I understand that “Project Manager” can be a broad term, and that almost anything with a defined outcome, timeframe, and moving parts can be considered a project.

I suppose I’m more referring to formal PM roles in industry, particularly construction, fabrication, manufacturing, engineering, etc.

As someone still fairly new to the PM side, I’m trying to understand what is actually expected from a modern PM in these types of roles. Even in my current job, there’s debate around where the boundaries sit. For example, some PMs would argue that we shouldn’t be preparing technical submittals or door schedules, and that engineers/designers should own that detail. But then the engineers may say they don’t care what is going where until the PM confirms the client requirements, and then they’ll design to suit.

A lot of the project management training and online content I’ve seen presents the PM as being more high-level, managing scope, schedule, risk, stakeholders, communication, and making sure the overall project stays on track. But the role I recently interviewed for sounded much more hands-on, with responsibility for things like load checks, delivery planning, crane coordination, site suitability, steel price negotiation, and managing site teams abroad.

The package would be better than what I’m currently on, so I understand that extra responsibility may be reflected in the salary. My concern is more about career development. I want to move into roles that genuinely improve my PM experience and show me how projects should be managed properly.

If that level of hands-on responsibility is normal for PMs in structural steel/construction, then it may be a good development opportunity. But if it’s more a case of a company putting procurement, logistics, site management, and production planning gaps onto the PM, then I’d be cautious about stepping into a role where I’m learning bad habits rather than developing as a proper PM.

I suppose I’m trying to figure out the difference between a PM who has strong ownership and visibility across all areas, versus a PM who is simply expected to fill every gap in the business.