Doing masculinities in construction project management

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine how masculinities are (re)produced in project-based organizations. The authors first investigate the doing of masculinities in everyday work practices in construction project management. Second, the authors investigate whether there are opportunities to perceive, or do, gender differently in this specific context. Design/methodology/approach Data are elicited from a case study of construction project managers working on a infrastructure project. The project managers were interviewed through semi-structured informal interviews regarding their experiences of project work. The analysis was inspired by the competing discourses and practices of masculinity in organizations outlined by Collinson and Hearn (1994). Findings The results showed how multiple masculinities coexist and overlap in the project organization and in the everyday practices of project management. Both male and female project managers must adjust to these masculine discourses and act in accordance with a particular context. But the results also showed opportunities to challenge the masculine norms by doing gender differently. Practical implications The results of this study highlights opportunities for creating a more gender-equal work environment in the construction industry. The multiple ways of doing masculinity, by both men and women, highlights the possibilities to balance between doing it well and differently. Such knowledge can be used in policy and strategies for equal opportunities for men and women in organizations. Originality/value This study provides insights into the (re)production of multiple masculinities in construction project management. This study contributes to the criticism of the normative conceptions that have characterized the literature on project management. The authors add to the tradition of organization studies by arguing that the gender analysis of project management is important to increase understandings of how projects are managed and, in this case, how masculine discourses affect everyday work.

When Following the Rules Is Bad for Wellbeing: The Effects of Gendered Rules in the Australian Construction Industry

“…This is similar to previous research that demonstrates that employees in construction are expected to tolerate adverse work conditions, with help-seeking behaviours discouraged (Stergiou-Kita et al, 2015). It is also consistent with Olofsdotter and Randevåg (2016) who found that norms of masculinity Work, Employment and Society 2021, Online First Author post peer-review version Original article available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020978914 in the construction industry result in both men and women adjusting their working styles to 'fit in'. Subtle differences were also identified in the effects of the gendered rules for men and women's wellbeing.…”

A new male entrepreneur?

“…A centre-margin structure is in play where hegemonic masculinity becomes the centre and the subordinate masculinity is at the margin of the discourse (Bruni and Perrotta, 2014; Verduijn and Essers, 2013). On this scale, various masculinities exist and they are affected by each other’s development (Giazitzoglu and Down, 2017; Olofsdotter and Randevåg, 2016). These multiple masculinities are negotiated through competing tensions between hegemonic and subordinate masculinities (Boyle, 2002; Olofsdotter and Randevåg, 2016; Fisher and Kinsey, 2014).…”

Women’s career development in the construction industry across 15 years: main barriers

“…Moreover, the majority of women working in construction perform administrative work (Rodríguez-Garzón et al , 2015; Simon, 2013; Ness and Green, 2012), while those controlling “technical”, “fee-earning” careers are mostly men (Galea et al , 2015). Even in the Swedish labor market, described as a gender-equality champion, female project managers are mainly found at headquarters or in softer areas such as landscaping and planning, or special posts related to the environment or quality (Olofsdotter and Randevåg, 2016; Olofsdotter and Rasmusson, 2016; Arditi et al , 2013).…”