Skip to content
Menu

Difficult conversations

Two superintendents in conflict: a manager’s written responsibility review

By Review.LivePublished 3 min readHow we write

The structure and finishing superintendents give the drywall foreman different answers about handover floors and hoist bookings. Both say the other is interfering. The project manager needs to understand the decisions being duplicated and establish a usable responsibility split.

Two colleagues in hard hats and high-visibility clothing discuss work at ground level.
Photo: RONNAKORN TRIRAGANON on Unsplash

Hear each superintendent's account, identify overlapping decisions and write a practical responsibility and escalation arrangement. Discuss that page together and tell the affected trades which contact handles each question. Boundaries are one possible contributor to the conflict, not a diagnosis that excludes misconduct, resource shortages or other causes. Review whether the arrangement works and route any serious people concern through its appropriate process.

Give the shared site clear decision ownership

  1. Hear separate accounts with examples. Ask each person which areas, tasks, trades and decisions they believe they own. Request actual conflicting instructions and their dates. Do not start with a joint history argument or assume one person's account is complete.
  2. Identify decisions and interfaces. Compare the accounts with approved roles and project requirements. Separate task ownership, handover acceptance, shared resources and safety responsibilities. A blanket floor boundary may not answer who deals with an unfinished structural item on a released finishing floor.
  3. Write the approved arrangement. Assign each defined decision and its backup, consultation need and escalation contact. Have the appropriate personnel review hoist and other logistical arrangements. This management page does not design a lifting plan, override safety responsibilities or create authority the roles do not have.
  4. Hold a focused joint discussion. Check the proposed split against real pending decisions and hear unresolved objections. Confirm the working conduct expected and the route when agreement fails. Do not force a signature that conceals disagreement or describe the page as a settlement of every personal grievance.
  5. Brief trades and review its use. Issue the approved contacts and interface rules to affected people, including the current handover status. Choose a review date and examine actual duplicate or missing decisions. Address continuing behaviour or capacity problems separately rather than endlessly redrawing the floor line.

The manager's boundary question

  1. Project manager:For this floor, who decides finishing release, who owns remaining structural questions and who confirms the shared hoist booking? Let's assign those decisions separately.
  2. Project manager:If the two roles disagree, this is the named escalation contact. The trades need one clear answer for each question.

Common mistakes

  • Assuming every conflict is only a boundary problem.
  • Assigning whole floors without unresolved task interfaces.
  • Keeping the agreed contacts private from affected trades.

Checklist

The responsibility split people can use

  • Each account and dated conflicts.
  • Defined decisions and task interfaces.
  • Approved authority and backup contacts.
  • Shared-resource review and escalation.
  • Trade briefing with current status.
  • Review date and separate unresolved issues.

Check your understanding

Both superintendents sign the page, but a serious conduct complaint remains. Is the conflict closed?

Show the answer
No. Review the working arrangement and route the complaint through the appropriate company process. Agreement on decision ownership does not determine misconduct or guarantee a workable relationship. Keep the separate issues and their responsible contacts visible.

Related articles