Most important perceived qualities for a new engineers success 2

[EngineerDave]

In this case I am talking about perception, not necessarily reality.

Of these which do you think is the most important perception to have for a young engineer who hopes to advance.

1) He's hardworking
2) He's extremely sharp
3) He's easy to work with

In every corporation I've worked at, no points were given for efficiency, instead hours seemed to be the greatest indicator of success.

If you are easy to work with, that's great; unless you are perceived as too laid back.

Overall,everywhere I've worked, the hard-working type-A aggressives seemed to advance much quicker. This left many of us cautious thinking analyticals behind begging for table scraps.

 

[BobPE]

EngineerDave:

I think you answered the question, it takes a bit of all three. I am very analytical and cautious, but aggressive at the same time. Number two can be worked on and will generally come with experience and the right mentors.

I have found unfortunately that the path you want may take several companies until you are on it. I have been with several firms, each move for the better and I am very happy with my present position, salary, and type of work. This will change in time and if my present company wants my skills, they will adjust to accomodate me or I will be on to another firm.

Now granted, this approach is not for everyone, but it worked well for me. I am aggressive in my goals more so that in working. I feel that people that are hard to get along with make it tough for everyone and they tend to be avoided. My goals are mine, and sometimes they dont fit into the goals of the company. This is why I change firms, its not always for bad reasons.

Thats another reason why I believe in the PE, it is something no one but yourself can take away. It makes you very mobile and marketable.

just my thoughts...


BobPE

 

[GregLocock]

If you want to advance in management terms then 1 and 3 are most important. Most management doesn't require rocket science, why would exceptional technical aptitude be highly rated? Since you are assessed by a manager he will rate you on your similarity to him, not on your actual job performance.

You should be able to find out how your performance is graded, in theory. For instance, I have a list of 10 desirable behaviours, and 5 top priorities (snigger) for the year.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that neither of those lists mentions technical excellence or prowess, analytical skills, strategic technical thinking or anything like that, which I regard as the most enjoyable if not the most important part of my job. My most important task is to take the output that my section generates, and make sure the people that asked for them understand the results, and "help" them to take the correct next steps. I don't even need to be able to run an analysis to do that, do I?


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

I would add a fourth quality:

4) He/She gets results

It has been my experience that the ability to get the job done weighs heavily both with peers and superiors. It generally requires ability in all 3 of your attributes.

Regards

 

[GregLocock]

Good one



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[corus]

The three items listed in the post, for an engineer to progress, rely on harsh realitites of working life and would be totally unsuitable for someone to enter the surreal realms of upper management. To progress you must have an ablitiy to Speak In Acronyms (SIA) and possess the ability to "read the atmosphere" of a project. Once this Zen-like state has been achieved and you can comfortably hold meetings on the knowledge landscape of the company then there is no limit to your progression. If on the other hand, you are hard working, sharp, and easy to work with, then you're too valuable to promote and doomed to languish in obscurity.

 

[EngineerDave]

Corus, so Dilbertian of you and so true!

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Corus - so true. I have been restricted in ability to move at least once by being too valuable where I am - not a perception, my boss was very blunt that I could certainly handle the work/solve problems in the new post, but he couldn't afford to lose me in my current post. My company still thinks they come out ahead by holding people back, then wonder why people leave. I need to work on being just dumb enough to not get any more projects without jeopardizing my small but slighter above company average raise each year.

Blacksmith

 

[rlflower]

my thoughts: the one who is geared for advancement in a company (regardless of what type of company) is not necessarily the one who is the smartest or hardest worker. It just makes good business sense to keep the smartest and hardest worker employed where their efforts really amount to something - on the ground floor where the action is.

So... in the world of business, advancement for the smarter and harder worker means stepping out of the big company and starting fresh on one's own. It is hard at first, but it pays off in the end. Does this work in the world of engineering? Of coarse it does, why not?

 

[rhodie]

rtlflower:

I think that coupled with what you are stating should be a warning:

If a worker turns down an advancement opportunity because he/she feels exceptionally good or comfortable in their present capacity, then that worker risks being labeled as a "dinosaur", or as being resistant to change.

I have a (more experienced) friend that has learned this lesson the hard way.

-- I am a young engineer, and I appreciate the advice in this thread greatly. --

 

[rbcoulter]

I believe that the most important characteristic to have is
loyalty. In this case, I am referring to an engineer working for someone else (not in business for themselves).
Competence is good but not to the extent that you would question your supervisor's judgement. Your success is based on how well you carry out your supervisor's objectives. I have observed good competent people who do not advance or even get fired. Doing what seems to be logical to make the company money will not necessarily get you ahead.

 

[BobPE]

rbcoulter has a good point, loyalty is translated to a lot of what engineers do. If it is perceived that an engineer is not loyal by management, they will be relageted to grunt work that is not important to the sucsess of the project so if the employee leaves, there isnt a great loss. Loyalty combined with enthusiasm is a great combination. Even if you are personally not loyal to the company, you should still carry the company flag and support the company. This combination will advance you quickly. Enthusiasm comes in many forms, going the extra mile, specific project studying and research, putting in extra hours or charity time, innovative thinking to save the company money, looking out for the clients best interest, completing tasks on time...etc. I have had the opportunity to advance many engineers, very good worker type engineers by the way that caused me a lot of headaches by them leaving their previous role. Managers age gauged on their advancement on subordinates, so I dont buy the argument that managers tend to piegon hole engineers. If you are pigeon holled, then the company is to blame not the manager as they have not created paths for advancement. I have left several companies for that reason, but I was always loyal, just not loyal enough to ignore the writing on the wall of a company that was not focused on advancement. My advice would be to always keep control of your career and make decisions based on your control. We can do that as engineers becuase we are the commidity, and companies need our brains, not our physical output. If you are not where you want to be in your career, then in my model, you are the only one to blame.

Just my thoughts

BobPE

 

[azertyuiop]

thats why I decided to go into Consulting. As an engineer , I discovered at 30 that I had the choice of staying loyal to my company and forget the promotions , because too good in his job , or leave for yet another capped salaried job.

As a consultant ,I just behave like before , delivering a top job without going into office politics , but doesn't see my salary being capped , because I now ask for a fee , accounted in hourly rates time worked hours in the month. . . .

Of course , job security is not anymore on the horizon , but hey , I now makes three times what I did when I was thirty , already 5 years consultant , non-stop.

No problems to find another job , as long as I do what I do as I want it to be done : tip top OK or else not satisfied.

Office politics and ZEN like things are of the past , and if the client is too demanding , I raise my fee at the end of the 3 months contract shedule , because I know he wants to keep me . . .

 

[PM]

It's interesting how EngineerDave's question a framed.

The answer is None of the above.

If you study management, and you really dig deep, you find out something that might disturb some. On the other hand it might please others. Whether in capitalist or socialist economies, . . .whether in the professions or agriculture or manufacturing, . . .communication skills are always the deciding factor as a determinent for success. Ability to communicate effectively is such a powerfull skill, that it sometimes even trumps other more obvious criteria such as some noted above.

So if you have an ambition for advancement in an organization, then learn more languages, take drama classes, study creative writing and literature.

Regards,
PM

 

[cbiber]

I've seen plenty of mediocre engineers "advance" this way:

1. Screw up.
2. Let it develop into a big problem.
3. Work like crazy to fix it once you have daily 7 a.m. meetings with the VP.
4. A year later, the VP won't remember why your name sounds so familiar.

On the subject of loyalty, if engineers are treated as commodities, as I believe they are to a large extent, the loyalty is not returned by "the company". So work hard, do well, but don't be surprised when you get laid off.