Skillsets differences among field leaders in the US sheet metal and air conditioning trades
Ibilola Ogundare et al.
Abstract
Purpose The construction industry faces a persistent labor shortage that undermines productivity and project performance. As traditional metrics like schedule, budget, and quality depend heavily on workforce capabilities, addressing talent gaps is critical. This study aims to identify the distinguishing skillsets of top-performing specialty field leaders (FLs) in the United States and explore how performance evaluation can support workforce development and retention strategies. Design/methodology/approach Supervisor-rated performance data were collected for 80 specialty FLs across 22 performance indicators grouped into four competency areas. Principal Component Analysis was used to create a composite performance index, which provided a systematic cutoff for classifying FLs as top or average performers. Independent t-tests were then conducted to assess statistically significant differences between the two groups across each performance factor. Findings Top-performing FLs significantly outperformed their peers in 17 of 22 competencies across all four areas: technical skills, leadership and communication, adaptability and overall job performance. These findings highlight critical performance drivers for targeted workforce development in specialty contracting. Practical implications Construction firms can use the findings to implement structured performance evaluation tools and individualized training plans that enhance workforce capabilities and project delivery. The composite index provides a scalable method for benchmarking performance and addressing skill gaps among field leaders. Originality/value This study introduces a composite performance index tailored to specialty FLs and applies it to distinguish high performers. It advances construction workforce literature by linking field-level performance with broader labor challenges, providing a framework for training, succession planning and retention.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.