Construcciones Yamaro: Getting serious about leadership behaviour in construction

Problematic leadership behaviour must be addressed early, as warning signs are often ignored. (Image: Dusan Petkovic/stock.adobe.com)

Simon Wood of Seedling Leadership is calling on the construction industry to address behaviour that is too often normalised.

By Simon Wood, managing director of Seedling Leadership.

“That’s just the way it is in construction.”

This is a phrase I have heard repeatedly over years of leadership consultancy, workshops and one-on-one coaching sessions with leaders across major infrastructure projects and construction business units. It surfaces in conversations about managerial behaviour and its links to culture, engagement and retention – the human factors.

It is often delivered with a defeated sigh and a shrug, as if to suggest that nothing can be done and that construction is somehow different to every other industry. In practice, this sentiment becomes shorthand for a pattern of behaviours: senior leaders yelling at direct reports or peers when frustrated, often in public; personal attacks that question a person’s character or competence; and the deflection of mistakes onto subordinates, even when responsibility sits elsewhere. It also shows up through constant interruption, not listening, blame and ridicule, with the pattern normalised over time.

Simon Wood, managing director of Seedling Leadership. (Image: Simon Wood)

The justifications for these behaviours are often framed in familiar terms: “I don’t have time to sugar-coat”, “People need to harden up, this is not an industry for the weak”, “I’m old school” and “I’m blunt”.

A recent example came from a leader who openly acknowledged his abrasive behaviour in front of his team, without pushback. He stated, “I don’t really care – I’m quite happy about that. It gets me what I want.”

The question is why this behaviour continues to be tolerated.

In construction, short-term results are often prioritised, and fear of a leader’s reaction can discourage people from speaking up. Political considerations follow: who do they know, and will speaking out damage one’s reputation? Discomfort with direct conversations adds to the silence, which is then reinforced by norms that make individuals question whether they are the outlier for finding the behaviour unacceptable. There is also faulty thinking that equates being “hard” with effectiveness – I have repeatedly heard senior leaders in construction refer to emotional intelligence as “touchy feely stuff”. In some cases, the behaviour goes unnoticed altogether.

Whatever the reasons, the failure to act is a serious problem. Too often, the outcomes of these behaviours are not confronted.

Bit by bit, then suddenly, engagement, willingness and motivation erode. People hide mistakes, blame each other to avoid repercussions, form alliances, work around these managers, or simply say nothing and keep their heads down. This leads to attrition, delays, siloes, lowered trust and budget blowouts.

From short-term to systems thinking

I have had the honour of working with senior leaders across major projects and parent company business units for many years. I use that word deliberately, because I feel privileged to work with capable, hardworking people operating in demanding conditions and striving to create something great.

Through coaching and workshops with leaders managing billions of dollars of delivery, it is clear that many are doing their best and aspire to lead better.

But just as too much salt can spoil a dish, the persistent presence and unchallenged behaviour of a toxic manager can have far-reaching ramifications. There is a tendency to reduce complex challenges to isolated events and single-issue problems. This short-term thinking ignores patterns and the wider set of relationships within a project.

From a systems thinking point of view, behaviour is reinforced by the wider system. Collaboration pressures, competing agendas in joint ventures and public-private partnerships, and broader project dynamics all contribute to a high-pressure environment. This is valid context, but not an excuse for leadership behaviour.

But my focus here is not the wider system. It is the need to think in systems and recognise the downstream effects of poor leadership behaviour, even within these conditions.

We need leaders to be conscious of their behaviour and to understand the value of true leadership in delivering better outcomes.

Taking accountability

There is a memorable scene in the Australian crime drama Mr Inbetween where hitman Ray Shoesmith is sent to anger management. When asked why he gets angry, he explains that he only hits people who deserve it, namely those he sees as disrespectful. When the counsellor points out that there will always be disrespectful people, Ray responds, “That’s because everyone lets them get away with it”.

The same logic applies to leaders who behave as though there is no need to filter their words, moderate emotional reactions or control their behaviour.

I am not suggesting we bring Ray into the workplace, but we do need to acknowledge that this behaviour exists and that it is not acceptable. I have spent countless hours in bid coaching sessions, project kick-offs and leadership offsites where teams define values such as respect and accountability. Yet these values often become window dressing rather than lived standards.

There is almost an allergic reaction to promoting these values afterwards, because people recognise the disconnect. When accountability is discussed, it is frequently reduced to “deliver what you say you will”.

For me, accountability is more than that. It is about being accountable to live the stated values, to hold others to account for behaviour and to lead in a way that reflects the level of responsibility entrusted to them. It is also about being accountable for consistently demonstrating respect.

Defining leadership behaviour

So, what do we mean by leadership behaviour? Largely, it is a combination of personality traits and competencies that sit across two domains: approach to task and approach to people.

Approach to task relates to how leaders think about the work and apply themselves to its performance. This includes strategic thinking, innovation, conscientiousness, drive to achieve, decisiveness and systems thinking. Many engineers and senior leaders from blue-collar backgrounds already demonstrate these strengths, including strong work ethic, problem-solving under pressure and planning capability.

Approach to people relates to how leaders connect with those around them and create psychologically safe environments where people can perform. It includes coaching and mentoring, giving feedback, building teamwork, motivating others and having the courage to hold difficult conversations. Traits such as sociability, humility, self-awareness and the ability to manage one’s own emotions are central to this domain. In my experience, this area remains underdeveloped in the construction industry. The sector is competitive and becoming more so, which makes leadership capability an increasingly important differentiator in performance and profitability.

Without attempting to cover every domain of leadership, the principal point is this: organisations must be deliberate in selecting, developing and holding leaders to account for their people management, communication and behavioural standards. The financial and cultural return from engaged, collaborative workplace cultures is substantial.

Setting the leadership standard

There are practical steps the industry can take to lift leadership behaviour.

A shift in mindset is required. Much of the construction industry’s experience has been built on projects lasting 18 months or so – an apartment building, a bridge, a pump station, wind turbines, a freeway widening. The prevailing mentality has often been to get in, push hard and then move on.

This model has historically allowed people to tolerate difficult behaviours because the exposure is temporary and there is an opportunity to reset between projects. However, as large-scale infrastructure projects increasingly extend over six, seven or eight years, this approach is no longer sustainable.

McKinsey & Company made a similar point in its 2017 report, The art of project leadership: Delivering the world’s largest projects. The central insight is that the most successful projects operate like organisations.

These projects prioritise development, continuity and culture over constant churn. They understand the need to balance wellbeing with productivity and to take a longer-term view of performance.

The first shift is to think as though a project is a business for life, one that must attract and retain people over time. The cost of churn, constant rehiring and training, and structural gaps while roles are filled all place downstream pressure on delivery and, ultimately, the bottom line. This demands a longer-term mindset in how projects are led and sustained.

Culture is set from the top. Steering committees, managing directors and project directors must be cognisant of the value of culture as a core driver of outcomes, not a side issue. They must hold one another to account, select leaders with clear purpose and vision, and ensure leadership is exercised in a civil and respectful manner.

Problematic behaviour must be addressed early, as warning signs are often ignored while other aspects of performance appear acceptable or short-term results mask deeper issues. Over time, the downstream impact becomes evident through resignations, delays, intra-team hostility and widening gaps in trust between client and contractor. Clear, direct feedback is vital, both for the individual concerned and as a signal to the broader organisation that respect and skilled communication are non-negotiable. If behaviour does not change, action must be taken, including removing that individual from the role if necessary.

Leadership capability within projects must also be developed as a priority. This includes establishing a shared language around values and how they manifest in day-to-day behaviour, as well as creating regular opportunities for client and contractor teams to align on standards of conduct.

Parent companies need to invest in developing leaders internally, particularly in the area of emotional intelligence. In a competitive industry, technical capability alone is insufficient. The ability to manage emotions and communicate respectfully is now a requirement.

Greater diversity in leadership teams is another important consideration, including the meaningful inclusion of women in leadership roles. Homogenous environments can normalise behaviours that discourage openness and psychological safety. More balanced leadership voices contribute to healthier cultures, stronger communication and improved talent retention across the workforce.

Leadership requires the courage to act. There will be pushback, and mistakes will be made, but consistently addressing behaviour and setting clear standards leads to stronger teams, better engagement and more sustainable project outcomes.

The post Getting serious about leadership behaviour in construction appeared first on Inside Construction.

View Source