Please visit our sponsors by clicking on banner.
Please visit our sponsors:
by Woodrow W. Winchester, III, PhD, CPEM
As an engineering management educator, I echo President Simon Philbin’s sentiment, expressed during his closing remarks at the ASEM 2019 International Annual Conference (IAC) banquet, that “this is a great time to be an engineering manager”. This statement, for me, is affirmed in my work that promotes the use of more inclusive approaches in the design and management of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) products and systems. And, while the promises of these technologies are great - as witnessed in AI’s growing pervasiveness; the perils - as outcomes of often “unchecked” designs and deployments - can be even greater.
“We are in a diversity crisis,” states a recent MIT Technology Review article that examines the existence and propagation of biases in AI systems. Recent Congressional hearings on the topic of inclusion in technology have called for “the tech sector to be more proactive in developing means that reduce, or better yet, eliminate bias from newer and emerging technologies”. As I reflect on my ASEM 2019 IAC experiences, it is my belief that engineering managers can provide both thought and practice leadership in meeting this challenge. In that regard, I offer some pathways forward:
Champion inclusive design and engineering thinking. Too often considerations of diversity and inclusion are cast simply as workforce composition concerns. However, the need to think and act more inclusively in the development and deployment of technologies is equally of import in offering more inclusive technologies. Engineering managers, as technology project and product leaders within the organization, can champion and take leadership in ensuring that considerations of diversity and inclusion are appropriately interjected within the technological design life cycle.
Engage with methods, tools and techniques that support more inclusive design and engineering decision making: There are a growing number of practitioner-oriented aids to support more inclusive design and engineering. Engineering managers, as often process and practice leaders, can be active proponents in the engagement and promotion of these more inclusive approaches. Some exemplar resources are offered by Microsoft, Google, and the Inclusive Design Group at the University of Cambridge. Additionally, in the full paper that I presented at ASEM 2019 IAC, I explore the visual arts as a means to help engineers think more inclusively and consequentially in technological design.
Advocate for the development of specific engineering management diversity and inclusion practice competencies. The societal stakes are high in regard to the design and management of emerging technologies. I feel that we, as an engineering management community, are at a point where more explicit and poignant conversations and efforts around diversity and inclusion within our practices are needed (the positive reception of Thomas Edwards’ keynote on neurodiversity provides some indication of the desire for these types of conversations). By supporting these sorts of efforts, the catalyzation and articulation of engineering management competences around diversity and inclusion can be had.
Truly, this is a great time to be an engineering manager. Adequately grappling with notions of diversity and inclusion in technological design is truly both complex and multilayered. More inclusive technological design and management practices are truly needed. It is my belief that engineering managers are well positioned to offer the needed thought and practice leadership in finally moving the needle.
Woodrow W. Winchester, III, PhD, CPEM is the Director, Engineering Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His teaching and scholarly activities are centered on advocating for more humanity-centered approaches to the design and management of technological systems. Winchester is a Certified Professional in Engineering Management (CPEM) with over ten (10) years of industry experiences. Active in also advancing engineering management as a practice, Winchester is currently the Co-Director, Professional Development & Continuing Education for the American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM). Woodrow is also under contract with the CRC Press to write Inclusion by Design: Future Thinking Approaches to New Product Development (ISBN: 978-0-367-41687-4); co-authored with Frances Alston, PhD, CHMM, CPEM and slated for a late 2020 release.
by Jerry Westbrook, PhD, FASEM, Professor Emeritus - University of Alabama at Huntsville
This is the second article on applications of the Guide to the Engineering Management Body of Knowledge. The primary contribution of these articles is how the EMBOK can guide the technical manager in applications. The material discussed is from Domain 2. If a practitioner focuses on Domain 2, he or she can have a successful career in technical management. The other domains in the EMBOK complement the first and second domains but primarily the second. This conclusion comes from my experience as well as many colleagues’ experiences in applying the concepts contained in the EMBOK.
The topic of the day is Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Concept (EMBOK 2.3.3.) Dr. Herzberg did a study of engineers and accountants to determine the factors associated with motivation and de-motivation. Any manager should have a good idea of those things that tend to motivate employees. They should also understand those issues that cause the opposite reaction. Most managers assume that they know these things instinctively. According to Herzberg’s research, most of these assumptions are incorrect.
Herzberg’s research found that one set of factors were associated with motivation and another set associated with de-motivation. He called the factors associated with motivation as motivators. They are, in the order of responses from subjects in the study:
Relations with supervisor
Relation with peers
According to this research, the motivators were only positive and the second group, the hygienes, were only negative. The highest motivational value of any hygiene is zero. If company policies are the best in the industry, they have zero motivation. If these policies are perceived to be unfair to one employee or to a group, they are perceived negatively.
It must be noted that managers have more control over motivators but they are difficult to administer. Hygienes do not lead to motivation but their improvement can be expensive to the company.
The following case involves an attempt to make motivators out of hygienes. Many organizations make similar efforts with similar results.
“First Fiber Glass” Company asked me to assist them in increasing their productivity and product quality. It was quickly determined that employee turnover at critical operator positions were running approximately 40% per year. The operator jobs required a great deal of agility and hand-eye coordination. The job could be dangerous as it was working with molten fiber glass at 2000 degrees C. Management relations with the union turned contentious while I was there. I was working closely with union employees attempting to make the job safer and more productive. Seeing my positive relationship with some workers, management asked me to convey a message to the union. They asked me to ask the union if they had concerns that management could address to show good faith effort to work more effectively with them. Realizing that the union would likely focus on hygienes, I suggested that management should focus on more opportunity and advancement potential for workers. Management told me that they had discussed matters and wanted to pursue the plan as explained.
I met with union leaders and explained management’s desire to demonstrate good faith. The leaders quickly pointed out that the plant floor had a buildup of binder over one inch thick. Binder is sprayed onto molten glass fibers to give them tensile strength. Some of the binder actually coats the glass fibers. The remainder falls to the floor where it accumulates. They pointed out that the binder buildup was unsanitary and unsafe and that it should be removed. I went back to management with the union response. Management was aware of the situation and readily agreed with the union’s assessment. They decided to shut the plant down for a week and remove the binder buildup. Workers were not laid off. They either participated in training or the cleanup effort. The binder had to be chipped up with power equipment. The Research and Development group suggested that a new epoxy paint might prevent the buildup from developing in the future. After the buildup removal, the plant floor was painted with a pastel green epoxy paint. Normal operations were restarted the next week.
Management asked me to meet with the union to gage the response to the cleanup effort that the union had suggested. In the meeting with the union, they readily expressed appreciation for management’s efforts to clean up the plant. They were, however, quick to point out that their shower room was in need of major repairs. The shower room was the first thing workers saw when they came to work and the last thing they saw when they left. Broken fixtures were symbols of how the company viewed its employees. They were seen to be an indication that workers were not important to the company. I brought that message back to management. Again, they agreed with the union and had the shower room completely refurbished.
Once more, hoping that the union could see that management was conciliatory, management asked me to meet with the union. The union officers were very appreciative of management’s actions. They did point out that the employee parking lot was in a state of disrepair. There were many potholes large enough to damage their cars. Again, this was their first connection with the employer when coming to work and the last before leaving work. Of course, I brought their parking lot concern to management. They readily agreed to repave the parking lot and instructed me not to meet with the union leaders again.
The union’s list of hygienes exceeded management’s resources. Management finally saw that they were not getting productive results by addressing non-production issues. Later, they did agree to open new training and lead classifications in the production departments with the greatest opportunities for improvement. This was well received by the union. Productivity, quality and morale did increase. Little connection was observed between the response by the union to these motivators and the long list of hygienes. Management was glad that production and quality had both improved and did not seem to get the connection of applying motivators when the long list of hygiene applications failed to achieve positive results.
Do the best you can with hygienes. You won’t get motivation but you will avoid serious problems. Significant long term improvements in motivation are achieved through focus on motivators: recognition, achievement, possibility of growth, advancement, responsibility and the job itself. It is counter-intuitive for a manager to respond to a request for a hygiene improvement with an analysis of the status of motivators but that is what must be done, after the hygiene request is investigated and acted on.
Dr. Westbrook has served the American Society for Engineering Management in a variety of positions. He is a past President of the society, past Executive Director and an ASEM Fellow. He founded ASEM's program to certify master's degree programs that meet ASEM program standards. He was instrumental in the founding of a master’s program in EM at the University of Tennessee and the master's and Ph.D. in engineering management at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
His research and teaching focuses on behavioral concepts in management and the challenges of managing knowledge workers. Dr. Westbrook received his Ph.D. degree from Virginia Tech in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, master’s degree from the University of Tennessee in Industrial Engineering and a B.E. from Vanderbilt in Electrical Engineering. In addition to ASEM, he is also a member of ASEE, IIE, and NSPE. Dr. Westbrook authored or co-authored 20+ refereed papers on engineering management topics. Dr. Westbrook has developed a series of seminars on managing knowledge workers. He and a team of talented professionals have delivered these seminars to a variety of clients in several states.
by Paul Kauffmann, PE, CPEM, FASEM, Executive Director of ASEM, Professor Emeritus at East Carolina University
How boring this subject line may appear. Let’s consider the two parts of it: PowerPoint and meeting effectiveness. Considering PowerPoint, how many times have we been instructed on the "best" way to prepare PowerPoint slides? The debates rage about critical topics: light or dark background, how cryptic to make the bullet points, what fonts are best... Debates that may never be solved in our lifetime.
What about the second part of the title, Meeting Effectiveness? We have all been through that training too, and the memories make us cringe. A web search on this topic will find countless hits with common sense suggestions: set objectives, send out an agenda, keep on topic, identify follow up and next steps, and so on. As a friend of mine commented after a training session on this topic: "That was a firm grasp of the obvious."
There is one missing element in all of this. The burden is on the meeting organizer, but what is the obligation of the attendee to contribute to meeting effectiveness? I would bet many would agree that often meeting attendees have not looked at the agenda or the slides, much less the "related report" covering key details. It is too easy to simply click "accept" on the calendar invitation and do nothing but show up. What is the solution?
Amazon has an interesting approach to solve this problem, and it was described by Jeff Bezos as "the 'smartest thing we ever did' at Amazon." A heady statement for sure. I recommend reading the full article, but I will summarize a few key points here:
In closing, let me bring a smile with some additional comments from Bezos. He thinks "…executives will bluff their way through the meeting as if they've read the memo because we're busy and so you've got to actually carve out the time for the memo to get read."
Before the memo-based meetings were instituted, Bezos also commented "we were doing the more traditional thing. A junior executive comes in, they put a huge amount of effort into developing a PowerPoint presentation, they put the third slide up, and the most senior executive in the room has already interrupted them, thrown them off their game, asking questions about what is going to be presented in slide six, if they would just stay quiet for a moment..." Further, he thinks PowerPoint slides often have "obscure information." Bezos prefers memos because each have "verbs and sentences and topic sentences and complete paragraphs."
Food for thought!
Paul Kauffmann is ASEM’s Executive Director and is Professor Emeritus at East Carolina University. Paul is a Professional Engineer and has over 20 years of industry experience in positions ranging from design engineer to plant manager and engineering director. He is a Fellow of ASEM and a Certified Professional in Engineering Management. He holds a BSEE and MENG in mechanical engineering from Virginia Tech and a PhD in industrial engineering from Penn State.
by Don Kennedy, Ph.D., P.Eng., IntPE, CPEM, FASEM
In my last segment, A Lesson from the Bhagavad Gita, I spoke on the importance as a manager of not being scared to take action. The great physicist Niels Bohr reportedly said that the opposite of a great idea is another great idea. Because management is complex, when a strong argument is made for one idea, you can generally make another strong point about the opposite idea (maybe with changed assumptions).
My segment today does not really contradict my last one because I will submit that deciding to do nothing is still taking action and not postponing. A friend of mine said “the do-nothing option is a great option not chosen often enough.”
A frequent situation on projects is the proposal by stakeholders to do something outside of scope since “you are here doing stuff anyway.” To borrow from my friend in these cases “the do-nothing option is usually the correct action.” I like to say “let future projects pay for future project scope.” Too many times I have seen the resources expended to add scope to accommodate some anticipated need and the effort was a complete waste or made things worse. I will offer two examples.
We were building a process facility. Someone said that the product might change in a few years and they would likely need different valve arrangements. We spent around $200,000 to change the layout. Ten years later, I met someone from the facility and we chatted. The person complained about spending $300,000 to modify the facility to accommodate a new product. The company forgot we had made changes that would have worked fine and just assumed a new layout was needed. We spent the extra funds and built a facility that would have served the client better if we had not, given how things turned out.
The second example is about a pipeline pig trap, which can be seen below. We were building a pipeline and allowed for a blinded connection to install a pig trap at some future time. Devices are sent down pipelines to check for corrosion or other issues at regular intervals, and the first such run was set for several years into the future. There was considerable pressure from management to spend the $5 million to put in the actual traps since we were mobilized and there anyway. I said “let future projects pay for future project scope” and thereby reduced my project cost by $5 million. As it turned out, advances in technology produced a special new “smart pig” that the company wanted to use for its first inspection after several years of service. This new smart pig was 10 inches longer than the maximum that could have been sent using the trap that was standard at the time we could have installed it. The $5 million would have been wasted. Our traps would have posed an additional burden to rip out what we installed and replace with the new standard.
Source: Metropolitan Engineering Consulting & Forensics Services
Things change and institutional memory is short in a world of high employee turnover. Should your performance assessment take a hit because you tried to gaze into the crystal ball to help some future project reduce their costs? The do-nothing option is often the best decision.
Donald Kennedy is a fellow of ASEM. He has a new ebook out called “Improving Your Life at Work” which includes a lengthy bibliography for people looking for references on management theory.
In the Guide to the Engineering Management Body of Knowledge (EMBOK) Domain 2 on Leadership and Organizational Management, there is a brief discussion of Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. Although McGregor published this concept many years ago, it is still relevant. McGregor was a Harvard professor as well as a highly sought out consultant. In his consulting work, he noticed that managers tended to make assumptions about the organization’s employees. Some of these assumptions considered that the brains of that organization was in upper management and that workers were not very bright and needed to be watched and occasionally threatened to get them to do the necessary work. McGregor called this assumption about workers Theory X. There was no data behind these assumptions; there wasn’t even anecdotal evidence or observations. It was just part of the culture of the organization.
He also worked with organizations that saw its workers in a different light. They assumed that workers wanted to do a good job, were capable of doing so, and would grow with opportunities. He called this assumption Theory Y. He noted that these assumptions were to some extent self-fulfilling prophecies. He observed that employees tend to respond in the same way they are managed. If they are considered untrustworthy, they might respond by not taking responsibilities. If management listens to its employees and responds to their ideas, these employees act like trusted members of a team.
In my career in management consulting, I witnessed many examples of Theory X assumptions. None of the organizations using this assumption could be described as successful. In good economic times, they barely got by. Several are no longer in existence. The case below relates a situation that happened at one of my clients. I had the advantage of knowing the characters in the story well and listened to their version of the events.
Ken was a scheduler in the Production Control Department (PCD) of a facility making high tech assemblies for a government contract. The company was large (about 7500 employees) with four major products being built at that time. Shop personnel began work at 7:00 AM each morning. The PCD as well as most management and support groups began work at 7:30 AM. Production was going on 24/7 on the line Ken was supporting. Ken routinely reported to work at 6:00 AM, checked the progress of the last shift, and adjusted the schedules for the incoming day shift.
One morning, an office worker was out sick, another was on travel, and a third was on vacation. In short, no one was in the PCD office. The manager of the PCD arrived at the office somewhat late at 7:45 AM and found a few other support personnel looking for someone to answer their questions on the status of some aspect of the schedule. At that very time, Ken made his way to the PCD office after having been in the plant for nearly two hours. The boss spots Ken entering the office and assumes he is getting in late (as was the boss). Trying to sound like a boss in control, he confronts Ken. The boss said, “Where have you been? Don’t you know these people need their questions answered? From now on, I want you in this office and available to work with your colleagues at 7:30 AM. Do you understand?” Ken was in shock. He was not prepared for that outburst. He simply replied “Yes, sir!” And with that, the boss went into his office and closed his door, pleased that he “took charge” of the situation. Ken immediately set about to help those who had questions that needed answers.
Ken thought about what happened and by 10 AM he knew what he had to do. From that time on, he came to work at 7:30 instead of 6 AM. He made sure that the office was adequately staffed and then wandered out into the mammoth plant and got lost. He read the morning newspaper. He talked sports with anyone available and there seemed to be no shortage of people willing to converse. He did this all day and left at 3:30 PM with the production workers instead of 4:30 PM like the others in the PCD office.
This went on for several weeks. The schedule that Ken was supposed to be working on was in chaos. Production had declined. Needed material was misplaced. Things were really screwed up. As had happened a few weeks ago, the boss came in at 7:45 AM, and Ken just had to ask. Ken asked the boss if he had noticed that he was doing things differently? The boss quickly replied: “Yes, I have noticed, and it is in the right direction. Keep up the good work!” Ken became so dispirited that he went back to his regular habits at work and smoothed out the error prone schedule.
Ken was treated as if he responded to McGregor’s Theory X assumptions about workers. His reaction was to act as if the assumption was correct. This seems to validate the observation that Theory X treatment can generate Theory X behavior.
That organization purported the belief that its employees were its most valued asset. Yet the actions of the PCD Manager were at odds with the company belief. The manager had an ingrained Theory X assumption about an employee who worked two extra hours daily without compensation. When a manager is not familiar with the duties of any employee, he or she may function with an assumption. The PCD boss made an assumption and made a poor decision regarding Ken. This decision cost the company a lot of money in reduced production and efficiency for several weeks.
In today’s business environment, Theory X may be more subtle. It occurs in restrictive organizational control systems require approvals from Managers who are not familiar with the issues of the approval. An uninformed manager is allowed to counter the judgment of knowledgeable employees who are just trying to get work done the best way. These systems restrict employees who travel for the organization. The organization does not trust its most valued contributors. That is why practices such as requiring boarding passes to be turned in with travel receipts. Telecommuting is also a contentious issue. Management wants to see its employees as they work when knowledge work is not observable. (Can we really see a knowledge worker work?)
The Theory X assumptions by management are alive and well in a broader context. Managers of knowledge workers are called on for a broader set of skills and information about each employee as well as each job. Management must create an environment at work where productive employees enjoy the freedom to produce and learn according to their abilities.
Wow! Where has the year gone? It seems like yesterday that Frances Alston was handing the President’s gavel to me and in less than a month, I’ll have the honor to pass it to Simon Philbin. It has been an amazing journey serving as your President and I cannot thank the ASEM executive committee, board of directors, and each of you enough for your support and hard work to help ASEM continue to grow. But, before we transition, time to celebrate together once more as part of the International Annual Conference! If you haven’t yet made your plans to attend, please do so as soon as you possible. It won’t be the same without you and I know when you check out all of the exciting events planned for the conference, you’ll definitely want to be part of the fun.
With warmest best wishes,
To the Attendees of the 2019 International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management:
We offer a warm welcome to all our colleagues at the ASEM conference! Engineering Management as a discipline has a long history here in Philadelphia as Drexel's Engineering Management Program conferred it's first Master's in Engineering Management in 1959. Over the years, we have grown with the increasing demand for excellence in technical leadership skills. We also pioneered the development of Online Engineering Management courses in 1997 through 2001 to make graduate courses available worldwide.
While you are attending the conference, we encourage you to take some time out to explore the many cultural and historic sites that are unique to our area. You could visit the National Constitution Center or visit the Reading Terminal Market for a lunchtime excursion. You could also plan a day or two sight-seeing before or after the conference. Best wishes for a great conference and visit to the Philadelphia Area.
Stephen V. Smith, PhD, CPEM
Dr. Smith has formerly served as the Associate Dean for Online Programs and Professor and Director Engineering Management. He is a long-standing Professor in Engineering Management at Drexel University.
by Geert Letens, PhD, CPEM
Getting an organization back on track or changing its course can be an adventurous journey. Many (engineering) managers try to instill new directions for their companies, but according to three decades of literature on change, more than 70% of them fail to successfully implement their change programs. Not really an encouraging perspective in a fast-changing world. Unless…
There can be a new holistic way of looking at change that allows you to assess your organization’s change readiness, identifying the levers that deserve your attention to significantly improve your organization’s change success rate. I must admit that as one of the co-developers of this approach, I am completely biased. Fortunately, however, the new model that we have developed is not yet another opinion-based framework. It is grounded in the literature, and what’s more, empirically tested in more than 200 organizations of different size, sector etc.
The new change concept starts from the notion that change requires energy. Everything is energy – you may remember that from your physics course, right? It’s not any different with change. If an organization lacks the energy to change, it will stick to the status quo or it will lose its competitive edge when external circumstances change. So, my colleagues, Peter De Prins and Kurt Verweire from Vlerick Business School, and I investigated where companies lose energy in their change programs. As such, we’ve identified six batteries of change (sources of energy) that help to explain why change efforts fail… Or succeed. After all, there is also a positive connotation to the six change batteries. If you charge the change batteries, they generate the energy that will help you move your change program in the right direction.
Some of the change batteries are rational and formal. You may recognize them from the typical top-down approach that many organizations use while setting up their change programs: identify the right strategy, align your KPIs and priorities to this new direction, and use this to define the scope and expected outputs of your projects. All this sounds logical and indeed, this is essential, but…not enough.
There are also three batteries that are emotional and informal. They come from Organization Development theories that advocate change needs to come from highly motivated employees who are supported by an engaging culture and inspired by top leaders that serve as role models for the change. Equally important, but again, not enough if the upper batteries are not able to provide clarity and focus.
You may notice that some batteries are oriented towards the strategic level of the organization while other batteries deal with the more operational aspects of managing a business. There are also two batteries that serve as a bridge between the top (left batteries) and the bottom (right batteries), which many organizations seem to be struggling with. If so, they lack the alignment of goals with action (upper batteries), or, they lack the alignment of words with behaviour (lower batteries).
As such, we’ve learned that effective change management is about managing energy balance (rational versus emotional) and flow (from the top to the bottom and vice versa) across the batteries of change. The data from our research is very clear. 30% of the organizations that only manage to create positive energy in two (or less) batteries report change success. This is pretty much in alignment with the many quotes from the literature that claim that 70% of all change programs fail. However, 95% of the organizations that created positive energy in five or six batteries considered their change programs as successful. Yes, we can!
In short: together, these batteries offer a comprehensive and integrative view on the effectiveness of your change programs, identifying which elements contribute to success and which ones contribute to failure.
Simple, but far from simplistic. To measure your organization’s change energy, we have identified five criteria for each battery. The validated questionnaire that we use to assess organizations entails more than 100 questions that aim to predict your organization’s success rate, but also serve as an essential guide to design your change programs. If you want to get a snapshot of the change energy profile of your organization, you can fill out the quick scan that is available in the book, or use these links to see if you have a healthy culture and a powerful infrastructure for change. If you want to find out more details about the six batteries of change, the following white paper might be a good read as well.
Good luck on your change journeys!
The last part of the year is my favorite time at ASEM and World Headquarters. We have new board members, new Fellows, awards to announce, and of course our conference. This eNews starts off with several important and interesting conference details, so please check those out. It is always risky to highlight one area over another, but in addition to the wonderful speakers and paper presentations, I am particularly enthusiastic about our Workshops and Tours. Before you make your final travel plans, please consider arriving in time for these preconference events, occurring on Wednesday. An important focus of our fall Board Meeting in Philadelphia is a fresh look at strategic planning for the society. Our new Associate Executive Director, Gene Dixon, is working on compiling suggestions and ideas. Please contact Gene or one of the board members with your ideas. I hope to see you in Philadelphia!
by Teresa Jurgens-Kowal, PhD, PE, CPEM, PMP®, NPDP
Engineers and engineering managers have spent a lifetime of knowing the right answers. I always took pride in school at being the kid with a 110% score on the test – not only did I answer all the questions correctly, but I also did the extra credit right.
Education to become an engineer and engineering manager is tough. We watch as friends drop out of engineering programs and we carry on – studying and grappling with complex topics like thermodynamics, kinetics, and dynamic motion. By the time we get settled into a job, our experience teaches that we are right more often than not. Moreover, it seems that people come to us for help and to get their questions answered.
Yet, as stubborn as I am, I know that I cannot be the best engineer or manager I can be without help. Many recent studies demonstrate that managers and executives who ask questions are perceived as better leaders than those who do not. Our goal as engineering managers is to lead and guide our teams so that we collectively produce the best results for our companies, our customers, and ourselves.
Formal mentoring programs usually put the burden on the mentee, and you may need to ask for a new mentor if you are not getting the responses you expect. A lot of times, formal mentoring programs assign people randomly to the mentor/mentee pairing and you may not feel a social or personal connection to your mentor
In my own career, I benefited from several informal mentors. One mentor was my direct supervisor who helped me to learn a new technology and trusted me with larger scale projects during my assignment. His philosophy was that it was better to do something and apologize later rather than to do nothing at all. To this day, I rely on advice I learned from him.
As you climb the ranks in an engineering organization or in any business, you may want to have a coach. Business coaches can help a manager navigate all kinds of situations. But, beware, coaching is tough and personal. You have to do the hard work to learn and improve your performance to get to the next level.
Coaches, like mentors, can also help an engineering manager build skills. Say you don't like doing presentations. A coach can help you learn skills and become confident at presenting. You should trust coaches based on their experience and with a personal match of style.
Other coaches can help you through the business processes of an organization. I have recently been coaching an entrepreneur who is developing a smartphone application. Normally IT people (like engineers) adopt a technology, build a product, and then hope it will sell in the marketplace. We have worked, systematically, to set up his product for success by first talking to customers. This has allowed him to understand the product requirements before spending time and money building the product. Coaches can offer advice based on their own experience and the experiences of others they have worked with over the years.
Master mind groups are sometimes known as peer coaching. In a master mind group, individuals commit to both giving and receiving help. What's different from a mentor or coach relationship is that participants have a larger set of experiences from which to draw.
A typical master mind group session is facilitated by an expert who also might be a mentor, coach, or other leader. The master mind members are drawn by a common interest - innovation, engineering, or even cooking. Each session starts with a celebration of goals met by the master mind members since the last meeting. Then, each person puts forth a question or problem that is facing them. Other master mind group members brainstorm solutions in a fast-paced discussion. Finally, the mastermind session closes with each member committing to one goal for the next meeting. Usually, this objective is based on the group brain storming discussion.
Benefits of master mind groups include providing a free, open, and confidential environment to discuss ideas; accountability; and an opportunity to share your own experiences and knowledge.
It's hard for engineering managers to ask for help. If you're like me, you like to know answers rather than show vulnerability. I hate when I must turn on the GPS instead of knowing the route ahead of time! Yet, I've also learned that the GPS can navigate a quicker route or help me to avoid traffic jams.
Engineers and engineering managers can use other people in their company and with organizations like ASEM to navigate career challenges, learn new skills, and build their toolkits with knowledge and experience. Ways to improve your performance as an engineering manager include mentoring, coaching, and master mind groups
Please join me for a complimentary Innovation Master Mind Q&A webinar on 22 August at 12 noon CDT to learn more about both asking for and receiving help.
What step will you take to ask for help and to advance your career?
Teresa Jurgens-Kowal, PhD, PE (State of Louisiana), CPEM, PMP®, NPDP, is a passionate lifelong learner. She enjoys helping individuals and companies improve their innovation programs and loves scrapbooking. You can learn more about Teresa and her new Innovation MasterMind group by connecting on LinkedIn or visiting her consulting business' website: Global NP Solutions, LLC.
Proud to have these Sponsors/Members
ASEM World Headquarters * 200 Sparkman Drive, Suite 2 * Huntsville, Alabama 35805
email: email@example.com * phone: +1-256-503-8482