Revisiting site manager work: Stuck in the middle?

Styhre, A and Josephson, P E (2006) Revisiting site manager work: Stuck in the middle? Construction Management and Economics, 24(5), pp. 521-528. ISSN 1466433X

Abstract

The literature on middle managers tends to portray their role in rather negative terms. Middle managers are here stuck in between superiors and subordinates, with few opportunities for determining their work situation. In the construction industry, site managers play a role similar to that of the middle managers of large companies, located in between the firm's strategic decisions and day-to-day production work on construction sites. The aim of this study is to examine how site managers experience their work situation. Drawing on an interview study encompassing 13 site managers and seven foremen and top managers in 13 construction projects, the research suggests that site managers are generally pleased with their work situation even though they are critical of the demands made of them to handle a variety of heterogeneous activities. However, a work situation fraught with unanticipated challenges and ambiguities easily leads to excessive workloads and long working hours. It is concluded that the literature on middle managers presents too negative an image of middle management and thus needs to revise the assumptions regarding the nature of middle managerial work. In addition, the study also underlines the needs of construction firms to regard their middle managers as a central function and resource.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction projects; middle managers; site managers
Index terms: site manager, construction industry, construction project, working hours, top manager, interview, manager, workload, construction firm, construction site, drawing
Subjects: practitioner, data collection methods, organization, work location, technical documentation, production management, employment law, management, industry analysis
Topics: Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Site Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here