engineering leadership: grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the nae...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca
Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities
Cindy Rottmann, Robin Sacks & Doug Reeve
Version Post-print/ accepted manuscript
Citation (published version)
Rottmann, C., Sacks, R., & Reeve, D. (2015). Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities. Leadership, 11(3), 351-373.
Copyright / License The Author(s) 2014
Publisher’s Statement Rottmann, C., Sacks, R., & Reeve, D. Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities. Leadership, 11(3) pp. 351-373. Copyright © [2015] (The Author(s)). Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715014543581
How to cite TSpace items
Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace
because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.
This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
![Page 2: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
EngineeringLeadership:Groundingleadershiptheoryinengineers’professionalidentitiesThisisaversion2copyofthearticle.Itdoesnotincludeallfinaledits.Forthefinalversionofthearticlealongwithpaginationandcompleteformatting,pleaseseehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715014543581Rottmann,Cindy,Sacks,Robin,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2015).Engineeringleadership:
Groundingleadershiptheoryinengineers'professionalidentities.Leadership,11(3),351-373.doi:10.1177/1742715014543581
AbstractInrecentyearstheUS-basedNationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andEngineersCanada(EC)haveurgedengineeringeducatorstosupplementtechnicalcourseworkwithmultipledomainsofprofessionalskillsdevelopment.Onesuchdomainisthatofengineeringleadership.Whileleadershipeducationisbeginningtobeinfusedintosomeundergraduateengineeringprograms,ithasnotyetgainedtractionasalegitimatefieldofstudy.Thelegitimacyofthefielddependsonengineersrecognizingthemselvesasmembersofaleadershipprofession.OurpaperfacilitatesthisprocessofrecognitionbygroundingleadershiptheoryintheprofessionalexperiencesofengineersemployedbyfourCanadianengineering-intensivefirms.Ourconstantcomparativeanalysisofqualitativedatacollectedthroughninefocusgroupsandseveninterviewssuggeststhatengineersarelargelyresistanttodominantleadershipparadigmsdrawnfromotherdisciplines,butthattheydo,infactleadinwaysthatblendkeyaspectsoftheiridentitieswithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluence.Ourcompoundmodelofengineeringleadershiphaspracticalandtheoreticalimplicationsforengineers,leadershiptheoristsandengineeringeducators.Keywords:leadership,engineering,groundedtheory,professionalidentity,resistance
Introduction:EngineeringleadershipdependsonengineersrecognizingthemselvesasleadersRecentpolicydocumentsandprogramreviewsacrossinternationaljurisdictionshaveencouragedengineeringeducatorstobridgetheschooltoworktransitionbysupplementingtechnicalcourseworkwithsocial,communicationandleadershipskillstraining(Graham,2012a,2012b;NAE,2004;Rover,2006;Wakeman,1997).WhiletheinclusionofleadershiptraininginundergraduateandgraduateengineeringprogramshasreceivedsupportfromtheUS-basedNationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andEngineersCanada(EC)(EC,2009,2012a;NAE,2004,2005),engineeringleadershipwillnottakeholdasalegitimatefieldofstudyorpracticeuntilitisacceptedandimplementedbyacriticalmassofpracticingengineers.Theacceptanceandimplementationofengineeringleadershipeducationdependsonwidespreadrecognitionofengineeringasaleadershipprofession.Currently,thereareatleastfourbarrierstothisrecognition.First,thetypicalcareertrajectoryofmostengineerstakesthemthroughfivetotenyearsoftechnicalwork
![Page 3: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
intoprojectorprocessmanagementroles(Reese,2003,2004).Forindividualswhoseloveofengineeringcomesfromtheirtechnicalproblemsolving,thesuddenshifttoresolving“peopleproblems”canfeelbothuncomfortableandun-engineer-like(Reeve,Sacks,Rottmann,Daniels,&Wray,2013).Second,engineerswhoholdatraditional,hierarchicalviewofleadershipmayexperiencethephenomenonasinconsistentwiththeegalitarian,team-basednormsoftheirdiscipline(Breaux,2006;Graham,2012a).Third,thesomewhatamorphousterm“leadership”doesnotalwaysresonatewithmembersofanoccupationalgroupwhosereputationshingeontheirtechnicalprecision(Gopakumar,Dysart-Gale,&Akgunduz,2013;McGrath,2010).Finally,whenfacultiesofengineeringsupportleadershipprimarilythroughoptional,extracurricularinvolvement(Alajek,Ham,Murdock,&Verrett,2013;McGrath,2010),acriticalmassofstudentsmayviewitasperipheraltothecorecurriculum.Fortunately,thestoryisnotalldoomandgloom.Thesefourbarriersaresurmountablesolongasthreeconditionsaremet:First,engineeringstudentsmustbesocializedtothinkoftheirdisciplineaslegitimatelyhavingbothtechnicalandhumanisticelements(CEAB,2008;EC,2009;NAE,2004).Second,engineersmustbeexposedtoleadershipeducationthatforcesthemtounpacksimplistic,traditionalorhierarchicalnotionsofleadership(Baranowski,2011;Foster&Sheridan,2013;Grasso&Martinelli,2007;Harris,1989)andthird,engineeringleadershipmustbemoreclearlydefinedonthebasisofengineers’professionalexperiences(Andrews&Farris,1967;Reeve,2010;Reeveetal.,2013).ThefirstoftheseconditionswassetintomotionadecadeagobytheNAEthroughTheEngineerof2020:VisionsofEngineeringinthenewCentury(NAE,2004).Thesecondisbeginningtotakeholdinfacultiesofengineeringacrossinternationaljurisdictionsthroughseedgrants,industrysupportandfacultyinitiatives(Hsiao,2013;NAE,2005,2013;Pitts,Klosterman,&McGonagle,2013;Polito&Martinich,2008;Simpson,Evans,&Reeve,2012).Thethirdoftheseconditions—generatingaclear,empiricallybasedconceptionofengineeringleadershipderivedfromtheactualworkexperiencesofengineers—hasnotyetbeenaddressed.Ourpaperfillsthisgap.Inparticular,weanswerthefollowingresearchquestion:Howdoengineersconceptualizeleadershiponthebasisoftheirprofessionalexperiencesinengineering-intensivefirms?Webeginbybrieflyreviewingtheliteratureonengineeringleadershipanddescribingourgroundedtheorymethodology.Next,wepresentourfindingsandillustratethemthroughatheoreticalmodelconnectingengineeringidentity,traditionalnotionsofleadership,resistance,professionallyrecognizedmodesofinfluenceandthreecompoundengineeringleadershiporientations.Finally,wecomparethesefindingstolong-standingleadershiptheoriesandidentifyimplicationsofourstudyforleadershipresearchers,engineeringeducatorsandseniorengineersworkinginindustry.
LiteraturereviewThereisasmallbutgrowingbodyofliteratureintheemergingfieldofengineeringleadership,muchofitlocatedwithinthelargerfieldofengineeringeducation,and
![Page 4: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
mostofitpublishedwithinthelastdecade.Theearliesttextsconstitutecallsforreforminengineeringeducation.Thesewerefollowedcloselybyengineeringleadershipprogramdescriptions.Outsidethefieldofengineeringeducation,mainstreamleadershiptheorieshavebeenappliedtoengineers’work.Thethreemostcommonsourcesareengineeringeducationconferenceproceedings,LeadershipandManagementinEngineeringandtheJournalofEngineeringEducation.Beforepresentingourfindings,webrieflyreviewthisbodyofliterature.Callsforreformhavecomefromnationalengineeringorganizations(EC,2009,2012b;NAE,2004,2005,2012,2013)aswellasfromprofessionalengineersthemselves(Baranowski,2011;Bonasso,2001;Cassin,2003;Flowers,2002;Ivey,2002;Kalonji,2005;Katehi,2005;King,2012;Kirschenman,2011;Mawson,2001;Pierson,2013;Reeve,2010;Vest,2005).Thesecallsarebasedontwocomplementary,butdistinct,rationales.TherationalefirstarticulatedbytheNAEenlistsaglobalcompetitionargument—theUnitedStateswillfallbehindothernationsifgraduatesofengineeringprogramsareexclusivelytrainedintechnicalproblemsolving.Stateddifferently,globalmobilityandcompetitionresultingfromincreasinglytransnationaleconomiesdemandthatNorthAmericanengineersleadcross-cultural,inter-disciplinaryteamsandrespondtoarangeofstakeholderconcerns.Theycannotdothiswithoutmergingthehumanisticandtechnicalelementsoftheirprofession.Arelatedrationaleformergingtechnicalandhumanisticaspectsofengineeringisrootedintheideaofprofessionalservice(Bonasso,2001;Cassin,2003;Grasso&Martinelli,2007;Hill,Lorenz,Dent,&Lutzkendorf,2013;Mawson,2001;Pierson,2013;Vallero,2008;Wakeman,1997).Thislineofthinkingsuggeststhatitistheprofessionalresponsibilityofengineerstotakeleadershiprolesininfrastructuredevelopment,publicsafety,environmentalsustainabilityandcommunitybuilding.Theymustnotonlysolveotherpeople’sproblemsaccuratelyandefficiently,butmustalsousetheirknowledge,trainingandexpertisetoethicallyframetheseproblemsforthemselvesandfortheirprofession.TheNAE’scallsforreformhavebeentakenupandimplementedbymanyfacultiesofengineering(Seeforexample,Athreyaetal.,2010;Bayless,2013;Cain&Cocco,2013;Ellis&Petersen,2011;Froyd,2005;Ha,2013;Hsiao,2013;Kerns,Miller,&Kerns,2005;Kumar&Hsiao,2007;McCuen,1999;NAE,2005;Osagiede,FarmerCox,&Ahn,2013;Pittsetal.,2013;Simpsonetal.,2012;Strong&Frank,2013)resultinginanamazingrangeofdeliveryoptionsandprogramelements.Engineeringleadershipeducationiscurrentlyofferedthroughself-containedprograms,stand-alonecourses,co-curricularofferings,multi-yearteamprojects,servicelearningopportunities,problem-basedlearning,coaching,mentorship,inter-disciplinaryteamprojects,professionallearningcommunities,industry-sponsored“grandchallenges”andinstitutionalcooperationbetweentwoormoreuniversityfaculties.Thegrowingnumberofconferencepresentationsandjournalarticlesonengineeringleadershipeducationisimpressive,buttheyaregenerallylimitedtoauthors’promotionaldescriptionsoftheirownprograms.Theoneexceptiontothistrendisalarge-scalereviewof40internationalengineeringleadershipprograms(Graham,2012a,2012b;Graham,Crawley,&Mendelsohn,2009).Grahamandher
![Page 5: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
colleagues’centralfindingwasthatengineeringleadershipprogramswereprevalentbutinsufficientlysystemic—piecemeal,isolatedandlackingininstitutionalsupport.Studiesofengineeringleadershipintheworkplacearelessprevalent,butmoreoftenempiricallybasedthanengineeringeducationprogramdescriptions.Someresearchersfocusonthedistinctleadershipneedsofemployersinspecificindustriessuchashigh-riskworkplaces(Martines-Corcoles,Gracia,Tomas,Peiro,&Schobel,2013;Slates,2008;Snowball&Travers,2012),publicworks(Singh&Jampel,2011)andthemilitary(Flowers,2002;Locurcio&Mitvalsky,2002),whileothersapplytraditionalleadershiptheorytoasubsetoftheengineeringworkforce.Researchstudiesandprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsframedusingtransformationalleadership(Breaux,2006),servantleadership(Croft,Winkelman,Boisvert,&Patten,2013),selfleadership(Colcleugh&Reeve,2013;Porter,1993)andauthorityleadership(Ning,Zhou,Lu,&Wen,2012;Zhou&Liu,2011)aidinter-disciplinarycomparisonsofleaders,buttheydisadvantageengineersbymeasuringthemagainststandardssetbyresearchersfamiliarwithotherdisciplinarynorms.Thethreeauthorswhohavecomeclosesttoconceptualizing“engineeringleadership”inananalyticallyclearmannerareFarr,MalletteandRobledo(Farr&Brazil,2009;Farr,Walesh,&Forsythe,1997;Mallette,2005;Robledo,Peterson,&Mumford,2012).Farrandhiscolleaguesidentifyninekeyleadershipqualitiesrelevanttoengineers—bigthinker,ethicalandcourageous,masterschange,risktaker,missionthatmatters,decision-maker,usespowerwisely,teambuilderandgoodcommunicator;Mallette(2005)drawson30yearsofexperienceintheaerospaceindustrytoconstructaleadershipstylebestsuitedtothemanagementofengineers;andRobledo,Peterson&Mumford(2012)proposeathree-vectormodelofleadershiptoaccommodatethecreativeworkofscientistsandengineers.Farr,MalletteandRobledohavelaidthenecessarygroundworkforadiscipline-specifictheoryofengineeringleadership,buttheytendtofocusonhowbesttoleadengineers,nothowengineerslead.Ourbriefreviewoftheliteraturesuggeststhatthereisagrowingbodyofknowledgeonengineeringleadership,butthatthisknowledgeislimitedbyaneditorialratherthanempiricalapproachtoprogramevaluation,adescriptiveratherthananalytictreatmentofdataandexcessiveattentiontothemanagementofengineers.Asignificantconceptualgapremains.Inpart,thisgaparisesfromourculturalfamiliaritywiththeword“leadership.”Weallknowwhatwemeanwhenweusethetermandmostofuscanidentifyaliving,breathingspecimen.Unfortunately,thecross-culturalprevalenceofthewordcausesustoskipovertheimportantworkofdefiningit.Engineeringleadershiphasbeenadvocatedfor,implementedinuniversitiesandevaluatedagainsttraditionalleadershipstandards,butithasyettobedefined.Ourpaperreturnstotheconceptualstartingpoint—thatis,weexaminewhatconstitutesengineeringleadershipfromtheperspectivesofengineersworkinginfourCanadianengineering-intensiveorganizations.
![Page 6: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
Methodology:GroundedTheoryThispaperaddressesthefirstofthreeresearchquestionsdrivingalargermixed-methodstudyofengineeringleadership—“Howdoengineersconceptualizeleadership?”Thepaucityofresearchonengineeringleadershipshapedourdecisiontoemployagroundedtheory(Glaser&Strauss,1967)approachtodatacollectionandanalysisforourinitialqualitativephase.Firstproposedin1967byGlaserandStrauss,theintentofgroundedtheoryistogenerateanintegratedsetofconceptsthatdescribesandexplainscomplexsocialphenomenaincontext.Inthe46yearssinceitwasfirstintroduced,therehavebeenmanyepistemologicalandproceduralsplitsbetweenGlaser,Straussandtheirrespectivefollowers.Fortunately,afewcoreideasremainintact—datacollectionanddataanalysisoccursimultaneously(Glaser&Strauss,1967);dataanalysisoccursthroughaniterativeprocessreferredtoas“constantcomparison”(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965;Glaser&Strauss,1967);codingisthefundamentalanalyticprocess(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser&Strauss,1967);conceptsarethebasicunitsofanalysis(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser&Strauss,1967);samplingproceedsontheoreticalgroundsandcontinuesuntilallconceptsreachthepointoftheoreticalsaturation(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965;Glaser&Strauss,1967)andthefinaltheoryisjudgedbyfit,relevance,workabilityandmodifiability(Glaser&Strauss,1967)ratherthantruthvalue,validityorreliability.Oursamplingandanalyticaldecisionsweredrivenbyeachofthesecorecriteria.Ourinitialsiteselectionstrategycombinedconvenience,purposiveand(Miles&Huberman,1994)theoretical(Glaser,1978,2013;Glaser&Strauss,1967)sampling.WebeganbygeneratingalistofengineeringintensivefirmsinthegreaterToronto(Ontario,Canada)areaandassigningapointvalueforeachofourpurposiveandconveniencecriteria.Purposivecriteriaincludedengineeringconcentration,commitmenttoleadershipdevelopmentandacrosssectionofengineeringdisciplines.Ourconveniencecriteriaincludedgeographicalproximity,institutionaltiestotheUniversityofTorontoandmemberofourorganizationalnetwork.TheseniormemberofourteamcontactedtheChiefExecutiveOfficerofhighscoringorganizationsandpitchedourresearchproposal.Fourengineering-intensiveorganizationsinfourdistinctindustrysectors—chemical,civilconsulting,software,mining&metalprocessing—metourcriteriaandconsentedtoparticipateinthestudy.Allfourcompanieshaveinternationaloffices;however,weexclusivelysampledstaffworkingintwoCanadianprovinces—OntarioandQuebec.TheCanadianofficesofthetwosmallercompaniesemployedapproximately400people,whilethoseofthetwolargercompaniesemployedapproximately4000people.Theoreticalsamplingcontinuedthroughouttheanalyticprocessaswesoughtoutnewgroupsofengineerstofillconceptualgaps.WhileourdecisiontofocusonCanadianorganizationswasprimarilyaproductofconvenience,webelievethereisvalueinexaminingengineeringleadershipinthisnationalcontext.Canadaisarelativelydecentralized,middle-powergeo-politicalentitythathasbecomeincreasinglysubjecttoandincreasinglyabletotake
![Page 7: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
advantageofglobalpolicies,legislationsandreformmovements.AssignatoriesoftheWashingtonAccord(1989)—aninternationalengineeringeducationaccreditationagreement—Canadianengineershaveenteredaneraofglobalaccreditationstandards(Gopakumaretal.,2013;Sweeney,2005).AstrongindicationofthisinfluenceisthecongruencebetweentheCanadianEngineeringAccreditationBoardgraduateattributes(CEAB,2008,2012;EC,2012b)andthosegeneratedbytheAmericanAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTechnology(ABET,2011).Internationallyharmonizededucationstandardsaside,engineersinCanadafallunderprovincialjurisdictionandthuscontinuetoexertprofessionalautonomyatamorelocallevel(PEO,2013).OurresearchonengineeringleadershipinaCanadiancontextallowsustoexaminehowaparticularglobalreformideatargetinghighereducation—engineeringleadership—haslandedinaprovincialcontextwhereleadershiphasnotyetbeenfullyacceptedasakeycomponentofengineers’professionalidentities.Todate,wehaveconducted9focusgroupsand7interviewswithjuniorengineers,seniorengineersandHumanResourceprofessionalsworkinginfourengineering-intensivefirms.Focusgroupsandinterviewswereaudiotapedwithpermissionandtranscribedverbatimyielding721pagesofqualitativedata.Ourdecisiontoconductfocusgroupsemergedfromourinterestindiscoveringengineers’leadershipdiscourses.Preliminaryanalysisofthefirstthreefocusgroupstaughtusthatmanyengineersresistedtheideaofleadershipbecausetheyfoundittobeinconsistentwiththeirprofessionalidentitiesasengineers.Weattemptedtosidesteptheirresistanceinfuturefocusgroupsbyaskingthemtoplayaskill/attributesortcardgamewiththeideaofprofessionalsuccessinmind.Ouranalysisofthisactivityandthefollow-uplineofquestioningaboutinfluentialcolleaguesallowedustoconceptualizethreedistinctengineeringleadershiporientations.Wepresentedourpreliminaryfindingstorepresentativesfromeachofthefourorganizationsatacommunityofpracticeconferenceandincorporatedtheirfeedbackintofutureiterationsofouremergingengineeringleadershiptheory.Withthispreliminarytheoryinmind,webegantoorganizationallycontextualizeourfindingsthroughkeyinformantinterviewswithHumanResourceProfessionalsateachofthefourorganizations.Wealsoconductedanadditionalfocusgroupwithengineeringentrepreneurstotestourinitialfindingofresistance.Ateachstageofdatacollection,weanalyzedtranscriptsusingacombinationofopen,axial,selectiveandtheoreticalcoding(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965,2013;Hernandez,2009;LaRossa,2005).Opencodinginvolvedlabelingeverylineofeverytranscriptwithoneormoreconceptuallymeaningful“codes,”groupingsimilarcodesintocategories,iterativelycomparingsimilarcategorieswithadditionaldataandmarkingdistinctionswithsub-categories.Ouruseofthe“constantcomparative”method(Glaser,1965)enabledustosortdataonaconceptualbasisanditerativelyrevisecodenamessotheyreflectedparticipants’experiences.Eventually,ourconceptualrevisionprocessdeceleratedwitheachnewdatasource.Thisearlysignofdatasaturationcausedustoshiftourattentiontoaxialcoding.WefollowedCorbinandStrauss’(1990)protocolforaxialcodingby
![Page 8: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
hypothesizingtheconditions,contexts,actionsandconsequencesshapingeachcategoryandsub-category.Asourprocessofrevisinghypothesestoaccommodatenewdatadecelerated,weturnedourattentiontoselectiveandtheoreticalcoding.Selectivecodinginvolvedlimitingouranalysistoakeyanalyticcodeanditsrelatedsub-categorieswhiletheoreticalcodinginvolvedthreadingtogetheractors’perspectivesaboutthiskeyconcepttogenerateanexperientiallygroundedtheoreticalmodel.
FindingI:Leadershipisnotus!Ausefulpointofdepartureforgroundedtheoristsistoaskwhatproblemorproblemsactorsaregrapplingwithinrelationtoresearchers’phenomenaofinterest(Glaser,2004;LaRossa,2005).Ourphenomenonofinterestisengineeringleadership.Unfortunately,aswebegantoconductfocusgroupsandanalyzetranscripts,itbecamecleartousthatthemajorityofengineersinoursamplefoundleadershiptobeimprecise,impractical,elitistandjust“notus.”Thequotationbelowillustratesseveralofthesedimensions:
Theconnotationthatthisword[leadership]carriesissortofantitheticaltotheengineeringmind-setfrommypointofview.Forexample,thenotionofstandingontopofahill,wavingtheflag,sittingonyourhorsewiththepeasantsbehindyoucarryingtheir[pitch]forksistheexactoppositeofanythingIpersonallyoranyoneIknowwantstodo.
Implicitinparticipants’multi-dimensionalresistancewasanelementofcognitivedissonancebetweentheirprofessionalidentitiesasengineersandtheirviewsofleadershipasantitheticaltothesestronglyheldidentities.Pleaseseetableoneforalistofengineers’keyidentityfeaturesandtheirtraditionalnotionsofleadership.Table1:MismatchbetweenEngineers’identities&traditionalnotionsofleadership Engineers’professionalidentities TraditionalnotionsofleadershipKeyfeatures/Dimensions
AppliedscientistServiceprofessionalTeamworkTechnicalproblemsolverTask-orienteddoerProcessoptimizers
CharismaticvisionaryPositionalinfluenceattopofhierarchy“Greatman”—anagenticindividualSolvespeopleproblemsDelegatorChangeagent
Whenweanalyzedthetensionsbetweenengineers’identityfeaturesandtheirconceptionsofleadership,wefoundsixprofessionallyspecificdimensionsofresistance.First,thestrategicplansofcharismaticvisionariesseemedimpreciseandimpracticaltoappliedscientists.Second,hierarchicalnotionsofleadershipfeltuncomfortableandelitisttoengineerswhodefinedthemselvesasserviceprofessionals.Third,theindividualismimplicitin“greatman”theoriesofleadershipcontrastedwiththecollaborativenatureofengineers’daytodaywork.Fourth,engineerswhodependonrationalityandobjectivedatatosolvetechnicalproblemsfeltunpreparedtoresolvethehighlysubjectiveandoftenemotionalpeopleproblemsfacedbymostmanagers.Fifth,engineerswhopridedthemselvesonbeingtask-
![Page 9: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
oriented“doers”tendedtohavelimitedrespectformanagerswhodelegatedtaskstoothers.Finally,engineersdedicatedtooptimizingaparticularproductorprocessstruggledtokeepupwiththeiriterativeworkwheninternalchangeagentskeptrestructuringtheorderofthings.Thesesixdimensionsofresistancesuggestthatengineers’expertiseandcoreidentityfeatures—appliedscientist,serviceprofessional,teamplayer,technicalproblemsolver,taskorienteddoer,andprocessoptimizer—findlittlespaceforexpressionintraditionalperformancesofleadership.Ourfindingofwidespreadresistanceposedaproblem.Howcouldwestudythephenomenonof“engineeringleadership”fromtheperspectiveofengineerswhensomanyengineersexperienced“engineering”and“leadership”asincompatibleterms?Weaddressedthischallengebynotingthatparticipant’s“theoriesinuse”differedfromtheir“espousedtheories”(Argyris&Schon,1974)ofengineeringleadership.Thatis,whiletheyespousedthebeliefthatengineeringwasinconsistentwiththeideaofleadership,theyeasilyrecalledexamplesofinfluentialengineeringcolleaguesleadingintheirworkplaces.Statedmoresuccinctly,acriticalmassofengineersdismissedtheideaof“engineeringleadership”inthesamebreathastheytoldusstoriesaboutengineerleaders.Theirstoriessuggestthatengineeringpracticeinvolvesprofessionallylegitimateformsofinfluencewhetherornotengineersself-identifyas“leaders.”Ouropencodingprocesshelpedusidentifythreewaysinwhichengineerslead.
Finding2:ThreeorientationstoengineeringleadershipParticipants’experientiallyinformedstoriesrevealedtheworkplacerealitythatwhileengineersmayresisttheideaofleadership,theydo,infact,lead.Engineersinallfouroftheorganizationswestudiedledinatleastthreeways.Theysharedtheirwell-developedtechnicalproblemsolvingskillswithothersthroughinformalmentorship—technicalmastery;theybuilteffectiveandefficientteamsacrossorganizationalunitsbylearningaboutandleveragingtheircolleagues’strengths—collaborativeoptimizationandtheyusedentrepreneurialthinkingtobringtechnicallysoundideastomarket—organizationalinnovation.Werefertothesethreedistinctconceptionsofengineeringleadershipasorientationstohighlighttheirdevelopmentalratherthandeterministicnature.Pleaseseetabletwoforasummaryofthesefindings.Table2:ThreeOrientationstoEngineeringLeadership TechnicalMastery Collaborative
OptimizationOrganizationalInnovation
Briefdescription
Technicalexpertisepassedonthroughinformaladviceandmentorship.
Skilledfacilitationofgroupprocesswithaneyetoquality,efficiencyandengagement.
Visionaryrealizationofpractical,entrepreneurialandintrepreneurialideas.
Who? Theengineeryoumostoftengotowithyourtechnicalquestions
Theengineerwhobuildshighperformingteamsbybringingoutthebestineveryone
Theengineerwhosecreativeideasdrivethecompany
![Page 10: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
Keyfeatures-Technical
TechnicalexpertiseSubjectmatterspecialist;skilledapplicationofscience;highlevelpatternrecognition;creativeanddetailedanalysisoftechnicalproblems
ProcessoptimizationInterdisciplinarytechnicalgeneralist;skilledatmatchingprojectobjectives,teammemberskillsandresources;balancesqualityandefficiency
InnovationIndustryknowledge;critical,“outsidethebox”thinker;takescalculatedrisksandlearnsfrommistakes;developspatentsandpublications;problemposing
Keyfeatures-Influence
MentorshipCoachesjuniorandseniorengineers;listenstoandunderstandsothers’questions;clearlyexplainscomplexproblemstoarangeofaudiences;“go-to”technicalresourcefororganization
TeamCatalystFacilitatesinterdependence;fostersgrowththroughcriticalfeedback;helpsteamadapttochangeandconflict;inspiresandmotivatesteammembers;leveragescolleagues’strengths
RealizationAnticipatestrendandplansstrategically;changeagent(intrepreneur);establishesstartups(entrepreneur);implementsideastobenefitclientsandrespondtomarkettrends
Primarylevelofinfluence
Dyad Team/Department Organization
Jobsatisfactionderivedfrom
Lifelonghoningofcraft Extensiveprofessionalnetworks
Realizedvisions
Organizationalbenefits
Buildsclienttrustandmarket-sharethroughstrongtechnicalreputation;buildsorganizationalcapacityforproblemsolving;fostersorganization-widelearningthroughinformalapprenticeshipsystem
Reducedtimespentdealingwithmicro-politicaltensions;satisfiedemployeesworkingtotheirpotential;improvedrelationshipsbetweengeographicallydisparateoffices
Diffusionofacreative,start-upethosacrosstheorganization;organizationbecomesincreasinglyresponsivetotechnicalandeconomictrends;jobcreation;institutionalizationofnewtechnologies
TechnicalMasteryParticipantsconsistentlyspokewithgreatadmirationabouttheengineersintheirworkplaceswhowereskilledatsolvingtechnicallychallengingproblems,especiallywhenthesecolleagueswereknowntosupportothers.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationastechnicalmastery.Dimensionsoftechnicalmasteryinclude:subject-matterexpertise;integrated,holisticapplicationofmathematicalandscientifictheory;creative,dynamicproblemsolving;secondnaturepatternrecognition/thinkinginpatterns;confidenceintheirowntechnicalcompetence;peer-recognizedexpertiseandtheabilitytocomprehendcolleagues’questions,clarifytheirconfusionandsupporttheirgrowththroughformalandinformalmentorshipresponsibilities.Participantsfromallfourorganizationsdescribedtheimplicitcollegialnominationprocessusedtoidentifyindividualswiththisleadershiporientation:
Leadershipisoftenimplicit,andyouwillbeimplicitlychosenbyyourpeers…Inateam,youaregoingtohavesomebodywhojustkindofemerges…therealleaderwheretherubbermeetstheroadisyourtechlead.
![Page 11: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
Weconceptualizedthisorientationastechnicalmasterybecauseofthequalitativedistinctionbetweenintegratedproblemsolvingexpertiseandtheotherwisesuccessfulapplicationofknowledge,proceduresandtoolsdemonstratedbymanyexperiencedengineers.Oneparticipantmadeausefulchessanalogy:
Iwilltrytouseananalogy…playingchess.Mostpeoplelearntoplaychessinmoreorlessthesameway.Youlearnaboutthewaythatthepiecesmoveandthenyoulearnaboutthepointvaluesofthepieces…Amasterdoesn’tplaychessthatway.Amasterseestheboardasacollectionofimbalancesbetweentwoveryevenlymatchedsides…thesearefeaturesthattheamateurchessplayercan’tperceiveatall.Theygetthatonlythroughyearsandyearsofplay.Tryingtobringthisbacktotherealtopicofdiscussionhere,typicallyundergraduates…[are]stillthinkinginchesstacticsformatof“hey,thisideawouldbegoodbecauseofthesespecifictacticalconsiderations,”buttheycan’tseethebroaderpatternofwhatisgoingonintheworldtosay,“myvisionistherightvision,notjustbecauseIthinkit’sagoodidea,butbecauseitmatchesthestateofplayoftheboard.”
Engineersidentifiedbytheircolleaguesas“go-to”technicalspecialistsintheirorganizationsnotonlyknewhowtouseengineeringtoolsinareliablemanner;theywerealsoabletocreativelysynthesizeallrelevantcontextualfactorsbeforesolvingcomplexproblems.Asanengineeringleadershiporientation,Technicalmasteryintegrateselementsofmentorship,coachingandcommunicationwithhighlevelcomputational,patternrecognitionandcreativeproblemsolvingskills.Engineers,whoarestronglyorientedtothetechnicalelementsoftheirjobsandhavebeenrecognizedbyothersascompetentinthisrealm,leadbyinspiringcolleaguestosethighstandardsfortechnicalproblemsolving.Beyondthisinspirationalrole,theyleadthroughformalandinformalmentorshipresponsibilities.Informally,theyfunctionastranslatorsofcomplexconceptsandcoachesforjuniorengineerswhoneedhelptrouble-shooting.Formally,theyareoftenpromotedto“TechLead”positions,calledupontocoachjuniorengineersthroughorganizationallyimplementedmentorshipprogramsandinvitedtoexplaincomplextechnicalconceptstoclientswithnon-engineeringbackgrounds.Whiletechnicalmasteryprimarilytakesplaceattheindividualanddyadiclevel,amultiplicationofdyadicinteractionsbetweenhighlyskilledproblemsolversandnoviceengineerscanaccelerateorganizationallearninginapractical,project-specificwaythatmirrorsanapprenticeshipmodel,wherebytheapprenticehasmultipleformalandinformalguides.Individualswhoembodythisorientationgainjobsatisfactionfromthelife-longhoningoftheircraftwhiletheirorganizationsbenefitfromenhancedorganizationallearningsystemsandanexemplarytechnicalreputationamongindustryleaders.
CollaborativeOptimizationCollaborativeoptimizationwasthemostregularlycharacterizedleadershiporientationacrossthefourorganizationswestudied.Individualswhoembodied
![Page 12: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
thisorientationtendedtobuildandcatalyzehighperformingteamsbybringingoutthebestineveryone.Theprevalenceofthisorientationreflectsthecentralityofteamworkinengineering-intensiveorganizations.
Themajorityofengineersinanengineeringcompanyareworkinginteams.Noonepersoncanunderstandeverythingaboutasystem,youneedthepeoplewhoarespecialistsinpipelinedesign,electricalengineering—andevenwithinelectricalengineeringyouhavesomanydifferentfacetsofit,soteamworkissomethingthatiscrucialtoourengineeringeducationandthathelpsdevelopgreatleaders.
Theneedforeffectiveteamleadershiparisesbecausenoindividualspecialist,regardlessofhisorhercompetence,canindependentlydeliveralargeproject.Rather,inter-disciplinaryteamsassembledandfacilitatedbymid-careerandseniorengineersfunctionastheprimaryvehiclesofproductandprocessdeliveryinengineering-intensivefirms.Thedimensionsofcollaborativeoptimizationinclude:facilitatinginterdependence;optimizingteamprocess;motivatingandenablingothers;balancingquality,efficiencyandengagement;buildingbridgesacrossorganizationalunits;leveragingteammembers’strengths;skilfullyassemblinginter-disciplinaryteams;exhibitingorganizationalsavvy;managingconflictthroughcollegialcommunication;collectiveproblemsolving;sharedresponsibility;self-organizingsystemsandtheestablishmentoffeedbacknetworks.Thetwoquotationsbelowillustratethesedimensions—thefirstforegroundinganindividualcatalystwithinateamcontext,andtheseconddescribinganorganizationallyinfusedmentalityofsharedresponsibility:
Leadershiptometoday,atleastinsideof[XX],ismoreaboutbeinganefficientcomponentofaself-organizingsystem…Ifyouthrowmeintooneofthesesystems,Iamnotgoingtobecometheleaderofthepack,butIamgoingtomakeitworkbetter…whathappenstomepersonallyisthatIgetthrownintomoreandmoreexcitingpacks.It’slike[mycolleagues]knowthatwhenever[Iam]inoneofthesegroups,[I]willmakeitworksomuchbetter.Whenthereisaproblemandsomethinggoeswrong,everyonestepsupandsays,“howcanwehelptofixit?”Thathappensallofthetimehere.It’sneveracaseof,“that’snotmyproblem.”
Engineerswhoareknownforassemblinghigh-performanceinter-disciplinaryteamsbyleveragingthestrengthsoftheircolleaguesmostcloselyresembletheidealofengineeringleadershipdescribedbytheNAE(2004).Thatis,theyskilfullystrikeabalancebetweenthehumanisticandtechnicalaspectsoftheprofession.Theseengineersmayoccupyformalpositionsasteamleadersortheymaysimplybeknownascatalystsforeffectiveself-organizingteams,butinallcases,theypositivelyimpacttheorganizationalculture.Thesecondquotationsuggeststhattheorganizationalcultureitselfmaybeapowerfulsourceofgroupinfluence.Inthis
![Page 13: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
way,thecollaborativeoptimizationorientationtoengineeringleadershipisnotonlyapropertyofindividualcatalysts,butalsoacollectivepropertyofgroupsandorganizations(Ogawa&Bossert,1995).Engineerswhoembodyacollaborativeoptimizationleadershiporientationderivejobsatisfactionfromextensiveprofessionalnetworksandhighqualityprojectdelivery,whiletheirorganizationsbenefitfromproductive,collegialrelationshipsbetweenemployees.
OrganizationalInnovationFinally,engineersinallfourorganizationsspokeaboutcolleaguesandsenioradministratorswhousedentrepreneurialthinkingtobringtechnicallyandscientificallysoundideastopracticeandtomarket.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationasorganizationalinnovation.Engineerswithanorganizationalinnovationorientationtoleadershiparesimilartoentrepreneursandintrepreneurs1inotherdisciplines,buttheyaremorelikelytoanchortheirideasintechnology(softwareplatforms,chemicalprocesses,structuralconsultingpractices,sustainableminingprocessesandotherconcrete,materialsystems).Participantswithrelativelylonginstitutionalmemoriesatallfourorganizationsspokewithgreatrespectaboutchiefexecutiveofficers,directorsandotherseniorengineeringleaderswhohadplantedatechnicalseedandnurturedtheresultingproduct,processorpatentfromthegroundup.Inmanycases,asillustratedbythequotationbelow,theyoperationalizedideasthroughstart-upsandgrewstart-upsintolargerorganizations:
Honestly,inthecaseofasmallcompanythatgrewlikethis,Ifeelitisafunctionoftheinitialingredients.Itisreallythecultureestablishedbythefirstcoupleofpeoplehere.
Whileourrecentsurveyresultssuggestthatorganizationalinnovationismostprevalentatthelatterstagesofone’scareer,thisleadershiporientationisnottheexclusivepropertyofengineersatthetopoftheorganizationalhierarchy.Juniorandintermediateengineersinallfourorganizations,aswellasengineersofallagesandstagesinourentrepreneurfocusgroupfoundwaystoinfluenceorganizationalpracticesbyrepeatedlychallengingthestandardviewonarangeofissues.Thedimensionsoforganizationalinnovationemergingfromourdataanalysisprocessinclude:operationalizinginnovativeideas;systemplanning;establishingorganizationalculturebyexample;bigpicturethinking;problemposing;thinkingoutsidethebox;realizingavision;institutionalizingbestpractices;takingrisks;learningfromfailure;foundingstart-ups;persuadingotherstofollow;catalyzingchange;marketsavvyandidentifyingopportunities.Thedimensionsofproblemposing,thinkingoutsidetheboxandidentifyingopportunitiesareillustratedbythequotationbelow:1Manyengineersworkwithinexistingorganizationstoinnovateorintroducechangefromwithin—apracticereferredtoinsomeengineeringandbusinessjournalsas“intrepreneurship”(seeforexample,Hanifin,Lee,Weaver,Bloemer,&Fry,2013).
![Page 14: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
ColleagueswhoIperceiveaseffectiveoftenhaveabroaderpictureofwhatisgoingon,sotheyknowtheyaresolvingtherightproblemsasopposedtojustdoingthebestjobsolvingthisproblem.Youmightcallthatsortofarenaissanceengineer.
Engineerswithanorganizationalinnovationorientationtoleadershipderivedcareersatisfactionfromrealizingtheirvisionsonalargerscalethanwouldhavebeenpossiblethroughindividualproblemsolving.Beyondjobsatisfaction,theybenefitedtheirorganizationsandsocietybyinstitutionalizingandproducingnewtechnologiesandprocesses,establishingpatentsandcreatingjobsfortechnicalprofessionals.
Finding3:ReconsideringthecentralityofresistanceManyofourfocusgroupparticipantswhoresistedthenotionofengineeringleadershiprationalizedtheirresistancebysuggestingthatitwasnotanengineer’sjobtoidentifyproblems.Rather,itwashisorherresponsibilitytosolveproblemsidentifiedbyothers.Incontrasttothelargemajorityofengineerswhoexpressedthisview,thosewhoself-identifiedorwereidentifiedbyothersasinnovatorsattheorganizationallevelexpandedthepermissiblerangeofengineeringinfluencebeyondtechnicalproblemsolving.Theengineerswhoinhabitedthisexpandedroleweremorelikelythantheircolleaguestoaccept,andinsomecasesevenpromote,theideaofengineeringasaleadershipprofession:
Theriskofnottalkingaboutleadership…mighthave…consequences.Iwouldreallywanttoseemoreengineersrunningourcityorrunningourfinancialinstitutionsorpartsofourgovernment,justbecauseofthetechnicalabilityandalloftheotherproblemsolving,criticalthinking,etc…Idon’tknowhowyoudoitwithoutusingeitherthewordleadershiporconceptslikethat.
Thefocusgroupparticipants—mostlyentrepreneurs—whoseperspectivesalignedwiththesentimentsexpressedintheabovequotationwereleastlikelytoespousetraditional“greatman”theoriesofleadership.Rather,theyspokeofengineeringleadersascoaches,publicservants,inventorsandorganizationalcapacitybuilders.Theirexperiences,identitiesandperspectivesforcedustoreviseouremergenttheoryofengineeringleadershipsothatitnolongerdependedonresistanceasauniversalcondition.Wepresentthispreliminarytheoryinthenextsection.
Theorizing&ModelingEngineeringLeadershipIncontrasttoexperimentalstudiesinwhichtheoriesandhypothesesareempiricallytested,groundedtheoriesareempiricallyanditerativelygenerated.Ourtheoryofengineeringleadershipgroundedintheexperiencesandperspectivesofengineersandhumanresourceprofessionalsemployedbyfourengineering-intensiveorganizationsisschematicallyrepresentedbyFigure1.
![Page 15: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
Ourfigurehighlightsthecentralityoftwovariables—engineers’professionalidentitiesandtheirconceptionsofleadership—totheiracceptanceorrejectionofaleadershipidentity.Whenthisidentityiscombinedwithtraditionalconceptionsofleadership(leftbranch),engineerstendtoresistidentifyingthemselvesortheircolleaguesasleaders.Whenthisidentityiscombinedwithalternative,professionallymeaningfulconceptionsofleadership(rightbranch),theytendtoembrace,oratleastaccept,theideaofan“engineeringleader.”Thatis,without
Engineering identity
Traditional notions of leadership
Resistance to leadership
Professionally-recognized forms of influence
Compound professional identity:engineering leader
Three orientations to engineering leadership
TechnicalMastery
CollaborativeOptimization
OrganizationalInnovation
Figure 1Engineering leadership: the emergence of a compound professional identity
+
(technical expertise+ mentorship)
(process optimization+ team catalyst)
(innovation+ realization)
Conceptions of leadership
![Page 16: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
mergingtwoelements—engineeringidentityandprofessionallyrelevantformsofinfluence—engineersarelikelytoresistleadershipforthemselvesandfortheircolleagues.Solongasthesetwokeyelementsaremerged,engineersarewillingandabletoacceptleadershipasalegitimateaspectoftheirwork.Thecompoundidentitiesdepictedonelayerdownontherightbranchmergeaspectsofengineers’professionalidentities—technicalexpertise,processoptimizationandinnovation—withthreeprofessionally-relevantmodesofinfluence—mentorship,teamcatalysisandrealization.WeusedaVenndiagramtoillustratethiscompoundidentitywiththeleftcirclerepresentingengineeringidentity,therightcirclerepresentingpredominantmodesofinfluenceandtheoverlappingregionreflectingourphenomenonofinterest—engineeringleadership.Thefinallayerbreaksthisphenomenonofinterestintothreesub-categories—technicalmastery,collaborativeoptimizationandorganizationalinnovation.Thewordsinbracketsbeloweachorientationspecifythetwoelementsofeachcompoundidentity.Ourgroundedtheoryofengineeringleadershipsuggeststhattwoconditionsreducethelikelihoodofresistance.First,whenengineerscanseebeyondthe“greatman”conceptionofleadership,asisthecasewithmanytechnicalentrepreneurs,theyareabletoacceptleadershiproleswithoutcompromisingorrejectingtheirprofessionalidentities.Second,whentheword“leadership”isleftoutoftheconversation,itispossibleforengineerswhoseassumptionsaboutleadershipremainnarrowlytraditionaltoenvisionandaccepttheideaofprofessionalengineeringinfluenceattheindividual,team,organizationandevensocietallevel.Thesefindingssuggesttwoimportantimplicationsforengineeringleadershipeducators:first,wemusthelpengineeringstudentsunpacktheirtraditionalnotionsofleadershipandsecond,ifwewantourcurriculumdesigneffortstobeeffective,theyshouldbebuiltonkeyfeaturesofengineers’professionalidentitiesandorganizationallymeaningfulmodesofinfluence.
Discussion:MappingfindingsontoLeadershipTheoryConceptualelementswithinourmodeloverlapinsignificantwayswithideaspresentintheleadershipliterature.Forexample,theideaoftechnicalmasteryblendsGoleman’s“pacesettingstyle”withhis“coachingstyle”ofleadership(Goleman,2000)andisacloseapproximationtoMallette’s“TheoryPi”(2005).Theideaofcollaborativeoptimizationreflectsaninterestingblendoftransformational(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),transactional(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947)anddistributedleadership(Gronn,2002,2008;Spillane,2006),andtheideaoforganizationalinnovationreflectsahighlypracticalversionof“visionaryleadership”(Nanus,1992).Finally,ourthreeorientationstoleadershiplooselycorrespondwithAdizes’(1976)producer(technicalmastery),integrator/administrator(collaborativeoptimization)andentrepreneur(organizationalinnovation)roles.Weexpandontheserelationshipsintheparagraphsthatfollow.
![Page 17: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
Goleman’s(2000)pacesettingstyleofleadershipinvolvessettingandexemplifyinghighperformancestandards,whilehiscoachingstylefocusesonthepersonalandprofessionaldevelopmentofemployees.Engineerscapableofmergingthesetwostylesaremostlikelytobeorientedtoleadershipastechnicalmastery.Theyarealsomostlikelytotakeona“producer”(Adizes,1976)rolewithintheirorganization.Ofourthreeleadershiporientations,technicalmasteryistheonlyonetobecharacterizedintheengineeringleadershipliterature—throughMallette’s(2005)TheoryPi.TheaddedcontributionofTechnicalMasteryoverTheoryPiisthatitencompassestheworkofengineersasleaders,notjustleadersofengineers.Unfortunately,whilemostengineerswiththisdyadicapproachtoleadershiparevaluedastechnicalresources,theytendtobeinvisibleasleaders.Thisisbecausetheyarerarelylocatednearthetopoftheirinstitutionalhierarchies.Theyareresponsiveratherthancommandingandpassoninsightswhenemployeesrunintotechnicalchallenges.Inthisway,theyfunctionas“servantleaders”(Greenleaf,1977)withtechnicalexpertise.Incontrasttothesomewhatinvisibleleadershiporientationoftechnicalmastery,thevastmajorityoffocusgroupparticipantsbasedtheirdefinitionsofengineeringleadershipontheworkofindividualsinformal,highlyvisiblepositionsofresponsibility—teamleaders,projectleadersandprocessleaders.Themosthighlyvaluedengineersinthesemiddlemanagementpositionswereknownfortheirskilledfacilitationofgroupprocess,theirabilitytobuildbridgesbetweenorganizationalunits,andtheircapacitytoleverageandacknowledgeteammembers’strengths.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationascollaborativeoptimization.Whenmappedontotraditionalleadershiptheory,collaborativeoptimizationrecallstherelationalaspectsoftransformationalleadership(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),thespecializedtraininginherentintransactionalleadership(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),theparticipativeelementsofdistributedleadership(Gronn,2002,2008;Spillane,2006)andAdizes(1976)organizationalrolesof“integrator”and“administrator.”Likeengineersknownfortheirtechnicalmastery,thoserecognizedfortheircollaborativeoptimizationweredescribedas“doers”withsufficientknowledgeandexperiencetounderstandtheprojectstheyweremanaging.Theirintegrativeroleoccasionallyinvolveddelegation,butthisdelegationwasalwaysbasedontightrelationshipsbetweenprojectobjectivesandteammembers’skillsandstatedinterests.Finally,ourthirdorientationtoengineeringleadership—organizationalinnovation—mapsontoNanus’(1992)theoryofvisionaryleadershipandreflectsAdizes’“entrepreneur”(Adizes,1976)role.Nanustheorizesleadershipasafuture-orientedendeavourthatnotonlyrequiresanattractiveorengagingvision,butalsohastobesufficientlyrealistictobepracticallyachievable.Liketransformationalleadership,visionaryleadershipdependsonpersuasion,butitdrawsonanattractive,imaginedfutureratherthananattractive,charismaticpersonality.Organizationalinnovationgoesonestepfurtherthanvisionaryortransformationalleadershipinthatthevisionmustbeoperationalized.BergerandLuckmann’s
![Page 18: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
(1966)dualprocessofrealization—theapprehensionofanideaasrealandtheprocessofmakingitreal—clarifiesthisdistinction.Bothvisionaryleadershipandorganizationalinnovationdependontheapprehensionofafuture-orientedvisionasrealistic(realizationasrecognition).However,onlyorganizationalinnovationrequiresthevisiontobetransformedintoauseableproduct,processorpatent(realizationasoperationalization).Thepracticalnatureofthisinstitutionalizationprocesssuggeststhatorganizationalinnovationsharesthe“leadershipbydoing”flavouroftheothertwoengineeringleadershiporientations.Thus,engineers’leadershipcredibilitydependsontheirrealizationofinnovativeideasbeyondthevisionaryorideationalstage.AparticularlyinterestingaspectofourthreeemergentengineeringleadershiporientationsistheirpotentialtorehabilitateWeber’s(1947)“bureaucratic”authority.Weberidentifiedthreeidealtypesofauthority—traditional,charismaticandbureaucratic—thefirstbasedonsocialorfamilialstatus,thesecondbasedonthepersonalityofanindividualleaderandthethirdbasedonone’sprofessionaltrainingororganizationalposition.Unfortunately,ournegativeexperienceswithmodernbureaucraciesincombinationwithourNorthAmericancultoftheindividualhavecausedustodismissthemostaccessibleofWeber’sthreetypes.Bureaucraticauthorityanditsassociatedleadershipstyle,“transactionalleadership”(Bass,1985;Burns,1978),havebeenframedastheundesirablefoiltocharismaticauthorityanditsassociatedleadershipstyle,“transformationalleadership”(Bass,1985;Burns,1978).Theunintendedconsequenceofthiscomparisonisthat“effective”leadershipisreducedtoasingle,andlargelyunattainable,“transformational”approach.Engineers’leadershipcapacitymoreoftenstemsfromtheirsubjectmatterexpertise,organizationallocationandco-ordinatingresponsibilitiesthanfromtheirsocialstatusorcharismaticpersonalities.Thissuggeststhatifbureaucraticauthorityisrelegatedtothebackgroundofleadershiptheory,engineers’professionalleadershippotentialwillbesimilarlymasked.Tocharacterizetransactionalleadershipasaninstrumentalgameofrewardsandpunishmentsistoignorethefactthatleaderscanblendtransformationalandtransactionalelementsintheirwork(Yukl,1999).Ourpreliminaryengineeringleadershiptheorysuggeststhatitispossibletomergeinspiration,engagement,learningandspecializedtrainingwithformalorganizationalpositionandtechnicalexpertisetoproducehighquality,dynamicresultsthatfeelmeaningfultoengineers.Whileourresearchexclusivelyfocussedonengineers,itisimportanttonotethatresearchinotherprofessionshasrevealedoccupationallyspecificadjustmentstoleadershiptheoryaswell.Studiesofleadershipfromtheperspectiveoflawyers(Forrow,1989;Rhode,2010),doctors(Apker&Eggly,2004;Collins-Nakai,2006;Goodall,2011),professors(Goodall,2009),scientists(Andrews&Farris,1967;Mumford,Scott,Gaddis,&Strange,2002;Robledoetal.,2012),teachers(Bascia,1996,1997;Casey,1993;Henry,1992;Lieberman,Saxl,&Miles,1988;Little,1988;Rottmann,2006;Smylie&Denny,1990;Wasley,1991),andeliteathletes(Bridgewater,Kahn,&Goodall,2011)suggestthatmembersofmany
![Page 19: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
occupationally-definedgroupsreframeleadershipinwaysthataccommodatekeyfeaturesoftheirrespectiveprofessions.Thus,whilethethreeleadershiporientationslistedatthebottomofourmodelarespecifictoengineering,itispossiblethattheconceptofacompoundprofessionalleadershipidentityismorebroadlygeneralizabletootheroccupationalgroups.
ConclusionsOurgroundedtheoryofengineeringleadershipsuggeststhatdespiteovertresistancetotheword“leadership,”engineersacrossorganizationalsitesandindustriesdoinfactlead.Ifleadershipisprimarilyaboutinfluence,engineersinoursampleledbypassingonexperientiallygainedtechnicalinsights,buildingbridgesacrossorganizationalunitsandoperationalizingtheirinnovativeideas.Thesethreemodesofinfluenceledustoidentifythreecorrespondingengineeringleadershiporientations—technicalmastery,collaborativeoptimizationandorganizationalinnovation.LikeWeber’s(1947)three“idealtypes”ofauthority,thesethree“idealtypes”ofengineeringinfluencerepresentdistinctconceptionsofleadershipthatemergedfromempiricaldata.Theyarenotcharacterizationsofgreatleaders;nordotheyrepresentasetofgoalstowhichallengineersmustaspire.Rather,theydenoteconceptsthatreflectengineers’professionalexperienceswithinterpersonal,teamandorganisationalinfluence.Engineerswhoembodyoneormoreoftheseleadershiporientationsdemonstratewaystoblendthetechnical,creativeandhumanisticelementsoftheirprofession,buttheiraccomplishmentsareofteninvisibletothemselves,totheirpeersandtothepublicatlarge.Totheextentthatweexplicitlyacknowledgethesepracticesasleadership,webuildengineers’capacitytoservesocietyandfacilitatepublicrecognitionfortheirservice.
SignificanceOurconceptualbridgebuildingprojecthasconcreteimplicationsforengineersandtheirorganizations.Attheindividuallevel,ourmodelhasthepotentialtofacilitateengineers’progressalongaprofessionallymeaningfulcareertrajectorybyconnectingthreekeyengineeringskillsetswiththreecorrespondingmodesofinfluence.Juniorengineerswhoidentifywiththefirstelementofeachcompoundleadershipidentityhaveahighlyvaluedleadershippathlaidoutforthem.Attheorganizationallevel,humanresourceprofessionalscangeneratemeaningfulprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesbyblendingthetechnicalrequirementsofeachjobwithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluence.Theycanalsousethethreeengineeringleadershiporientationstobuildaneeds-assessmentforrecruitmentpurposes.Ouremergenttheoryofengineeringleadershipalsohasimportantimplicationsforundergraduateeducation.Ifitistruethattraditionalnotionsofleadershipcombinedwithkeyengineeringidentityfeaturesevokeresistancetotheideaandpracticeofleadershipamongengineers,itbehovesusasengineeringeducatorstodedicatesomecurricularspacetohelpingstudentsunpacktheseassumptions.Ourlessonsaremostlikelytobedeemedlegitimatebystudents,colleaguesandprospectiveemployersifweinfusethemwithprofessionallyrecognizedmodesof
![Page 20: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
influenceandkeyfacetsofengineeringidentity.Thethreeengineeringleadershiporientationsthatemergedfromourgroundedtheoreticalanalysisincludebothcriteriaandthusmakeusefulexemplars.Thedispositionalratherthanpositionalnatureoftheseorientationshastheaddedbenefitofmakingleadershipmoreaccessibletoengineersacrossthecareertrajectory.Ouranalysisoffocusgroupandinterviewdatasuggeststhatengineersleadinwaysthatarerelatedto,butdistinctfrom,theleadershippracticesofotheroccupationalgroups.Ifourfindingsholdtrueacrosstheprofession,theywillhelpusexplainengineers’collectiveresistancetocontemporarynotionsofleadershipwhilediversifyingandoccupationallycontextualizingthenotionof“effective”leadership.Leadershipscholarsinterestedinapplyingtheirtheoriestoengineeringpractice,representativesofprofessionalengineeringassociationsinterestedinsettingstandardsthatfeelmeaningfultotheirmembershipandeducationalpolicymakerswhohopetodeveloptheleadershippotentialofengineersinthefaceofoverwhelmingresistancetotheword“leadership”wouldbenefitfromintegratingkeyaspectsofengineeringidentityandprofessionallymeaningfulmodesofinfluenceintotheirrespectivedomains.Finally,andperhapsmostsignificantly,ourcompoundtheoryofengineeringleadershipinterruptsthedichotomizationoftechnicalandsocialskillsdevelopment.Itisbymergingthekeyfacetsofengineeringidentitywithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluencethatengineerscometoacceptthemselvesasleaders.Atthesocietallevel,thedemystificationorunveilingofacompoundengineeringleadershipidentitymaycontributetopublicrecognitionthatengineerspossessthetechnicalskills,vision,insightandleadershipcapacitytoimprovecrumblinginfrastructure,buildglobalcommunicationnetworksandgenerateenvironmentallysustainableenergysystemsatthelocal,state,federalandgloballevels.
Limitations&NextstepsOurtheoryofengineeringleadershipaddsalevelofconceptualclarityandoccupationalspecificitytoanamorphouslydefinedterm,butitisbasedontheexperiencesofonly61engineersfromfourengineering-intensivefirmslocatedinasinglegeographicregion.Ourmethodologicalchoiceshaveallowedustogenerateadeeplycontextualizedmodel,buttheyprecludegeneralizationtoalargerpopulationofengineers.Problemswithgeneralizabilityaside,ourmodel’sgreatestlimitationisitsheavyrelianceonprofessionalidentity.Ifwefilterleadershiptheorythroughapre-existingidentitylens,itmaybemoreaccessibleandlegitimatetoengineers,industryleadersandengineeringeducatorswhoarecurrentlyworkingintheprofession,butitmayalsoreifydiscriminatoryelementswithinengineeringsocialization(Begay-Campbell,2010;Dryburgh,1999;Faulkner,2007;Korte,2009;Layne,2007;Loui,2005;Olesen,2001;Tonso,1997,2006,2009;Weiss,2013).Additionalresearchonengineeringleadershipisrequiredtotestthesignificanceofthismodelwitharepresentativesampleofengineers,andtoexpandthetheoryof
![Page 21: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
engineeringleadershipfromapracticaldescriptionofwhatistoanaspirationalprojectionofwhatmightbe2.
ReferencesABET.(2011).Criteriaforaccreditingengineeringprograms:Effectiveforreviews
duringthe2012-2013accreditationcycle.InEAC(Ed.),(pp.24).Baltimore,MD:EngineeringAccreditationCommission.
Adizes,Ichak.(1976).Mismanagementstyles.CaliforniaManagementReview,19(2),5-20.
Alajek,Sal,Ham,Alan,Murdock,Heather,&Verrett,Jonathan.(2013).Blurringthelinebewteenfor-creditcurricularandnot-for-creditextracurricularengineeringlearningenvironments.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Andrews,FrankM,&Farris,GeorgeF.(1967).Supervisorypracticesandinnovationinscientificteams.PersonnelPsychology,67(4),497-515.
Apker,Julie,&Eggly,Susan.(2004).Communicatingprofessionalidentityinmedicalsocialization:Consideringtheideologicaldiscourseofmorningreport.QualitativeHealthResearch,14(3),411-429.doi:10.1177/1049732303260577
Argyris,Chris,&Schon,DonaldA.(1974).Theoryinpractice:Increasingprofessionaleffectiveness.Oxford:Jossey-Bass.
Athreya,KrishnaS,Bhandari,Nidhi,Kalkhoff,MichaelT,Rover,DianeT,Black,AlexandraM,Miskioglu,ElifEda,&Mickelson,StevenK.(2010).Workinprogress-EngineeringLeadershipProgram:Athematiclearningcommunity.PaperpresentedattheASEE/IEEEFrontiersinEducationConference,Washington,DC.
Baranowski,Mitch.(2011).Rebrandingengineering:Challengesandopportunities.TheBridge,41(2),12-16.
Bascia,Nina.(1996).Teacherleadership:Contendingwithadversity.CanadianJournalofEducation,21(2),155-169.
Bascia,Nina.(1997).Invisibleleadership:Teachers'unionactivityinschools.AlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,43(2/3),69-85.
Bass,BernardM.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectation.NewYork:FreePress.
Bayless,DavidJ.(2013).Developingleadershipskillsinengineeringstudents:Foundationalapproachthroughenhancementofself-awarnessandinterpersonalcommunication.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Begay-Campbell,Sandra.(2010).Walkinginbeautyonanever-changingpath:AleadershipperspectivefromaNativeAmericanwomanengineer.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,10(4),150-152.
2InterviewswithmembersofEngineersWithoutBordersandothersocial-changeorientedgroupswouldprovideaninvaluablesourceofdataforthisproject..
![Page 22: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
Berger,Peter.L,&Luckmann,Thomas.(1966).Thesocialconstructionofreality:Atreatiseinthesociologyofknowledge.GardenCity,NY:AnchorBooks.
Bonasso,SamuelG.(2001).Engineering,leadership,andintegralphilosophy.JournalofProfessionalIssuesinEngineeringEducationandPractice,127(1),17-25.
Breaux,PaulJ.(2006).Aneffectiveleadershipapproachfortoday'sengineer.PaperpresentedattheIEEE/UTInternationalEngineeringManagementConference,Austin,TX.
Bridgewater,Sue,Kahn,LawrenceM,&Goodall,AmandaH.(2011).Substitutionandcomplementaritybetweenmanagersandsubordinates:EvidencefromBritishfootball.LabourEconomics,18(3),275-286.doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2010.10.001
Burns,JamesMacGregor.(1978).Leadership.NewYork:Harper&Row.Cain,Karen,&Cocco,Sandra.(2013).Leadershipdevelopmentthroughprojectbased
learning.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociation,Montreal,QC.
Casey,Kathleen.(1993).Ianswerwithmylife:Lifehistoriesofwomenteachersworkingforsocialchange.NewYork:Routledge.
Cassin,RichardB.(2003).Leadershipandcommunicationincivilengineering:Past,present,andfuture.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,3(3),145-147.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:3(145)
CEAB.(2008).AccreditationCriteriaandProcedures2008(pp.24).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.
CEAB.(2012).CanadianEngineeringAccreditationBoardAccreditationCriteriaandProcedures(pp.114).Ottawa:EngineersCanada.
Colcleugh,David,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2013).Translatingacorporateleadershipphilosophyandpracticetotheengineeringclassroom.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Collins-Nakai,Ruth.(2006).Leadershipinmedicine.McGillJournalofMedicine,9(1),68-73.
Corbin,Juliet,&Strauss,Anselm.(1990).Groundedtheoryresearch:Procedures,canons,andevaluativecriteria.QualitativeSociology,13(1),3-21.
Croft,ElizabethA,Winkelman,Paul,Boisvert,Alaya,&Patten,Kristin.(2013).Globalengineeringleadership:Designandimplementationoflocalandinternationalservicelearningcurriculumforseniorengineeringstudents.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Dryburgh,Heather.(1999).Workhard,playhard:Womenandprofessionalizationinengineering--Adaptingtotheculture.Gender&Society,13(5),664-682.doi:10.1177/089124399013005006
EC.(2009).LeadingaCanadianfuture:Thenewengineerinsociety(pp.3).Ottawa,ON:CanadianEngineeringLeadershipForum,EngineersCanada.
EC.(2012a).Canadianengineersfortomorrow:Trendsinengineeringenrolmentanddegreesawarded2007-2011(pp.63).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.
EC.(2012b).CoreEngineeringCompetencies(pp.8).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.Ellis,LeightonA,&Petersen,AndrewK.(2011).Awayforward:Assessingthe
demonstratedleadershipofgraduatecivilengineeringandconstruction
![Page 23: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
managementstudents.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,11(2),88-96.
Farr,JohnV,&Brazil,DonnaM.(2009).Leadershipskillsdevelopmentforengineers.EngineeringManagementJournal,21(1),3-8.
Farr,JohnV,Walesh,StuartG,&Forsythe,GeorgeB.(1997).Leadershipdevelopmentforengineeringmanagers.JournalofManagementinEngineering,13(4),38-41.
Faulkner,Wendy.(2007)."Nutsandboltsandpeople":Gender-troubledengineeringidentities.SocialStudiesofScience,37(3),331-356.doi:10.1177/0306312706072175
Flowers,RobertB.(2002).Leadershipasaresponsibility.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(3),15-19.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:3(15)
Forrow,BrianD.(1989).Lawyersandleadership.TheBusinessLawyer,44(4),1699-1705.
Foster,JasonA,&Sheridan,PatriciaK.(2013).Exploringdesignidentitythrougha"reverseengineerandimprove"valueselicitationactivity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Froyd,Jeffrey.(2005).TheEngineeringEducationCoalitionsprogram.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.82-97).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
Glaser,Barney.(1965).Theconstantcomparativemethodofqualitativeanalysis.SocialProblems,12(4),436-445.
Glaser,Barney.(1978).Theoreticalsensitivity.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.Glaser,Barney.(2004).Remodelinggroundedtheory.TheGroundedTheoryReview,
4(1),1-23.Glaser,Barney.(2013).Stayingopen:Theuseoftheoreticalcodesingrounded
theory.TheGroundedTheoryReview,12(1),3-8.Glaser,Barney,&Strauss,Anselm.(1967).TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory.
Chicago:Aldine.Goleman,Daniel.(2000).Leadershipthatgetsresults.HarvardBusinessReview,
72(2),78-90.Goodall,AmandaH.(2009).Highlycitedleadersandtheperformanceofresearch
universities.ResearchPolicy,38(7),1079-1092.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.04.002
Goodall,AmandaH.(2011).Physician-leadersandhospitalperformance:Isthereanassociation?SocialScience&Medicine,73(4),535-539.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.025
Gopakumar,Govind,Dysart-Gale,Deborah,&Akgunduz,Ali.(2013).Creatingfacultybuy-in:LeadershipchallengesinimplementingCEABgraduateattributes.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Graham,Ruth.(2012a).Achievingexcellenceinengineeringeducation:Theingredientsofsuccessfulchange(pp.74).London:TheRoyalAcademyofEngineering&MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.
![Page 24: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
23
Graham,Ruth.(2012b).Theonelesstraveledby:Theroadtolastingsystemicchangeinengineeringeducation.JournalofEngineeringEducation,101(4),596-600.
Graham,Ruth,Crawley,Edward,&Mendelsohn,BruceR.(2009).Engineeringleadershipeducation:Asnapshotreviewofinternationalgoodpractice(pp.41):BernardMGordonMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram.
Grasso,Domenico,&Martinelli,David.(2007).Holisticengineering.TheChronicleofHigherEducation,53(28),B8-B9.
Greenleaf,RobertK.(1977).Servantleadership:Ajourneyintothenatureoflegitimatepowerandgreatness.NewYork:PaulistPress.
Gronn,Peter.(2002).Distributedleadership.InK.Leithwood&P.Hallinger(Eds.),Secondinternationalhandbookofeducationalleadershipandadministration(pp.653-696).Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.
Gronn,Peter.(2008).Thefutureofdistributedleadership.JournalofEducationalAdministration,46(2),141-158.
Ha,MinhaR.(2013).Experientiallearninginleadershipdevelopment:SelectprogramatMcMasterUniversity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Hanifin,Leo,E,Lee,RossA,Weaver,Jonathan,Bloemer,KennethF,&Fry,CynthiaC.(2013).Theinfluenceofculture,process,leadershipandworkspaceoninnovationandintrepreneurshipinAmericancorporations,andtheimplicationsforengineeringeducation.Paperpresentedatthe120thASEEAnnualConferenceandExposition,Atlanta,GA.
Harris,DouglasE.(1989).Creativityandinnovation:Theelusivecompetitiveadvantagefortechnology-drivenindustries.EngineeringManagementInternational,5(4),233-242.
Henry,Annette.(1992).AfricanCanadianwomenteachers'activism:Recreatingcommunitiesofcaringandresistance.TheJournalofNegroEducation,61(3),392-404.
Hernandez,CheriAnn.(2009).Theoreticalcodingingroundedtheorymethodology.TheGroundedTheoryReview,8(3),51-66.
Hill,Stephen,Lorenz,David,Dent,Peter,&Lutzkendorf,Thomas.(2013).Professionalismandethicsinachangingeconomy.BuildingResearch&Information,41(1),8-27.doi:10.1080/09613218.2013.736201
Hsiao,Amy.(2013).Developingengineeringmanagers:ThemasterofengineeringmanagementprogramatMemorialUniversityofNewfoundland.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Ivey,JosephM.(2002).Fivecriticalcomponentsofleadership.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(2),26-28.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:2(26)
Kalonji,Gretchen.(2005).Capturingtheimagination:Highpriorityreformsforengineeringeducators.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.146-150).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
![Page 25: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
24
Katehi,Linda.(2005).Theglobalengineer.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.151-155).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
Kerns,SherraE,Miller,RichardK,&Kerns,DavidV.(2005).Designingfromablankslate:ThedevelopmentoftheinitialOlinCollegecurriculum.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.98-113).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
King,JudsonC.(2012).Restructuringengineeringeducation:Why,howandwhen?JournalofEngineeringEducation,101(1),1-5.
Kirschenman,Merlin.(2011).Leadershipofmultidisciplinaryprogramsandsystems.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,11(2),137-140.
Korte,RussellF.(2009).Hownewcomerslearnthesocialnormsofanorganization:Acasestudyofthesocializationofnewlyhiredengineers.HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly,20(3),285-306.doi:10.1002/hrdq.20016
Kumar,Sanjeev,&Hsiao,JKent.(2007).Engineerslearn"softskillsthehardway":Plantingaseedofleadershipinengineeringclasses.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,7(1),18-23.
LaRossa,Ralph.(2005).Groundedtheorymethodsandqualitativefamilyresearch.JournalofMarriageandFamily,67(4),837-857.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x
Layne,Peggy.(2007).Intheirownwords:African-AmericanwomenscientiststelltheirstoriesSWEMagazine,53(2),22-28.
Lieberman,Ann,Saxl,EllenR,&Miles,MatthewB.(1988).Teacherleadership:Ideologyandpractice.InA.Lieberman(Ed.),Buildingaprofessionalcultureinschools(pp.148-166).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Little,JudithWarren.(1988).Assessingtheprospectsforteacherleadership.InA.Lieberman(Ed.),Buildingaprofessionalcultureinschools(pp.18-106).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Locurcio,RalphV,&Mitvalsky,Kara.(2002).Mentoring:Amagnetforyoungengineers.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(2),31-33.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:2(31)
Loui,MichaelC.(2005).Ethicsandthedevelopmentofprofessionalidentitiesofengineeringstudents.JournalofEngineeringEducation,94(4),383-390.
Mallette,Leo.(2005).TheoryPi:Engineeringleadershipnotyourtheoryx,y,orzleaders.PaperpresentedattheInstituteofElectrical&ElectronicEngineersAerospaceConference,BigSky,MT.
Martines-Corcoles,Mario,Gracia,FranciscoJ,Tomas,Ines,Peiro,JoseM,&Schobel,Markus.(2013).Empoweringteamleadershipandsafetyperformanceinnuclearpowerplants:Amultilevelapproach.SafetyScience,51(1),293-301.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.001
Mawson,ThomasC.(2001).Anewfocus:ASCEleadershipdevelopment.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,1(1),51-52.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)1:1(51)
McCuen,RichardH.(1999).Acourseonengineeringleadership.JournalofProfessionalIssuesinEngineeringEducationandPractice,125(3),79-82.
![Page 26: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
25
McGrath,Laura.(2010).Reportonfocusgroupsonengineeringandleadership(pp.57).Toronto:ILead,UniversityofToronto.
Miles,MatthewB,&Huberman,AMichael.(1994).Qualitativedataanalysis:Anexpandedsourcebook(2nded.).ThousandOaks:Sage.
Mumford,MichaelD,Scott,GinamarieM,Gaddis,Blaine,&Strange,JillM.(2002).Leadingcreativepeople:Orchestratingexpertiseandrelationships.TheLeadershipQuarterly,13(6),705-750.doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
NAE.(2004).TheEngineerof2020:VisionsofEngineeringintheNewCentury(pp.118).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
NAE.(2005).Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.208).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.
NAE.(2012).Infusingrealworldexperiencesintoengineeringeducation(pp.41).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.
NAE.(2013).Educatingengineers:Preparing21stcenturyleadersinthecontextofnewmodesoflearning:Summaryofaforum(pp.45).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.
Nanus,Burt.(1992).Visionaryleadership:Creatingacompellingsenseofdirectionforyourorganization.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Ning,Hongyu,Zhou,Mingjian,Lu,Qiang,&Wen,Liqun.(2012).Teamtraditionalityintherelationshipbetweenauthorityleadershipandteamorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonSystemScience,EngineeringDesignandManufacturingInformatization,Chengdu,China.
Ogawa,RodneyT,&Bossert,StevenT.(1995).Leadershipasanorganizationalquality.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,31(2),224-243.
Olesen,HenningSalling.(2001).Professionalidentityaslearningprocessesinlifehistories.JournalofWorkplaceLearning,13(7/8),290-297.doi:10.1108/13665620110411076
Osagiede,Amadin,FarmerCox,Monica,&Ahn,Benjamin.(2013).PurdueUniversity'sEngineeringLeadershipProgram:Addressingtheshortfallofengineeringleadershipeducation.Paperpresentedatthe120thASEEAnnualConferenceandExposition,Atlanta,GA.
PEO.(2013).FactSheet:ProfessionalEngineersOntario.RetrievedFebruary,21,2014,fromhttp://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/23997/la_id/1.htm
Pierson,GeorgeJ.(2013).Leadershipintheworld'sthirdoldestprofession:KeynotespeechtotheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineersleadershipbreakfast.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,13(2),83-85.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000224
Pitts,Simon,Klosterman,Steven,&McGonagle,Steven.(2013).Asuccessfulapproachtoeducatingengineeringleadersatthegraduatelevel.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssocaitionConference,Montreal,QC.
Polito,C,&Martinich,L.(2008).Leadership:Soeasyevenanengineercandoit!PaperpresentedattheIEEEInternationalEngineeringManagementConference,Estoril,Portugal.
![Page 27: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
26
Porter,James.(1993).Exploitingtheleadershipassetoftheengineer.JournalofManagementinEngineering,9(3),227-233.
Reese,Carol.(2003).EmploymenthistorysurveyofASCE'syoungermembers.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,3(1),33-53.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:1(33)
Reese,Carol.(2004).EmploymenthistorysurveyofASCE'syoungermembers--2003followupsurvey.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,4(4),133-140.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2004)4:4(133)
Reeve,DouglasW.(2010).Thereisanurgentneedforengineeringleadershipeducation.EngineeringLeadershipReview,1(1),1-6.
Reeve,DouglasW,Sacks,Robin,Rottmann,Cindy,Daniels,Frieda,&Wray,Adam.(2013).Engineerleadershipinorganizationsandtheimplicationsforcurriculumdevelopment.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Rhode,DeborahL.(2010).Lawyersandleadership.BerkeleyLaw.Retrievedfromhttps://Howdoengineersleadrevision2forLeadership.docx
Robledo,IssacC,Peterson,DavidR,&Mumford,MichaelD.(2012).Leadershipofscientistsandengineers:Athree-vectormodel.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,33(1),140-147.doi:10.1002/job.739
Rottmann,Cindy.(2006).Hegemony,settlementandresistance:Theteacherleadershippolicycontest.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.
Rover,DianeT.(2006).Policymakingandengineers.JournalofEngineeringEducation,95(1),93-95.
Simpson,AnnieE,Evans,GregJ,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2012).Asummerleadershipdevelopmentprogramforchemicalengineeringstudents.JournalofLeadershipEducation,11(1),222-232.
Singh,Amarjit,&Jampel,Gempo.(2011).Leadershipflexibilityspace.JournalofManagementinEngineering,26(4),176-188.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000017
Slates,Kevin.(2008).Theeffectsofleadershipinthehighhazardconstructionsector:Injuriesandfatalitiesanissueofleadershipandnothazard.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,8(2),72-76.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(72)
Smylie,MarkA,&Denny,JackW.(1990).Teacherleadership:Tensionsandambiguitiesinorganizationalperspective.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,26(3),235-259.
Snowball,David,&Travers,Ian.(2012)."Gooutandlead:"ProcessSafetyManagement.ProcessSafetyProgress,31(4),343-345.doi:10.1002/prs.11523
Spillane,JamesP.(2006).DistributedLeadership.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Strong,David,&Frank,Brian.(2013).Engineeringeducationresearchand
developmentatQueensUniversity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
![Page 28: Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in ... · into motion a decade ago by the NAE through The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the new Century (NAE, 2004)](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022060510/5f2753db9deac1485208c6d5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
27
Sweeney,Kevin.(2005).Internationalrecognitionofengineeringdegrees,programs,andaccreditationsystems.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.135-144).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
Tonso,KarenL.(1997).Advancingwomeninleadership:Violence(s)andsilence(s)inengineeringclassrooms.AdvancingWomen,1(1),1-16.
Tonso,KarenL.(2006).Studentengineersandengineeridentity:Campusengineeridentitiesasfiguredworld.CulturalStudiesofScienceEducation,1(2),273-307.doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9009-2
Tonso,KarenL.(2009).Violentmasculinitiesastropesforschoolshooters:TheMontrealMassacre,theColumbineAttack,andRethinkingSchools.AmericanBehavioralScientist,52(9),1266-1285.doi:10.1177/0002764209332545
Vallero,DanielA.(2008).Macroethicsandengineeringleadership.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,8(4),287-296.
Vest,CharlesM.(2005).Educatingengineersfor2020andbeyond.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.160-170).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.
Wakeman,ThomasH.(1997).Engineeringleadershipinpublicpolicyresolution.JournalofManagementinEngineering,13(4),57-60.
Wasley,PatriciaA.(1991).Teacherswholead:Therhetoricofreformandtherealitiesofpractice.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Weber,Max.(1947).Thetheoryofsocialandeconomicorganizations(T.Parsons,Trans.).NewYork:TheFreePress.
Weiss,PeterE.(2013).Engineeringleadershipinpositivespace.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.
Yukl,Gary.(1999).Anevaluationofconceptualweaknessesintransformationalandcharismaticleadershiptheories.TheLeadershipQuarterly,10(2),285-305.
Zhou,Mingjian,&Liu,Xiaohui.(2011).Theunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenautonomyorientationandcreativity:Themoderatingeffectofauthoritarianleadership.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInformationManagement,InnovationManagementandIndustrialEngineering,Sanya,China.