Quotas vs. targets in construction gender diversity: what's the real difference, and why do quotas carry serious risks?
Quotas mandate specific representation percentages — for instance, some larger consultancies introduced requirements of 40 to 45% female representation at all levels. Targets are different: they are aspirational numbers anchored in genuine cultural commitment rather than legal or procedural obligation. Vanessa Murray and Ceri Moyers of The Circle Partnership warn that quotas risk making individuals feel tokenistic, and that placing someone in a role before they are ready — or solely to meet a number — can set them up to fail, which then actively reinforces the negative stereotypes the quota was designed to dismantle.
"If you fix the women in inverted commas, you're not doing anything. If they're going back into a culture which isn't changing, you're still going to have the same problem."
— Vanessa Murray, Co-founder, The Circle Partnership
The distinction Murray and Moyers draw is not merely semantic. Organisations that pursued quota-driven approaches three to four years before this episode was recorded found, through listening exercises, that those initiatives produced unintended consequences: women appointed under quota pressure frequently lacked the organisational support needed to succeed, and when they stumbled, the failure was attributed to gender rather than to the structural inadequacy of the intervention itself. The mechanism intended to increase representation ended up generating evidence that, in the wrong hands, was used to argue against further diversity efforts.
Key distinction
Quota — a mandated, enforceable percentage of representation (e.g. 40–45% women at all seniority levels), applied regardless of individual readiness or organisational culture.
Target backed by cultural commitment — an aspirational representation goal embedded in an organisation's core values, pursued through behavioural change, mentoring, and structural support — not through a headcount rule alone.
The preferred model Murray and Moyers describe is organisations that embed gender equality into their core values and demonstrate those values through lived, day-to-day behaviour — not through a mission statement on a website. They are explicit that you can tell a great deal about an organisation by three things: what it promotes, what it rewards, and the worst behaviour it tolerates. A target without cultural change behind it leaves women returning to exactly the same environment that drove attrition in the first place. The Circle Partnership's consultancy arm exists precisely to address that cultural layer, working with companies to close the gap between stated values and actual practice. You can hear Murray and Moyers develop this argument in full on the Pegasus Radio episode available on Listenly.
About Vanessa Murray
Vanessa Murray
Co-founder · The Circle Partnership
Vanessa Murray co-founded The Circle Partnership alongside Ceri Moyers, bringing direct experience from the property side of the built environment sector. Now in its sixth or seventh year of operation, The Circle Partnership has grown into a dual-purpose business: the Circle Academy — a structured development and mentoring programme for mid-level women in construction and property — and a consultancy arm that works directly with organisations on culture, helping them build the conditions for genuine gender equity rather than cosmetic compliance.
Murray's authority on the quotas-versus-targets debate comes from years of practical, on-the-ground work with women at every stage of what the industry considers "mid-level" — a cohort the Circle Academy defines broadly, spanning participants aged 23 to 55. That breadth gives her and Moyers a granular, evidence-grounded view of what actually helps women advance and what inadvertently pushes them out. Their expertise is not theoretical: it is built from the lived experience of the women they have supported, and from the listening exercises and cultural diagnostics they have conducted inside some of the sector's largest firms.
See also
The co-founders argue that the experience of women aged 28 to 40 is hugely varied and cannot be reduced to maternity as the primary driver of attrition. A range of cultural and structural factors are at play well beyond parental leave.
While the language and overt behaviour at corporate level in construction has improved compared to 10 to 15 years ago, the fundamental challenges have not meaningfully changed for mid-level women in the sector.
The Circle Partnership operates two distinct arms: the Circle Academy, which supports mid-level women directly to advance their careers through an extensive mentoring programme, and a consultancy arm focused on helping organisations build more inclusive cultures.