Discussion: View Thread

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

I have not read Leadership Mystique, but I will add it to my list! I think it is important for everyone, regardless of their field of work (but especially those in highly-technical fields that impact the public), to be able to communicate the details of their work in appropriate language to the respective audience. A doctor must be able to explain a patient's prognosis without the patient having been to Medical School; an airplane pilot will summarize the details of the upcoming flight to passengers on board; a civil servant must be able to interpret the processes and results of legislation that impacts their constituents, taking public opinion and scientific data into account when influencing policy decisions; and the list goes on. I've even been impressed by those in less 'glamorous' jobs who are able to describe what, how, and why they do what they do, from restaurant staff managers to septic maintenance truck operators.

The first fundamental canon of the ASCE Code of Ethics is that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This doesn't just mean that the infrastructure we build should be built correctly & safely; to me, it also means that the public should be informed in the process of planning, funding, designing, and building things so that they can help hold us accountable for our work as engineers. I think we have a duty as engineers to take leadership roles within and outside of our organizations - we have the knowledge and expertise to make the world a better place (and, I'd like to think, the passion for it too!), so we shouldn't reserve it only for hammering out plans and technical details. There is certainly a stereotype that engineers like math and not writing, or that they don't communicate well, but I assure you I've met plenty of professionals in other fields that fit these stereotypes, and plenty of engineers that do not (guilty as charged!)

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

It is fascinating to read the comments of Allen and Carla – some thoughtful remarks. On Allen’s comment: there is no denying that lawyers, accountants and administrators are in supportive roles in many organizations including engineering – that are not one of their own. But by nature of their works in such organizations – in especially the large ones, they remain close to the power source enabling them to influence leadership decisions. The influencing role (not necessarily bad, to be clear!) may or may not reach the overwhelming level – the extent of such influences depends on the leadership personality and competence.

In a sense we are all leaders because we play such roles in family matters and in our professional responsibilities – if not always but certainly sometime. But on a greater context leaders are understood to be the persons who have the ability to lead and direct to make a difference to cause significant impact. One simple example – the example of three masons – is often cited: three masons were asked what they had been doing. The first replied that he was placing bricks. The second replied that he was placing bricks to feed family. The third replied that he was placing bricks to build a cathedral. It is only the third who has a vision, and the difference in replies indicates how a leader sees things compared to others. Leaders exist in every profession, although only a few reaches the leadership level or get the responsibility to lead.

But for all different reasons, not all leaders have the leadership quality one likes to see. De Vries listed 5 different leadership personalities that could lead an organization either to prosperity or to ruin: dramatic-type, suspicious-type, detached-type, depressive type (?), and compulsive type. The depressive type is hardly a leadership quality, yet there are leaders of that quality. As a Spanish saying goes: fish starts to smell at the head, so does the leadership personality penetrate into an organization either to inspire or to demoralize or something in between.

Perhaps a little note on the confusion that exists on the difference between a leader and a manager – both of who belong to the collaborative same club of controlling things. The one that is often cited is: a leader aims to do the right thing; while a manager aims to do things right. A leader is transformational showing the way to achieve a long-term vision; while a manager is transactional and bureaucratic tending short-term goals to tread the way shown by a leader.    

Carla has rightly pointed out that any stereotyping of individuals or groups does neither reflect true nature nor serve any good purpose.

I have not read Leadership Mystique, but I will add it to my list! I think it is important for everyone, regardless of their field of work (but especially those in highly-technical fields that impact the public), to be able to communicate the details of their work in appropriate language to the respective audience. A doctor must be able to explain a patient's prognosis without the patient having been to Medical School; an airplane pilot will summarize the details of the upcoming flight to passengers on board; a civil servant must be able to interpret the processes and results of legislation that impacts their constituents, taking public opinion and scientific data into account when influencing policy decisions; and the list goes on. I've even been impressed by those in less 'glamorous' jobs who are able to describe what, how, and why they do what they do, from restaurant staff managers to septic maintenance truck operators.

The first fundamental canon of the ASCE Code of Ethics is that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This doesn't just mean that the infrastructure we build should be built correctly & safely; to me, it also means that the public should be informed in the process of planning, funding, designing, and building things so that they can help hold us accountable for our work as engineers. I think we have a duty as engineers to take leadership roles within and outside of our organizations - we have the knowledge and expertise to make the world a better place (and, I'd like to think, the passion for it too!), so we shouldn't reserve it only for hammering out plans and technical details. There is certainly a stereotype that engineers like math and not writing, or that they don't communicate well, but I assure you I've met plenty of professionals in other fields that fit these stereotypes, and plenty of engineers that do not (guilty as charged!)

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Engineering leadership...that must be something found in abundance among us engineers.  We generally seem to be such a fine and intelligent bunch of people that are honest and straight forward and hard working. There must be leaders in abundance among us.  My opinion, based on anecdotal evidence, is that we are trending much better with a need for a lot more improvement.  Take a look at the US Congress or other places where leadership influence acts directly upon the course of humanity, and you still won't find many engineers.

So, we might as well keep skipping along with Dorothy and her buddies going off to see the Wizard of Oz.  Oh, if we only had a brain, a heart, the nerve...to be a leader!  The Wizard might help us.  Ha!ha!

If I ever get to see the wizard, I believe he would tell me that we engineers need to up our game in at least two important areas: critical thinking and emotion.  Critical thinking is too much work to talk about today, so I'll mention a few rambles about emotion, which is a vague and abstract topic mostly outside of rationality. Maybe that's why we don't touch that that much at work. What good is anything outside of (apparently) objective stuff derived from hard rationality? After all, the power of rationality to produce wealth, and help us survive in our struggles in the jungle seems undeniable. Just look at the proof like smart phones, and the rocket we're on getting more of it at a faster and faster rate. Then why bother with emotion?

People are emotional creatures above all else, that's why. They apparently have a yearning for meaning and purpose that manifests naturally from human consciousness. And in the interior places of their hearts there seems to be a desire to understand the most worthwhile reason to get out of bed in the morning for their existence (and their jobs). Helping people to navigate toward that emotional place of ultimate meaning and purpose is the essence (and power) of leadership.

Seeing the higher ideals of something is the first practical step toward tapping into the power of emotion that leaders use to go toward good things. For example from my own struggles to be a leader, I always abstract our profession as a bunch of good deed doers trying to help push back nature's envelope of brutality. (That's very vague, but it's the best I can do in one sentence.) It's easy for me to see everything engineers do with a romantic and grandiose view, because I love what we do. The idealization of it is the basis of my love. My own mental creative license and flights of fancy in abstracting the ideal in what we do is essential for me so that it might have emotional impact to match its importance.

Last summer I was on vacation with my children standing atop Hoover dam in 120 degree heat. They were grouchy with me for the blazing sun and my laughter. They didn't think it was funny when I said that we should take off our shoes on that civil engineering hallowed ground, or when I tried to go on about the magnificence of the project and the magnificence and scope of the civil engineering profession. Of course I digressed into how lucky I was to get paid to do what I love…I have to confess that I was almost serious in every word I said.

Like most people, my children are tough customers in 120 degree heat, and they don't always connect with what I'm trying to get to, but that's due to my shortcomings, not theirs. My quest to lead them toward what is wonderful in them (two people that I love) is like trying to be a leader in the profession that I love. It's emotional.

It is fascinating to read the comments of Allen and Carla – some thoughtful remarks. On Allen’s comment: there is no denying that lawyers, accountants and administrators are in supportive roles in many organizations including engineering – that are not one of their own. But by nature of their works in such organizations – in especially the large ones, they remain close to the power source enabling them to influence leadership decisions. The influencing role (not necessarily bad, to be clear!) may or may not reach the overwhelming level – the extent of such influences depends on the leadership personality and competence.

In a sense we are all leaders because we play such roles in family matters and in our professional responsibilities – if not always but certainly sometime. But on a greater context leaders are understood to be the persons who have the ability to lead and direct to make a difference to cause significant impact. One simple example – the example of three masons – is often cited: three masons were asked what they had been doing. The first replied that he was placing bricks. The second replied that he was placing bricks to feed family. The third replied that he was placing bricks to build a cathedral. It is only the third who has a vision, and the difference in replies indicates how a leader sees things compared to others. Leaders exist in every profession, although only a few reaches the leadership level or get the responsibility to lead.

But for all different reasons, not all leaders have the leadership quality one likes to see. De Vries listed 5 different leadership personalities that could lead an organization either to prosperity or to ruin: dramatic-type, suspicious-type, detached-type, depressive type (?), and compulsive type. The depressive type is hardly a leadership quality, yet there are leaders of that quality. As a Spanish saying goes: fish starts to smell at the head, so does the leadership personality penetrate into an organization either to inspire or to demoralize or something in between.

Perhaps a little note on the confusion that exists on the difference between a leader and a manager – both of who belong to the collaborative same club of controlling things. The one that is often cited is: a leader aims to do the right thing; while a manager aims to do things right. A leader is transformational showing the way to achieve a long-term vision; while a manager is transactional and bureaucratic tending short-term goals to tread the way shown by a leader.    

Carla has rightly pointed out that any stereotyping of individuals or groups does neither reflect true nature nor serve any good purpose.

I have not read Leadership Mystique, but I will add it to my list! I think it is important for everyone, regardless of their field of work (but especially those in highly-technical fields that impact the public), to be able to communicate the details of their work in appropriate language to the respective audience. A doctor must be able to explain a patient's prognosis without the patient having been to Medical School; an airplane pilot will summarize the details of the upcoming flight to passengers on board; a civil servant must be able to interpret the processes and results of legislation that impacts their constituents, taking public opinion and scientific data into account when influencing policy decisions; and the list goes on. I've even been impressed by those in less 'glamorous' jobs who are able to describe what, how, and why they do what they do, from restaurant staff managers to septic maintenance truck operators.

The first fundamental canon of the ASCE Code of Ethics is that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This doesn't just mean that the infrastructure we build should be built correctly & safely; to me, it also means that the public should be informed in the process of planning, funding, designing, and building things so that they can help hold us accountable for our work as engineers. I think we have a duty as engineers to take leadership roles within and outside of our organizations - we have the knowledge and expertise to make the world a better place (and, I'd like to think, the passion for it too!), so we shouldn't reserve it only for hammering out plans and technical details. There is certainly a stereotype that engineers like math and not writing, or that they don't communicate well, but I assure you I've met plenty of professionals in other fields that fit these stereotypes, and plenty of engineers that do not (guilty as charged!)

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Engineering leadership...that must be something found in abundance among us engineers.  We generally seem to be such a fine and intelligent bunch of people that are honest and straight forward and hard working. There must be leaders in abundance among us.  My opinion, based on anecdotal evidence, is that we are trending much better with a need for a lot more improvement.  Take a look at the US Congress or other places where leadership influence acts directly upon the course of humanity, and you still won't find many engineers.

So, we might as well keep skipping along with Dorothy and her buddies going off to see the Wizard of Oz.  Oh, if we only had a brain, a heart, the nerve...to be a leader!  The Wizard might help us.  Ha!ha!

If I ever get to see the wizard, I believe he would tell me that we engineers need to up our game in at least two important areas: critical thinking and emotion.  Critical thinking is too much work to talk about today, so I'll mention a few rambles about emotion, which is a vague and abstract topic mostly outside of rationality. Maybe that's why we don't touch that that much at work. What good is anything outside of (apparently) objective stuff derived from hard rationality? After all, the power of rationality to produce wealth, and help us survive in our struggles in the jungle seems undeniable. Just look at the proof like smart phones, and the rocket we're on getting more of it at a faster and faster rate. Then why bother with emotion?

People are emotional creatures above all else, that's why. They apparently have a yearning for meaning and purpose that manifests naturally from human consciousness. And in the interior places of their hearts there seems to be a desire to understand the most worthwhile reason to get out of bed in the morning for their existence (and their jobs). Helping people to navigate toward that emotional place of ultimate meaning and purpose is the essence (and power) of leadership.

Seeing the higher ideals of something is the first practical step toward tapping into the power of emotion that leaders use to go toward good things. For example from my own struggles to be a leader, I always abstract our profession as a bunch of good deed doers trying to help push back nature's envelope of brutality. (That's very vague, but it's the best I can do in one sentence.) It's easy for me to see everything engineers do with a romantic and grandiose view, because I love what we do. The idealization of it is the basis of my love. My own mental creative license and flights of fancy in abstracting the ideal in what we do is essential for me so that it might have emotional impact to match its importance.

Last summer I was on vacation with my children standing atop Hoover dam in 120 degree heat. They were grouchy with me for the blazing sun and my laughter. They didn't think it was funny when I said that we should take off our shoes on that civil engineering hallowed ground, or when I tried to go on about the magnificence of the project and the magnificence and scope of the civil engineering profession. Of course I digressed into how lucky I was to get paid to do what I love…I have to confess that I was almost serious in every word I said.

Like most people, my children are tough customers in 120 degree heat, and they don't always connect with what I'm trying to get to, but that's due to my shortcomings, not theirs. My quest to lead them toward what is wonderful in them (two people that I love) is like trying to be a leader in the profession that I love. It's emotional.

It is fascinating to read the comments of Allen and Carla – some thoughtful remarks. On Allen’s comment: there is no denying that lawyers, accountants and administrators are in supportive roles in many organizations including engineering – that are not one of their own. But by nature of their works in such organizations – in especially the large ones, they remain close to the power source enabling them to influence leadership decisions. The influencing role (not necessarily bad, to be clear!) may or may not reach the overwhelming level – the extent of such influences depends on the leadership personality and competence.

In a sense we are all leaders because we play such roles in family matters and in our professional responsibilities – if not always but certainly sometime. But on a greater context leaders are understood to be the persons who have the ability to lead and direct to make a difference to cause significant impact. One simple example – the example of three masons – is often cited: three masons were asked what they had been doing. The first replied that he was placing bricks. The second replied that he was placing bricks to feed family. The third replied that he was placing bricks to build a cathedral. It is only the third who has a vision, and the difference in replies indicates how a leader sees things compared to others. Leaders exist in every profession, although only a few reaches the leadership level or get the responsibility to lead.

But for all different reasons, not all leaders have the leadership quality one likes to see. De Vries listed 5 different leadership personalities that could lead an organization either to prosperity or to ruin: dramatic-type, suspicious-type, detached-type, depressive type (?), and compulsive type. The depressive type is hardly a leadership quality, yet there are leaders of that quality. As a Spanish saying goes: fish starts to smell at the head, so does the leadership personality penetrate into an organization either to inspire or to demoralize or something in between.

Perhaps a little note on the confusion that exists on the difference between a leader and a manager – both of who belong to the collaborative same club of controlling things. The one that is often cited is: a leader aims to do the right thing; while a manager aims to do things right. A leader is transformational showing the way to achieve a long-term vision; while a manager is transactional and bureaucratic tending short-term goals to tread the way shown by a leader.    

Carla has rightly pointed out that any stereotyping of individuals or groups does neither reflect true nature nor serve any good purpose.

I have not read Leadership Mystique, but I will add it to my list! I think it is important for everyone, regardless of their field of work (but especially those in highly-technical fields that impact the public), to be able to communicate the details of their work in appropriate language to the respective audience. A doctor must be able to explain a patient's prognosis without the patient having been to Medical School; an airplane pilot will summarize the details of the upcoming flight to passengers on board; a civil servant must be able to interpret the processes and results of legislation that impacts their constituents, taking public opinion and scientific data into account when influencing policy decisions; and the list goes on. I've even been impressed by those in less 'glamorous' jobs who are able to describe what, how, and why they do what they do, from restaurant staff managers to septic maintenance truck operators.

The first fundamental canon of the ASCE Code of Ethics is that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This doesn't just mean that the infrastructure we build should be built correctly & safely; to me, it also means that the public should be informed in the process of planning, funding, designing, and building things so that they can help hold us accountable for our work as engineers. I think we have a duty as engineers to take leadership roles within and outside of our organizations - we have the knowledge and expertise to make the world a better place (and, I'd like to think, the passion for it too!), so we shouldn't reserve it only for hammering out plans and technical details. There is certainly a stereotype that engineers like math and not writing, or that they don't communicate well, but I assure you I've met plenty of professionals in other fields that fit these stereotypes, and plenty of engineers that do not (guilty as charged!)

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.        

Perhaps some of you know about the book The Leadership Mystique – a User’s Manual for the Human Enterprise by Manfred K de Vries. I came across it recently and totally enjoying reading it. It was written in an amazingly attractive and funny way, and the author knew how best to communicate to his readers. This book is unlike any other materials I have read. In one chapter he began by asking: what does leadership imply? what does it consist of? what are the leaders supposed to do? As one answer he writes: He doesn’t do a thing, but all the other parrots call him chairman! Then the author turns to serious stuff and goes on to quoting Margaret Thatcher – the so-called Iron Lady who famously said: I don’t mind how much my ministers talk as long as they do what I say. Leaders do nothing yet they do everything – an organization is meaningless without a leader.

Engineering leadership is nowhere mentioned. Is there any such term that catches public attention? Most engineers work behind public eye; perhaps people see some here and there supervising some work with a hard hat on. Do political, economic and social leaders know whether or not engineering leadership matters? If they have an engineer in the board room, they may ask him or her: what the engineers think? Before even answers come out of the engineer’s mouth, they would perhaps turn to other topics. Perhaps they would think that the engineer will begin talking in a language they would not understand. Or perhaps that the engineers will be there when there is a problem and that their opinions do not matter because they would do whatever is told.

Yet engineers run their own organization. As the organization becomes large and large, the influence of engineers is overwhelmed by corporate lawyers, accountants and administrators. Or do they really overwhelm the engineer? One hears complains like: engineers have tunnel vision; they cannot communicate etc. Are these complains real? Where do business and technical leaderships stand in engineering? Are engineers well equipped with the various intricacies required for navigating through complicated social interactions? Or may they remain solely focused on perfecting details of technical pursuits?

Well I leave it at this and invite all to put forward thoughts.