989;
Hewlett and Buck Luce 2005); perhaps that is the necessary step
that will redress the current trajectory of those industries battered
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by these significant and complex issues.
Second, our study extends (finding pioneering evidence for
board gender diversity and the diversity environment) and strength-
ens (providing additional evidence for WL initiatives) the business
case for board gender diversity, WL initiatives, and the diversity
environment. It provides rigorous systematic evidence concerning
how and in what circumstances women on boards affect HR and
WL initiative offerings and, ultimately, organizational financial
outcomes. By affecting the strategic direction of diversity initiatives
meant to attract and retain a diverse workforce, female leaders can
affect organizational outcomes (Ali and Konrad 2017; Allen 2001;
Casper and Harris 2008; Ryan and Kossek 2008). This evidence not
only strengthens the business case for diversity and the argument
for increasing women on boards, but it also helps shift the views
among many male managers that efforts to promote gender diver-
sity are often motivated by “political correctness” or a goal of fa-
voring women at the expense of men (Catalyst 2009). This is
particularly relevant to the traditionally male-dominated construc-
tion industry (Catalyst 2009; Conrad 2009; Dezso and Ross 2012),
where women only represent 13.1% of boards in comparison with
30.7% on boards across all industries in Australia (WGEA Data
Explorer 2020).
Third, our findings strengthen the business case for offering a
wide range of WL initiatives. Malone and Issa (2014) pointed to the
ongoing struggle for WL balance in the construction industry that
affects the job satisfaction and commitment of women. Flexible
working arrangements are offered by 64.6% of firms in the Aus-
tralian construction industry in comparison with 70.8% of manu-
facturing firms and 75.9% of firms in all industries (WGEA Data
Explorer 2020). Similarly, formal arrangements for supporting em-
ployees with family and caring responsibilities are offered by only
60.5% of the construction industry in comparison with 69.0% of
the manufacturing industry and 68.6% of all industries. Our find-
ings offer empirical evidence that the investment in WL initiatives
is justified by their desirable effects on organizational performance
(Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault 2017; Sweet et al. 2014). This evi-
dence will assist industry HR managers and decision makers in se-
curing the organizational commitment of resources in developing
and offering WL initiatives within their organizations.
Fourth, a positive diversity environment together with the pres-
ence of WL initiatives can assist the construction, property develop-
ment, and manufacturing industries to be more attractive to and
inclusive of women. These will assist in addressing the very pressing
and critical issues of women not currently joining or sustaining their
employment in those industries (Lingard and Lin 2004; Shrestha
et al. 2020). Our findings shed light on the contextual impact of
a diversity environment on the WL initiatives–performance relation-
ship. The positive impact of a diversity environment on that relation-
ship is a pioneering and significant finding for the benefit of industry
© ASCE 04021123-8
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
policymakers and practitioners. Pless and Maak (2004) argued that
helping people balance work and their personal life so that they can
be productive while sustaining their lifestyles and personal respon-
sibilities is an important part of the diversity environment because
diversity management will not deliver potential benefits unless diver-
sity is culturally valued. A supportive diversity environment will en-
hance the efforts of WL initiatives in reducing levels of WL conflict
(Ali and Konrad 2017), increase the perceptions of the organization
valuing and supporting gender diversity (Pless and Maak 2004), and
therefore increase job satisfaction, organizational commitment, par-
ticipation, and productivity (Allen and Montgomery 2001). This
leads to organizational goal achievement and superior outcomes
(Armstrong et al. 2010; Chrobot-Mason and Aramovich 2013).
Limitations
This study has the following two major limitations. First, the gen-
eralizability of its findings should be cautioned due to the different
regulatory, social, and economic environment of the Australian
context. The leadership gender diversity–equality initiatives rela-
tionship and WL initiatives–performance relationship may show
different strengths in other legal or cultural contexts (Ali et al.
2015; Strachan et al. 2010; Hofstede 2001). Second, the study did
not consider other diversity forms, such as ethnicity, race, or age of
board directors and TMT members. The Australian equal employ-
ment opportunity legislation focuses mainly on gender diversity,
and gender diversity is one of the most salient forms of a country’s
demographic diversity (Syed and Kramar 2009). The saliency of
gender in the Australian context may have some implications in
applying these findings to other developed nations (Shen et al.
2009).
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Supplemental Materials
Scales used in this study are available online in the ASCE Library
(www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Abramovic, G., and L. E. Traavik. 2017. “Support for diversity practices in
Norway: Depends on who you are and whom you have met.” Eur. Man-
age. J. 35 (4): 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.04.002.
Akter, K., M. Ali, and A. Chang. 2021. “Work-life programs and perfor-
mance in Australian organisations: The role of organisation size and
industry type.” Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 59 (2): 227–249. https://doi
.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12235.
Albattah, M. A., P. M. Goodrum, and T. R. Taylor. 2015. “Demographic
influences on construction craft shortages in the U.S. and Canada.” In
Proc., 5th Int./11th Construction Specialty Conf. Montréal: Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering.
Ali, M. 2016. “Impact of gender-focused human resource management on
performance: The mediating effects of gender diversity.” Aust. J. Man-
age. 41 (2): 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896214565119.
Ali, M., and A. M. Konrad. 2017. “Antecedents and consequences of di-
versity and equality management systems: The importance of gender
diversity in the TMT and lower to middle management.” Eur. Manage.
J. 35 (4): 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.002.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Ali, M., I. Metz, and C. Kulik. 2015. “The impact of work-family programs
on the relationship between gender diversity and performance.” Human
Res. Manage. 54 (4): 553–576.
Allen, R. S., and K. A. Montgomery. 2001. “Applying an organizational
development approach to creating diversity.” Organ. Dyn. 30 (2):
149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00049-3.
Allen, T. D. 2001. “Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions.” J. Voc. Behav. 58 (3): 414–435. https://doi
.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.
Anderson, R., and L. Billings-Harris. 2010. Trailblazers: How top
business leaders are accelerating results through inclusion and diver-
sity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ansoff, H. I. 1965. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business
policy for growth and expansion. London: McGraw-Hill.
Appelbaum, E., T. Bailey, P. Berg, and A. L. Kalleberg. 2000. Manufac-
turing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
NY: Cornell University Press.
Armstrong, C., P. C. Flood, P. James, G. W. Liu, S. MacCurtain, and T.
Mkamwa. 2010. “The impact of diversity and equality management
on firm performance: Beyond high performance work systems.”
Hum. Resour. Manage. 49 (6): 977–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm
.20391.
Baker, M., M. Ali, and E. French. 2019a. “Effectiveness of gender equality
initiatives in project-based organizations in Australia.” Aust. J. Manage.
44 (3): 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896218805809.
Baker, M., M. Ali, and E. French. 2019b. “The impact of women’s repre-
sentation on performance in project-based and non-project-based organ-
izations.” Int. J. Project Manage. 37 (7): 872–883. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2019.06.001.
Baker, M., E. French, and M. Ali. 2021. “Insights into ineffectiveness of
gender equality and diversity initiatives in project-based organizations.”
J. Manage. Eng. 37 (3): 04021013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000893.
Barney, J. B., and T. B. Mackey. 2005. “Testing resource-based theory.” In
Research methodology in strategy and management, edited by D. J.
Ketchen and D. D. Bergh, 1–13. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bassett-Jones, N. 2005. “The paradox of diversity management, creativity
and innovation.” Creativity Innov. Manage. 14 (2): 169–175. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x.
Bhandari, A., S. A. Jones, L. W. Clapp, D. E. Fennell, and T. M. LaPara.
2006. “Diversity in environmental engineering—Successes and chal-
lenges.” J. Environ. Eng. 7 (132): 701–702. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:7(701).
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Bloom, N., T. Kretschmer, and J. Van Reenan. 2009. “Work-life balance,
management practices and productivity.” In International differences in
the business practices and productivity of firms, edited by R. B.
Freeman and K. L. Shaw, 15–54. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Broughton, A., and M. Strebler. 2008. “Reaping benefits from diversity.”
Strategies HR Rev. 7 (5): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/14754390810
893035.
Casper, W. J., and C. M. Harris. 2008. “Work-life benefits and organization
attachment: Self-interest utility and signalling theory models.” J. Voc.
Behav. 72 (1): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.015.
Catalyst. 2009. “Workplace diversity: How to tackle resistance.” Accessed
December 12, 2020. http://www.womensmedia.com/lead/119-workplace
-diversity-how-to-tackle-resistance.html.
Chenevert, D., and M. Tremblay. 2009. “Fits in strategic human resource
management and methodological challenge: Empirical evidence of
influence of empowerment and compensation practices on human re-
source performance in Canadian firms.” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage.
20 (4): 738–770.
Choi, J. O., P. P. Shrestha, J. Lim, and B. K. Shrestha. 2018. “An inves-
tigation of construction workforce inequalities and biases in the archi-
tecture, engineering, and construction industry.” In Proc., Construction
Research Congress 2018, 65–75. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Chrobot-Mason, D., and N. P. Aramovich. 2013. “The psychological ben-
efits of creating an affirming culture for workplace diversity.” Group
Organ. Manage. 38 (6): 659–689.
© ASCE 04021123-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
Collins, C. J., and K. D. Clark. 2003. “Strategic human resource practices,
top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role
of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive ad-
vantage.” Acad. Manage. J. 46 (6): 740–751.
Conrad, J. 2009. “Don’t derail your diversity training: Seven common traps
to avoid when conducting diversity training.” Employee Benefit News
23 (1): 15–16.
Cording, M., J. H. Harrison, R. E. Hoskisson, and K. Jonsen. 2014. “Walk-
ing the talk: A multitaskholder exploration of organizational authentic-
ity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance.” Acad.
Manage. Perspect. 28 (1): 38–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013
.0002.
Dansky, K. H., R. Weech-Maldonado, G. DeSouza, and J. L. Dreachslin.
2003. “Organizational strategy and diversity management: Diversity-
sensitive orientation as a moderating influence.” Health Care Manage.
Rev. 28 (3): 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200307000
-00005.
Dezso, C. L., and D. G. Ross. 2012. “Does female representation in top
management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation.”
Strategies Manage. J. 33 (9): 1072–1089.
Dill, W. R. 1975. “Public participation in corporate planning: Strategic
management in a kibitzer’s world.” Long Range Plann. 8 (1):
57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(75)90118-1.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. London:
SAGE.
Donaldson, T., and L. E. Preston. 1995. “The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.” Acad. Manage.
Rev. 20 (1): 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992.
du Luque, M. F., N. Washburn, D. Waldman, and R. J. House. 2008.
“Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to sub-
ordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance.” Adminis-
trative Sci. Q. 53 (4): 626–654.
Ekeh, P. P. 1974. Social exchange theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Fernandez, W. D., and Y. Thams. 2019. “Board diversity and stakeholder
management: The moderating impact of boards’ learning environment.”
Learn. Organ. 26 (2): 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-12-2017
-0126.
Fiori, C. M. 2003. “What’s wrong with working in construction? How im-
age and diversity issues are affecting the shortage of skilled labor.” In
Proc., Construction Research Congress: Wind of Change: Integration
and Innovation, 1–8. Honolulu: Integration and Innovation.
Fitzsimmons, T. W., M. S. Yates, and V. J. Callan. 2020. Employer of choice
for gender equality: Leading practices in strategy, policy and imple-
mentation. Brisbane, Australia: AIBE Centre for Gender Equality in
the Workplace.
Foley, D. A. 1994. “Human-resource management for twenty-first century:
Managing diversity.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 120 (2): 121–128. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1994)120:2(121).
Forbes, L. 2008. “Diversity is key to a world-class organization.” Leadersh.
Manage. Eng. 8 (1): 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748
(2008)8:1(11).
Francoeur, C., R. Labelle, and B. Sinclair-Desgagné. 2008. “Gender diver-
sity in corporate governance and top management.” J. Bus. Ethics
81 (1): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9482-5.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.
Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., and D. L. Reed. 1983. “Stockholders and stakeholders: A
new perspective on corporate governance.” Calif. Manage. Rev. 25 (3):
88. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165018.
French, E., and G. Strachan. 2015. “Women at work! Evaluating equal em-
ployment policies and outcomes in construction.” Equal. Divers. Incl.:
Int. J. 34 (3): 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2013-0098.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Boston: Addison-
Wesley.
Galbraith, J. R. 1995. Designing organizations: An executive briefing on
strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, G. 2005. “Slack resources and the performance of privately held
firms.” Acad. Manage. J. 48 (4): 661–676. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj
.2005.17843944.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Giscombe, K., and M. C. Mattis. 2002. “Leveling the playing field for
women of color in corporate management: Is the business case
enough?” J. Bus. Ethics 37 (1): 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1023
/A:1014786313354.
Goldman. 2009. “Australia’s hidden resource: The economic case for increas-
ing female participation.” Accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.asx
.com.au/documents/about/gsjbw_economic_case_for_increasing_female
_participation.pdf.
Grover, S. L., and K. J. Crooker. 1995. “Who appreciates family-responsive
human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the
organizational attachment of parents and non-parents.” Pers. Psychol.
48 (2): 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01757.x.
Guillaume, Y. R., J. F. Dawson, V. Priola, C. A. Sacramento, S. A. Woods,
H. E. Higson, P. S. Budhwar, and M. A. West. 2014. “Managing diver-
sity in organizations: An integrative model and agenda for future re-
search.” Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 23 (5): 783–802. https://doi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.805485.
Hambrick, D. C., and P. A. Mason. 1984. “Upper echelons: The organiza-
tion as a reflection of its top managers.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 9 (2): 193–
206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628.
Harjoto, M., I. Laksmana, and R. Lee. 2015. “Board diversity and corporate
social responsibility.” J. Bus. Ethics 132 (4): 641–660. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0.
Harrison, D. A., and K. J. Klein. 2007. “What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations.” Acad.
Manage. Rev. 32 (4): 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007
.26586096.
Harrison, J. S., D. A. Bosse, and R. A. Phillips. 2010. “Managing for stake-
holder, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage.” Strat-
egies Manage. J. 31 (1): 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.801.
Harrison, J. S., R. E. Freeman, and M. C. S. Abreu. 2015. “Stakeholder
theory as an ethical approach to effective management: Applying the
theory to multiple contexts.” Rev. Bus. Manage. 17 (55): 858–869.
https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647.
Härtel, C. E. 2004. “Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work sys-
tems, practices and employee attitudes that embrace diversity.” Aust. J.
Manage. 29 (2): 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289620402
900203.
Hayes, A. F., and J. Matthes. 2009. “Computational procedures for probing
interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implemen-
tations.” Behav. Res. Methods 41 (3): 924–936. https://doi.org/10.3758
/BRM.41.3.924.
Hewlett, S. A., and C. Buck Luce. 2005. “Off-ramps and on-ramps:
Keeping talented women on the road to success.” Harv. Bus. Rev.
83 (3): 43–46.
Hickey, P. J., and Q. Cui. 2020. “Gender diversity in US construction in-
dustry leaders.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (5): 04020069. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000838.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behav-
iours, institutions, and organizations across nations. Beverley Hills,
CA: SAGE.
Howell, J. P., and D. L. Costley. 2006. Understanding behaviors for effec-
tive leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. “The impact of human resource management prac-
tices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.”
Acad. Manage. J. 38 (3): 635–672.
Huselid, M. A., S. E. Jackson, and R. S. Schuler. 1997. “Technical and
strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants
of firm performance.” Acad. Manage. J. 40 (1): 171–188.
Jackson, S. E., and A. Joshi. 2004. “Diversity in social context: A multi-
attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance.”
J. Organ. Behav. 25 (6): 675–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.265.
Jayne, M. E., and R. L. Dipboye. 2004. “Leveraging diversity to improve
business performance: Research findings and recommendations for or-
ganizations.” Hum. Res. Manage. 43 (4): 409–424.
Jensen, M. 2001. “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corpo-
rate objective function.” Eur. Financ. Manage. 7 (3): 297–317. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1468-036X.00158.
© ASCE 04021123-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
Johns, G. 2006. “The essential impact of context on organizational behav-
iour.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 31 (2): 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr
.2006.20208687.
Joshi, A., and H. Roh. 2009. “The role of context in work team diversity
research: A meta-analytic review.” Acad. Manage. J. 52 (3): 599–627.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491.
Kalev, A., F. Dobbin, and E. Kelly. 2006. “Best practices or best guesses?
Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity pol-
icies.” Am. Sociol. Rev. 71 (4): 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177
/000312240607100404.
Kidder, D. L., M. J. Lankau, D. Chrobot-Mason, K. A. Mollica, and R. A.
Friedman. 2004. “Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the
impact of diversity program justification, personal and group out-
comes.” Int. J. Conflict Manage. 15 (1): 77–102. https://doi.org/10
.1108/eb022908.
Konrad, A. M., and R. Mangel. 2000. “The impact of work-life programs
on firm productivity.” Strategies Manage. J. 21 (12): 1225–1237.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200012)21:12<1225::AID-SMJ135
>3.0.CO;2-3.
Kopelman, R. E., A. P. Brief, and R. A. Guzzo. 1990. “The role of climate
and culture in productivity.” In Organizational climate and culture,
edited by B. Schneider, 282–318. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kucera, D., and W. Milberg. 2000. “Gender segregation and gender bias in
manufacturing trade expansion: Revisiting the ‘wood asymmetry’.”
World Dev. 28 (7): 1191–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X
(00)00020-6.
Lee, B. H., and J. S. Kim. 2010. “Is family-friendly management good for
firms? The diffusion and performance of family-friendly workplaces in
South Korea.” J. Ind. Relat. 52 (4): 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0022185610375509.
Lee, P. M., and E. H. James. 2007. “She’-E-Os: Gender effects and investor
appointments.” Strategies Manage. J. 28 (3): 227–241. https://doi.org
/10.1002/smj.575.
Lester, A. 2017. Project management, planning and control: Managing
engineering, construction and manufacturing projects to PMI, APM
and BSI standards. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science & Technology.
Lingard, H., and V. Francis. 2005. “The decline of the ‘traditional’ family:
Work-life benefits as a means to promoting a diverse workforce in the
construction industry of Australia.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 23 (10):
1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500394308.
Lingard, H., and J. Lin. 2004. “Career, family and work environment de-
terminants of organizational commitment among women in the Austral-
ian construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (4): 409–420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000122186.
Lumpkin, G. T., and G. G. Dess. 1996. “Clarifying the entrepreneurial ori-
entation construct and linking it to performance.” Acad. Manage. Rev.
21 (1): 135–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568.
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. “Human resource bundles and manufacturing per-
formance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the
world auto industry.” Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 48 (2): 197–221. https://doi
.org/10.1177/001979399504800201.
Malone, E. K., and R. A. Issa. 2014. “Predictive models for work-life bal-
ance and organizational commitment of women in the U.S. construction
industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (3): 04013064. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000809.
Mor-Barak, M. E., and D. A. Cherin. 1998. “A tool to expand organiza-
tional understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of
inclusion-exclusion.” Administration Soc. Work 22 (1): 47–64.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n01_04.
Morello, A., R. R. Issa, and B. Franz. 2018. “Exploratory study of recruit-
ment and retention of women in the construction industry.” J. Civ. Eng.
Educ. 144 (2): 04018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943
-5541.0000359.
Naoum, S. G., J. Harris, J. Rizzuto, and C. Egbu. 2020. “Gender in the
construction industry: Literature review and comparative survey of
men’s and women’s perceptions in UK construction consultancies.”
J. Manage. Eng. 36 (2): 04019042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000731.
Ng, E. S. W., and R. J. Burke. 2010. “A comparison of the legislated em-
ployment equity program, federal contractors’ program and financial
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 post 500 firms.” Can. J. Administrative Sci. 27 (3): 224–235. https://doi
.org/10.1002/cjas.166.
Ng, E. S. W., and G. J. Sears. 2017. “The glass ceiling in context: The
influence of CEO gender, recruitment practices and firm internalization
on the representation of women in management.” Hum. Resour. Man-
age. J. 27 (1): 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12135.
Ng, E. S. W., and C. Wyrick. 2011. “Motivational bases for managing di-
versity: A model of leadership commitment.” Hum. Resour. Manage.
Rev. 21 (4): 368–376.
Nielsen, B. B., and S. Nielsen. 2011. “The role of top management team
international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The
choice of foreign entry mode.” J. World Bus. 46 (2): 185–193. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.003.
Nielsen, S. 2010. “Top management team diversity: A review of theories
and methodologies.” Int. J. Manage. Rev. 12 (3): 301–316.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. 2009. “Organizational work-life initiatives: Context
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
matters: France compares to the UK and the US.” Community Work
Family 12 (2): 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800902778942.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., and A. Foucreault. 2017. “Cross-national work-life
research: Cultural and structural impacts for individuals and organiza-
tions.” J. Manage. 43 (1): 111–136.
Oyewobi, L. O., A. E. Oke, T. D. Adeneye, and R. A. Jimoh. 2019. “In-
fluence of organizational commitment on work–life balance and organi-
zational performance of female construction professionals.” Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manage. 26 (10): 2243–2263. https://doi.org/10.1108
/ECAM-07-2018-0277.
Pacagnella, A. C., S. L. da Silva, O. Pacífico, P. S. de Arruda Ignacio, and
A. L. da Silva. 2019. “Critical success factors for project manufacturing
environments.” Project Manage. J. 50 (2): 243–258. https://doi.org/10
.1177/8756972819827670.
Parmar, B. L., R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison, A. C. Wicks, L. Purnell, and S.
de Colle. 2010. “Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.” Acad. Man-
age. Ann. 4 (1): 403–445. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010
.495581.
Perry-Smith, J. E., and T. C. Blum. 2000. “Work-family human resource
bundles and perceived organizational performance.” Acad. Manage. J.
43 (6): 1107–1117.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. “Management as symbolic action: The creation and main-
tenance of organizational paradigms.” In Vol. 3 of Research in organi-
zational behavior, edited by L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, 1–52.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pfeffer, J. 1983. “Organizational demography.” In Vol. 5 of Research in
organizational behavior, edited by L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw,
299–357. Greenwich, CT: JAL Press.
Phillips, R., R. E. Freeman, and A. C. Wicks. 2003. “What stakeholder
theory is not.” Bus. Ethics Q. 13 (4): 479–502. https://doi.org/10
.5840/beq200313434.
Pless, N., and T. Maak. 2004. “Building an inclusive diversity culture: prin-
ciples, processes and practice.” J. Bus. Ethics 54 (2): 129–147. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8.
PMI (Project Management Institute). 2017. “Project management job
growth and talent gap 2017–2027.” Accessed December 10, 2020.
https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/job
-growth-report.pdf.
Post, C., and K. Byron. 2015. “Women on boards and firm financial per-
formance: A meta-analysis.” Acad. Manage. J. 58 (5): 1546–1571.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0319.
Rae, L. 2007. “Objective and unconditioned value.” Philos. Rev. 116 (2):
157–185.
Richard, O. C., S. L. Kirby, and K. Chadwick. 2013. “The impact of racial
and gender diversity in management on financial performance: How
participative strategy making features can unleash a diversity advan-
tage.” Int. J. Hum. Res. Manage. 24 (13): 2571–2582.
Roberson, Q. M., and C. K. Stevens. 2006. “Making sense of diversity in
the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in em-
ployees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents.” J. Appl. Psychol.
91 (2): 379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.379.
Rosenberg, M. 1968. The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic Books.
© ASCE 04021123-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123
Ryan, A. M., and E. E. Kossek. 2008. “Work-life policy implementation:
Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness?” Hum. Res. Man-
age. 47 (2): 295–310.
Saks, A. M., and J. M. McCarthy. 2006. “Effects of discriminatory inter-
view questions and gender on applicant reactions.” J. Bus. Psychol.
21 (2): 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9024-7.
Sands, J., and T. Harper. 2007. “Family-friendly benefits and organizational
performance.” Bus. Renaiss. Q. 2 (1): 107.
Sang, K., and A. Powell. 2012. “Gender inequality in the construction in-
dustry: Lessons from Pierre Bourdieu.” In Proc., 28th Annual ARCOM
Conf., edited by S. D. Smith, 237–247. Edinburgh, UK: Association of
Researchers in Construction Management.
Schwartz, F. N. 1989. “Management women and the new facts of life.” Harv.
Bus. Rev. 67 (1): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001789.
Shen, J., A. Chanda, B. D’Netto, and M. Monga. 2009. “Managing diver-
sity through human resource management: An international perspective
and conceptual framework.” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 20 (2): 235–
251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802670516.
Shepard, E. M., III, T. J. Clifton, and D. Kruse. 1996. “Flexible work hours
and productivity: Some evidence from the pharmaceutical industry.”
Ind. Rel.: J. Econ. Soc. 35 (1): 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1468-232X.1996.tb00398.x.
Shrestha, B. K., J. O. Choi, P. P. Shrestha, J. Lim, and S. Manesh. 2020.
“Employment and wage distribution investigation in the construction
industry by gender.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (4): 06020001. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000778.
Strachan, G., E. French, and J. Burgess. 2010. Managing diversity in Aus-
tralia: Theory and practice. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill.
Subramony, M. 2009. “A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship
between HRM bundles and firm performance.” Hum. Resour. Manage.
48 (5): 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20315.
Sunindijo, R. Y., and I. Kamardeen. 2017. “Work stress is a threat to gender
diversity in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
143 (10): 04017073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001387.
Sweet, S., E. Besen, M. Pitt-Catsouphes, and T. K. McNamara. 2014. “Do
options for job flexibility diminish in times of economic uncertainty?”
Work Employment Soc. 28 (6): 882–903. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0950017014538335.
Syed, J., and R. Kramar. 2009. “Socially responsible diversity manage-
ment.” J. Manage. Organ. 15 (5): 639–651. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo
.15.5.639.
Tanikawa, T., and Y. Jung. 2016. “Top management team (TMT) tenure
diversity and firm performance.” Int. J. Organ. Anal. 24 (3): 454–470.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2014-0739.
Tantalo, C., and R. L. Priem. 2014. “Value creation through stakeholder
synergy.” Strategies Manage. J. 37 (2): 314–329. https://doi.org/10
.1002/smj.2337.
Uysal, G. 2015. “Stages, content, and theory of strategic human resource
management (SHRM): An exploratory study.” J. Mod. Accounting
Auditing 10 (2): 252–256.
van Knippenberg, D., and W. van Ginkel. 2010. “The categorization-
elaboration model of work group diversity: Wielding the double-edged
sword.” In The psychology of social and cultural diversity, edited by
R. J. Crisp, 257–280. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Veen-Dirks, P. 2010. “Different uses of performance measures: The evalu-
ation versus reward of production managers.” Account. Organ. Soc.
35 (2): 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.02.002.
Way, S. A., and D. E. Johnson. 2005. “Theorizing about the impact of stra-
tegic human resource management.” Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev.
15 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.004.
WGEA Data Explorer. 2020. “WGEA data explorer.” Accessed December
10, 2020. https://data.wgea.gov.au/overview.
Williams, K. Y., and C. A. O’Reilly. 1998. “Demography and diversity in
organizations: A review of 40 years of research.” In Research in organi-
zational behavior, edited by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, 77–140.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wood, S. J., and L. M. de Menezes. 2010. “Family-friendly management,
organizational performance and social legitimacy.” Int. J. Hum. Resour.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Manage. 21 (10): 1575–1597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010
.500484.
Wright, P. M., T. M. Gardner, L. M. Moynihan, and M. R. Allen. 2005.
“The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Exam-
ining casual order.” Pers. Psychol. 58 (2): 409–446. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00487.x.
Yamamoto, I., and T. Matsuura. 2014. “Effect of work–life balance prac-
tices on firm productivity: Evidence from Japanese firm-level panel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Remote User on 04/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data.” BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 14 (4): 1677–1708. https://doi.org/10
.1515/bejeap-2013-0186.
Yanadori, Y., and T. Kato. 2009. “Work and family practices in Japanese firms:
Their scope, nature and impact on employee turnover.” Int. J. Hum. Resour.
Manage. 20 (2): 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802673494.
Zahra, S. A., and J. A. Pearce. 1989. “Board of directors and corporate
financial performance: A review and integrative model.” J. Manage.
15 (2): 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500208.

© ASCE 04021123-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(10): 04021123