Choosing your next company carefully 13

[plasgears]

There are some companies that are staffed by semi-professionals, which can be galling to the degreed engineer with license. I didn't know what I was getting into until I tried transferring my PE to the local state. The boss dragged his feet undiplomatically. I latter found out that he was a promoted draftsman.

Check the organization chart during the interview, and ask questions. You may decide not to hire this company.

 

[PLB]

Hi plasgears,

I agree with you that this kind of situation can be very frustrating. I have also found a similar situation to be very common... you interview with an Architectural, Engineering, or Industrial firm to find that the company or department that you will be working for is being run by the "promoted drafter" or by an Architect or engineer. The problem with this situation is that NONE of these three supervisor types has ever had the opportunity to get any kind of mangerial training so they are not equipped to handle "People issues" like conflict resolution, differences in experience or proper employee evaluation. They are equally unequipped to know how to best utilize and train their employees to maximize the benefit from their employees. Each time one of these problems arise, they either hope that it will go away if it is ignored long enough, OR you get a "knee-jerk" reaction decision that is not consistent from one time to the next. Either way, I've found that the employee/s that are in the middle of the problem, looking for help from a "supervisor" are frequently misread or ignored by the supervisor making the problem even worse.

Just my 2 cents
Paul

 

[Watermelon]

Plasgears: Enjoyed your brief posting, especially the phrase "You may decide not to hire the company." Right on. It really does go both ways: they interview you and you interview them. If your nose says something smells, trust it.

I had a high-paying job with a fat benefits package in a huge corporation. On top of that, my personal liability was at an absolute minimum. My future was fat and secure. Except:

On numerous occasions they hired managers who did not even have technology papers. These individuals were chosen because they had 20 years of experience with the company; in the field, I might add, and not in the office! These non-engineers were placed in charge of perhaps 30 or 40 professional engineers.

I was not willing to renounce my degree in order to be considered for a promotion. I suppose I could have bade farewell to my ego and accepted the fact that I would never be a manager, but I wanted more. More importantly, I couldn't accept the leadership of a tradesman. I was tired of trying to convince my boss there is a real difference between stress and strain. I left the company and started my own.

It's been a rocky ride. The road to becoming a REAL engineer is not an easy one, and it will cost you a bundle.

 

[Allangator]

I couldn't agree more with Watermelon! Prepare tough questions before you interview and write them down. Interviewers are always impressed with prepared questions, but you need to make them count. Ask for examples, ask to speak with your potential co-workers, and make sure you understand what the new job will require you to do. Make sure that you’ll fit into the culture of the new job. Think about how you could help the organization and also how you might hurt. It all starts with gathering enough information to know that this next job is the right one for you.

 

[PSE]

Sometimes it helps to find "ex" employees as well. They tend to offer a counterbalance to the "optimal face" that a company works to present to job candidates.

 

[dozer]

PLB,

You seem to be suggesting that an engineer as a manager is a bad idea. I have to agree with Watermelon, an engineer being supervised by a non-engineer is an unpleasant proposition. I have found nontechnical supervisors to be demoralizing to engineers. Proper employee evaluation? How can a guy with no background in engineering evaluate an engineer? Give me an engineer as a supervisor and send him to a seminar on management anyday over a management type who, by the way, will refuse to go take a class on stability of structures because "it's not critical for him to know such things".

 

[PLB]

rkillian,

I'm not suggesting that an engineer is necessarily a bad manager. I have had my share of bad managers that were/are engineers or architects. What I am suggesting is this: Engineers and Architects go to college to learn how to build things (buildings, cars, ships, etc.) but unfortunately, they do not receive the proper training to be able to manage people.

I also think that the "semi-professional" could be as good a manager as a "PE" certified engineer. Again, it boils down to personalities and having the correct training/experience.

You also mentioned that being supervised "by a non-engineer" is an unpleasant proposition and I agree that it can be. You seem to be placing a huge gap between the draftsman and the engineer. Where I come from, they work side by side. While the engineer has more design responsibility throughout the project, the engineer isn't all that great without the draftsman/designer to translate the design into workable documents. Frankly, I've worked with engineers who are so caught up in "getting it designed perfectly" that they spend huge amounts of time redesigning the project... over and over until the budget is completely blown and all of the other staff (yes, you guessed it, including the drafters) can't stand working with the engineer anymore. Now you end up with an overrun budget and mad people. Not a good situation.

I think Plasgears was discussing a situation where the supervisor is at least familiar with your feild of work so that they can at least identify what you are doing. As far as evaluations go, most evaluations are fluff. You tend to progress along with the company at the rate that they want you to. Now, a good manager that is involved in the engineering field, even a drafter, would be able to provide a better evaluation than someone who knows nothing about engineering at all, say an accountant or loading dock supervisor.

My personal belief is this... a truly good supervisor doesn't have to be an engineer or an HR person or have ANY special degree. The "Good Manager" has to have great people skills and to be willing to train their staff AND THEMSELVES for the best performance of the entire organization.

By the way, the best supervisor I ever worked with was a structural engineer. Also, the 2 worst supervisors that I ever worked with were a architect and another engineer. So, engineers can be good or bad supervisors.

 

[plasgears]

GE, one of the premier engineering companies, organizes engineering units as follows: all engineers are graduate engineers; all unit managers are masters in engineering, no exception.
That's where I grew up in the field, and when I see non-engineers supervising engineers, I cringe.

 

[PLB]

Plasgears,

You mention GE and how they organize... It provokes some interesting thought. You didn't mention where the "PE's" fit into this scheme. I feel that another frustrating situation may arise when a non-PE engineer may supervise an engineer that does have a PE.

Your thoughts?

 

[plasgears]

PLB,
In the 70's at GE-Evendale, the top manager at the facility mentioned casually in the newsletter that achieving the PE would be a good thing. The engineers responded in the hundreds. The PE examining body in Columbus, OH, responded by bringing the two-day exam to the facility. Hundreds of engineers sat for the EIT and Prof Eng exams. It was an exhilarating experience. The in-plant prep course was a delight. (There were about 6 units organized.) I learned short cuts from other pros, and I disclosed my short cuts, too.

It was recommended no doubt because it had a enlightening effect on engineers at that facility. All the plant engr types had licenses, but others felt no motivation to do so. Was it used as an equivalent to the masters degree? I don't think so. It was merely good practice to get your license.

 

[PLB]

Plasgears,

It sounds like it was a great experience. I also gather that the top manager was in fact a good manager at motivating the other engineers in the facility. The structural engineer that I enjoyed working for used to (and may still) teach the structural prep classes for the PE exam at the local college. I am "only a designer" with an Assoc. degree, so you can see that I can take issue with people that feel that segregating "professionals" and us "semi-professionals" makes sense. The structural engineer used to use each successive job, as time and budget allowed, to teach me more structural engineering design as well as increasing my responsibilites to match. I would have followed that engineer into the gates of hell if he had asked... Unfortunately, work slowed and I was laid off. He was the reason that I responded to this thread with the comments that a good engineer should have great people skills as well as be willing to train or get training for the folks that they are in charge of. I feel that we made an excellent team. Occasionally, I would be drafting one of his projects and find something that was confusing to me. I would ask him about it and come to find out, it was a mistake that I had caught. Other times it was a new design technique that I got to learn about. Either way, it was a benefit to both of us. I could help with some of the design, under his supervision, and it would help me to understand the project more completely allowing me to possibly catch some inconsistencies. I helped him and he helped me, and neither one of us felt any animosity towards each other.

Just my thoughts,

 

[dozer]

PLB,

Let me restate: As an licensed professional engineer I do not wish to be supervised by someone who does not have a degree in engineering and preferably by someone who does have a license.

I'm sorry if you think I'm placing a huge gap between engineers and drafters. Actually I wasn't even thinking of the relationship between engineers and drafters when I made my previous comments. This is just my preference of what type of background the individual has that supervises me. I realize there are many other things that should be looked at to make a good supervisor.

 

[d23]

plasgears

I want to be very careful with this. Please don’t misunderstand. I have considered a response for this one for several days.

I actually believe what you need to look at is the companies philosophy more than the origination chart. I wouldn’t want to disagree with your current predicament in fact I sympathize. I currently work for a company that employs well over 50,000 people world wide. The reference to “semi-professional” management hits home here too. Company philosophy not only supports personal G&O’s like your PE, but it finically supports it too. By company structure any supervisor that would impede your personal goals would be placing his career at great risk.

After reading the post about GE and knowing our company philosophy it would seem that the larger the company is the better that the professional support mechanism will be. It is not all good with large companies!!!

As a company we don’t have supervisors per say, we have mangers. The manager assigns projects, but doesn’t get involved in engineering. My manager has a high school degree (I think) and from a management stand point is a pain in the rear, but will not second guess any designs. This once again is part of the company structure or philosophy.

I would think two things that will offer at least some insight is how active the company is with its college recruiting program and the training available and/or required. The company I work for requires that I have at the very least two “in-house” schools per year. This is about 3 to 4 weeks per year. I have been with the same company over 20 years, but the schools are still required as part of my G&O’s.

For the most part I have found that large companies are a pain, but may offer one possible solution to your problem.

Good Luck

 

[RDK]

A lot of this discussion is focused on the question of if non-engineers or engineers make the best managers.

Some people take the view that they will only work for an engineer manager and no one else.

I don’t want to get off on a rant here but…

In my experience there an engineering degree is no predictor of success or failure in being a manager. I have seen both extremes and everything in between from both non engineers and engineers when it comes to managing ability.

Managing is not about engineering and engineering is not about managing, although some engineering techniques can be applied to management. Managing is about motivating people. Managing is about leadership. Managing is about resolving conflicts in the work place. Managing is about communication skills, presentation skills, marketing skills. None of this is about engineering. These skills help engineers, they are just not central to being an engineer.

The best and worst managers that I have ever worked for are both engineers, both products of the same training and selection process. It was when I was a civilian employee of the Canadian military and my immediate manager was a military officer. They were the result of the identical process and the best was posted in to replace the worst who was getting out of the military. (Not because he was seen as a bad manager but because he was offered a lot of money in the private sector. I often wonder how many days he survived in that job.)

Where managing and engineering meet is in the technical aspects of managing. Managing is about making decisions. Often these decisions are made on the basis of a mathematical model that uses statistical or other analytical skills common to engineering to make predictions . Managing often requires a certain logical thinking process that is common to engineers. These skills also exist outside of engineering, its just that they are common to all engineers.

Engineering is often about detail. All too often the Peter Principle applies and a good detail engineer gets promoted to management based on detail success and is an abject failure where the requirement to manage is about seeing the larger picture and seeking necessary and valid compromises to achieve the required result.

Engineers often lack in people skills. We are more comfortable with numbers and equations that behave in predictable manners. We are not comfortable working with people who behave in often unpredictable fashions. (They can be predicted, just not by the skills taught in engineering schools nor with the precision of predicting deflections in a steel beam.)

To say that you would only work for another engineer is also a career limiting decision. Sooner or later the lines of responsibility and accountability in your organization must converge and they almost never converge in an unbroken line of engineers. Even if they do, your company is hired by an outside entity and that is never an unbroken line of engineers.

Also if you are say a civil engineer would you work for an electrical engineer? What does an electrical engineer know about civil engineering technical issues? Lets break this down further. Would you as a structural engineer work for a municipal engineer when they are both sub disciplines of civil? Would you as a steel designer work for an engineer whose expertise is reinforced concrete? After all what does a concrete engineer know about steel?

If I was a junior engineer just starting out I would seek out manager who had good technical skills as well as good managerial skills. Remember that a job interview goes both ways and I like the comment about hiring the company.

There was a comment in another thread where a senior engineering manager routinely made available the résumé’s of senior staff to applicants. Why not politely ask for them? If you are applying to a consulting company then these are standard documents that they routinely give to prospective clients and often post on the web site. If they have a problem with that request then think about why they do not want you to know this information. After all you will soon learn this information in the workplace. Any company that practices any sort of enlightened management should be impressed with your diligence and insight in asking for them and happy to provide them.

Early in one’s career it is important to refine one’s technical training and gain experience in the practical application of these skills. Unfortunately it is at this stage of one’s career that one does not have the options of multiple job offers and the ability to distinguish good technical and managerial skills quickly. Just remember that good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment. If you make a mistake, learn from it try to correct it and move on.

Also early in your career you often do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer because you need the money, you do not know when the next offer will be coming. The worst job I ever had was one where I jumped at an offer because I thought I needed that job. (Coincidentally the manager was a non engineer who neither understood nor respected engineering.)

As for the comment about the GE manager who casually made a comment that PE’s were a good thing for everyone here is another spin on that. I have a client who is a former base commander for the Canadian military. He and I spent last summer at their corporate head office working very closely and staying at the same hotel and taking most meals together. There were others in our work group that were also ex- military commanders in both the Canadian Armed Forces and the US Army. They all said that the most difficult thing about being a commander was remembering that even the most casual comment could be construed as an order and considerable effort and expense would be spent in meeting it. Expense that he did not mean nor sanction.

Perhaps the manager made the suggestion simply as a general comment that quickly took on a life of its own and the result was something that he was caught in and unable to stop without appearing to be hypercritical or undeceive. If he really meant for it to be company policy, does he publish policy in the newsletter? Explain it perhaps but policy in large organizations is usually a more formal procedure that the newsletter.

Why expect us to be PE’s and not support us in this endeavor? (on site classes, work time for study groups, testing centers in the facility etc.) What do you mean you don’t really want us to be PE’s? What does it say here in the newsletter?

On the other hand he might have meant to establish policy that way. Its often more effective to have a widely believed and followed flexible informal policy that to issue a formal rigid policy. A simple word to motivate the troops and let the best rise to the top. I don’t know the circumstances but it’s an alternate explanation.

Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[dozer]

I maintain that a non-technical manager has some serious deficiencies when managing technical people. For example setting schedule completion dates. If he doesn't know the process used to design a widget how can he set a deadline for when it should be designed? How can he fairly and objectively evaluate an employee if he doesn't understand what the employee is doing? How can he provide guidance when an underling has a technical question? How can he make decisions regarding software procurement, for instance purchasing a finite element package, when he doesn't know stress from strain? How can he evaluate risk when he doesn't understand the design process? I know, I know, he should delegate these responsibilities to someone with the correct skills. My question then becomes, so what does he do again?

I guess I've beaten this dead horse enough. Evidently some of you have had good experiences with non-technical managers. I have not. Invariably I've found just because someone manages engineers it suddenly gives them the right to make engineering decisions even though they have no education or license. God bless those managers who realize their limitations and stand back and let the engineers do what they are paid to do.

 

[Watermelon]

Good questions rkillian. Here's a few more that I like:

How can he understand professional liability when he isn't the designer? Will he stand behind the engineer if the engineer's design fails?

But RDK has some good points too. There has to be an interface with non-engineers at some point in the process.

My rule is: make sure you are totally comfortable with where that interface is.

 

[ICman]

I am a Project Manager (BSEE) with PE and PMP certification. My wife does not have a college degree, but has been a manager/supervisor for several years (sometimes over technical personnel). I wish I could be as good a people manager as she seems to be.

The people that have worked for my wife will bend over backwards for her. She doesn't rule with an iron hand, but lets her people do their thing with her guidance. To her, it's easy to motivate employees and accomplish just about anything. While she's not technical, she has an idea of the work involved, and can figure out if it's accurate and timely (from feedback of others, sometimes me ).

For me, it's sometimes difficult to get a simple drawing done, though I've tried to follow my wife's examples.

I wouldn't want to work for her, though. Just thought I'd point out that it doesn't matter if the manager is a PE or even degreed, IF they know how to manage.

Looking at resumes on a job hunt may be deceiving. If interviewed by someone that reports to the candidate's potential manager, ask them how he/she is as a manager.

 

[madkungfu]

RKA and ICMan.... Excellent Posts!

I felt the same way as a lot of the other posts on this thread, until I had to try management myself. It involves a completely different skillset. I work for a small company that is trying to learn how to get by as a mid-size company. We have a long way to go. We created a 5 Project Leader positions about a year ago. The most common leadership style I see emerging is not a good one. We sit in a meeting, and the Program Director (also a new position) tells everyone how things are going to be, what needs to be done...etc. There is a lot of blamestorming that takes place, a lot of talk about un-named 'lazy engineers'. There is not a lot of talk of any type of solutions. Just more rules and restrictions.

I see my position as more of a representative of my team and I'm there to fight our positions if needed. I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about management and motivation. I really have to fight though to get a consensus in these meetings on anything that involves improving employee morale. There is an attitude that if the engineers don't do what we want, we will get rid of them. As a result I think I am perceived as being 'soft' on employees and I think there may be a perception that I 'cover' for the 'lazy' guys.

I don't think the poeple I've mentioned are evil, 'bad' managers, or idiots. I think the biggest exercise is realizing that we have a lot to learn. Suprisingly, the group as a whole is very receptive to any type of facts you can present to them. I think I really can effect the direction of leadership in the company by educating these guys in the meetings. I have found that by 'priming' the other leaders with ideas before the meeting, I get a LOT of support in the meeting. The downside of this is I am committing the ultimate sin as far as REAL engineers are concerned. I'm playing office politics. However, this is the only way I see that we are going to move in the right direction, and no amount of technical know-how is going to move us past it. Being a good engineer has very little to do with being a good manager. An interesting twist in this concept is the book "The E-Myth"...I forget the author. The book is mostly about the entrepenuerial myth that if you excel at a particular skill, then naturally you can run an excellent business doing that skill. There are a lot of interesting parrallels in that book between if you just replace 'entrepenuer' with 'manager'.

Hope this rambling disjointed post helps....