Looking at the whole picture, Engineers as leaders 7

[josephv]

The ability to look at the whole picture is a strong asset in solving complex problems. Engineers have this quality, which makes them perfect candidates for leadership positions.

Many political leaders have law degrees and many business leaders have economics degrees. Although, law and economics degrees have their merits, they do not make much use of the scientific method. The fact that engineers can formulate theories and then test them, gives them a leadership edge over lawyers and economists.

So why do so many engineers shy away from leadership roles?

I would have to agree with Samuel Florman, author of “The Civilized Engineer”, that what is missing in engineering education is liberal arts courses. The liberal arts, especially philosophy, give engineers the social and human dimension required to be a leader.

Economists tend to let their biases cloud their observations. For example the right-wing economist always blames inefficient government, the left-wing economist always blames big business. They are rarely objective in their approach to problem solving.

Lawyers often overlook technical considerations when making decisions, they rarely look at the big picture, and this is a major drawback.

The person that can look the whole picture will be able to tackle tomorrow’s challenges. What better person to do that, than an engineer who understands the social and human dimension.

The world will be a better place if the following were to happen in the next five years:

1) More engineers take leadership roles
2) Liberal arts courses are added to the engineering curriculum
3) Science and engineering courses are added to the arts and humanities programs (e.g. law, and economics)

Your feedback is always welcome.

 

[TheTick]

George Washington was, among many other things, a civil engineer.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted.

 

[TheTick]

Respectfully, I think engineers in general need to get out more. I know many non-engineering professionals who are at least capable and willing to look at the big picture. Also, I see many engineers suffering from techno-myopia.

The old saw "A good machine sells itself" is an example of this. Many great machines disappeared as a result of being poorly planned products.

 

[chubPE]

Leadership roles are for those that show leadership qualities early in life. Engineering roles don't manifest any differently.

Really, I see it a bit silly to assume that someone's profession denotes the ability to lead.

Your comment,
The ability to look at the whole picture is a strong asset in solving complex problems. Engineers have this quality, which makes them perfect candidates for leadership positions.

Awfully general... ALL engineers have this quality? Not the one's I managed. Most are so focused and arrogant they can't see past their desk.

Althought I mean not to offend anyone, I see engineers, in general, the worst leaders. The leaders are usually the Engineering Managers, Directors, and VPs. As you notice, there are fewer of them than there are "grunts".



So I guess I respectfully disagree.

 

[HDS]

Last years Georgia Tech's George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Annual Distinguished Lecture had John H. Sununu speak on that very subjecet. The conclusion was that more engineers need to get envolved in public policy because so many of the people makeing decisions don't understand what they are talking about.

The speach can be found here on video. They can probably send you the text if you want it.

http://www.me.gatech.edu/me/publicat/programs/02Lecture.htm

I don't think forcing someone to take classes they don't want to will help anything. Everyone is free to take electives on other subjecets. Besides everyone's basic education before college is pretty heavily weighted to humanities.

 

[oranjeep]

I think the best leaders are effective communicatiors. effective communicators can explain tripple by-pass surgery to a doctor and to a 12 year old, having both understand it
within thier respective paygrades.

Leaders are wholly unselfish. Usually the guy/girl who is willing to help others out, regardless of his/her workload, is the best person to have around when the stuff hits the fan. You know they will not run and hide.

Often times, people are in positions where everything is running smoothly, so everyone thinks they are great leaders.
Wait until something goes wrong (and it will) and whatch them start flipping out. Leaders cannot afford to be perfectionist, but they have to demand perfection from thier staff. Ironic situation to be in.

 

[RDK]

When I was an undergraduate, we took it as a given that engineers would make the best managers. Since graduating I have found that usually engineers make the worst managers.

The reason is usually a tech-myopic view of the world. Technology will solve everything and only if everyone would learn how to use it and think as logically as an engineer then the world would be perfect.

Engineering skills may make a person a good analyst of issues. They may make a person more able to understand complex issues especially the ones in highly technical areas.

Engineering skills however have nothing to do with people skills. Often the human part of the equation is ignored because it’s too hard to understand and model. Engineering skills have nothing to do with marketing skills. A politician is really a continuous marketing machine.

Engineering skills in communication are different than those in communicating leadership. Engineering communication is usually focused on being accurate and precise. Often it becomes long-winded and full of adjectives and precise technical usage of words. Leadership communication skills relate to stating complex issues in simple easily understood and remembered terms.

Having said that I have also found that a few engineers made very good managers and leaders. It has nothing to do with technical and analytical skills and everything to do with people skills.

Leaders and managers derive their power to influence behaviour, which is the essence of leadership through several mechanisms. One is authority. You do what they say because they have some sort of authority to force you to. They can reward or punish. You stop for the police because of this and you go to work because of this. This sort of power has noting to do with being an engineer unless one is a senior to you in some organization.

Another source of power is knowledge. You stop smoking because your doctor tells you to. You assume that his specialized knowledge allows him to speak with authority. This is a source of some power to engineers as well. You build the building the way he tells you to do because he is the expert.

A third source is charismatic. You do what they want because they are such nice people that you want to help them achieve their aims. This is the source of power of politicians and religious leaders. (Although religious leaders often have knowledge and authority based powers as well.) Again this source of power has nothing to do with being an engineer. Often technology attracts the personality type that is not charismatic.

Yes we need people with more analytical skills in positions of power. A number of years ago I became involved in a hot political issue. I went to Ottawa with a delegation of municipal and provincial political leaders. I met with several national political leaders and well. My role in this was a technical one since I happened to be the only one on our side who understood some of the complex issues that these leaders had to make decisions upon. I was given the opportunity of giving one on one briefing to many of these leaders. Only one (then Manitoba Premier Garry Filman) was able to understand what I was saying, and then ask probing and insightful questions into the issue. All the others would listen briefly, pick up a couple of words and then twist them into something that met their political view of the world. A lot of them spent more time talking than I did when I was supposed to be briefing them.

Garry Filman is a mechanical engineer. He was able to put his engineering analytical skills together with some impressive people skills and leadership skills and become a successful leader in Manitoba and national politics for several years.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[TheTick]

Last week I changed my signature quote to a line from Rush's song, "Spirit of Radio". I knew it would be familiar, but I was still surprised by the enthusiastic response.

The term "techno-myopic" is starting to get batted around here. One of the reasons I chose that particular quote was to remind myself and others that what we do is for the improvement of our lives. Technology and innovation serve us, not the other way around. Time-saving and life-saving devices ought not dehumanize us. If anything, they can free us to be more human (less beastly) to ourselves and each other.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted.

 

[Qshake]

I think that what JOSEPHV stated has some merit even though it is general.

Most engineers do have the ability to discover, explain, and plan the intricies in projects. As they advance many will be forced to allow younger engineers to sort through the details while the older engineers become project leaders and expand thier horizons to include the big picture. Those older engineers haven't forgotten the details though.

I think one reason that liberal arts and classes such as philosophy don't appeal to the student engineer is that as students we're constantly looking for the one answer - the particular answer. Somehow we break down at the thought of multiple answers which are quite diverse. Its just not what we're trained to do.

 

[GregLocock]

I think Rick is on the right lines. There is nothing about an engineer that makes him unfit for management, so long as he stops behaving like an engineer, and starts behaving like a leader.

This has never bugged me. It is 8 years since I have worked for someone who could understand most of what I was doing, without a long explanation, and 15 years since I worked for an engineering supervisor who I really respected at a technical level. It doesn't matter. So long as they trust me, help me, and promulgate my conclusions, the fact that they are technically less adept (or don't have the time or inclination to get down and dirty) does no harm.

I've said it in other threads, I'll say it in this one. My manager is my interface to the resources in (and outside) the company that I need but haven't got yet. Occasionally he passes jobs along to me, or we have a chat about priorities (anyone who can give me a list of five TOP priorities is less useful in that regard than I'd hope).

I was a section leader for a group of three engineers, and a variable number of CAD guys. I hated it. The job was brilliant, the project was great, my fellow workers were fun, but, frankly, I was much happier designing and testing my own components than being expected to worry about whether we'd all put our time cards in and all that sort of rubbish. I noticed one week that it took me two days to go from 'designing mode' to 'budget and scheduling and sitting in meetings mode'. Two days. I actually enjoy that side of it as well, just not as much as creating.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Speedy]

There are 3 candidates for a job, an Engineer, an Accountant and an Economist. They are all the asked the question; What is 2 plus 2?. The Engineer says ‘Its 4, of course’, the accountant says ‘It’s 4, plus or minus 10%.
It then comes to the economist. He closes the door behind him, sits down beside the interviewer and says ‘ What would you like it to be?’.

Horses for courses!!

All leaders are risk takers. Engineers are trained not to take risks, but to think logically. We like to fully understand everything we work with, everything to balance evenly. We are encouraged to be honest, to speak directly, anticipate problems in advance.

We’re too logical for ‘spin doctoring’

 

[FrenchCAD]

I hear you there Greg. I'm a fresh engineer and I followed this way because I love the creation process. I know my formation will someday drive me to have some responsibilities and be some kind of project leader, but frankly I doubt I'll like this place as much as being a CAD guy and creating components and stuffs. Management sure is great, but I don't like to bother much with all the budget and schedule stuffs. Maybe I'll evolve in the future when my career will be a little bit more advanced, but at this date, i don't want to be involved in this way.

Cyril Guichard
Mechanical Engineer

 

[TheTick]

re:"I think Rick is on the right lines. There is nothing about an engineer that makes him unfit for management, so long as he stops behaving like an engineer, and starts behaving like a leader.

Greg, pink star for you for that one!

All this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted.

 

[PM]

Speedy says engineers are trained not to take risks. All the engineers I worked with these past 28 years were trained to take huge risks. In fact I doubt there is any but a tiny fraction of engineers worldwide who are risk averse. For example, I know, quite precisely, what the risk of the last bridge or building I designed has for collapse. My dad, who designed and built hydro-electric dams, never understood risk as precisely as we now do, but that never stopped him from working with risk on a daily basis.

In my neck of the woods, engineers are found in leadership positions from the highest level of government to the lowest level of a community association. Other than lawyers, I doubt you can find a more prevasive group throughout every sector of our integrated economies than engineers (including management).

Regards,
PM

 

[Speedy]

I like Warren Buffett famous quote;

"Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing."