Discussion: View Thread

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

------------------------------
Dudley McFadden P.E., BC.WRE, M.ASCE
Principal Civil Engineer
Roseville CA
------------------------------

Dudley, I'm not sure I'm following some of your concerns with the way the information has been presented.

What is the specific concern with the file management? Is it who the email recipients are? Is it the local copies not being within a secure server location and on personal laptops instead? Is the policy current, or is it based on outdated systems?

I don't see much related to grammar in the second point. Is the concern that reports aren't being written with the right aspects in focus? Are things being mislabeled? Is it a result of sloppy work or a lack of training and an assumption that they know how it's always been done?

I can't follow point 3 on what they're doing vs what you think should be done with the way it is written.

With what you're presented, I'm not sure this is just a problem with the new generation of managers. It sounds like a lack of leadership and knowledge transfer which would fall on the "older" generation of previous managers and the current managers. Sure, there are some trends and changes, but if the people who are new to industry aren't writing reports correctly, aren't managing files per policy, aren't growing -- that sounds an awful lot like a fault from the top. Sure, it's painful to have to change approaches and adapt to the ever-changing technological landscape. But I think the real problem is most likely that the people who get promoted into leadership roles in engineering are often selected on their production capabilities and technical skills, then thrust into a role where they are now primarily in charge of people and not technical tasks. That promotion is often not accompanied with leadership training. Sure, some were able to find the correct path on our their when we were younger, but many others don't. That doesn't make them the whole problem if there is inadequate mentorship, training, and leadership.

My biggest ask of current leaders and even the retired engineers is to pass down the "why" and not just the "what" of processes and procedures. If you know the "why" behind a policy or expectation, it makes it easier to value the importance. It also makes it easier to know what needs to stay the same and which aspects can be adjusted as things change over time. The importance of precise drafting didn't change when we went from pen and paper to CAD. The level of detail and look-and-feel of deliverables changed, but the foundational philosophy didn't. That same thing is true of so much of what we do.

I think some of the current disappointment I hear from industry with management and direct reports is a delayed impact of years of "do it because I said so" leadership instead of building buy-in and a true understanding of the reason behind what was being demanded. It isn't too late to course correct and invest time and resources in truly developing great leaders who help build others up.

I recently read Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet, and I think it is a great starting place for mangers who don't understand why the people around them aren't engaged and accountable.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

Dear Heidi

In our Quality TG of FIDIC I talked on Friday with a Manager from the Danish Rambøll Group about Design Management.

One factor he called "misalignment of resources" concerns senior managers doing too much work himself (partly unavoidable in  preliminary design) or delegating detail design to young people who are not up to it (yet). Typically, the old generation delegates numerical analysis and design to the "digital natives" generation without neither sufficient practical experience nor supervision. The latter is again a consequence of the senior managers doing too much work themselves rather than supervising, perhaps also because they were disappointed with the results of delegated work.

It seems a sad fact that, due to economic or time pressure, fewer and fewer engineering firms are really prepared to grant a thorough training on the job and unbillable hours for exchange of experience and lessons-learnt workshops. Moreover, some intermediate functions like senior technicians or specialists may have been rationalized away, when their supervision time was regarded as unproductive.

What do you suggest to break this vicious circle of "lean - mean - ignorant"?

Regards, Martin

Dudley, I'm not sure I'm following some of your concerns with the way the information has been presented.

What is the specific concern with the file management? Is it who the email recipients are? Is it the local copies not being within a secure server location and on personal laptops instead? Is the policy current, or is it based on outdated systems?

I don't see much related to grammar in the second point. Is the concern that reports aren't being written with the right aspects in focus? Are things being mislabeled? Is it a result of sloppy work or a lack of training and an assumption that they know how it's always been done?

I can't follow point 3 on what they're doing vs what you think should be done with the way it is written.

With what you're presented, I'm not sure this is just a problem with the new generation of managers. It sounds like a lack of leadership and knowledge transfer which would fall on the "older" generation of previous managers and the current managers. Sure, there are some trends and changes, but if the people who are new to industry aren't writing reports correctly, aren't managing files per policy, aren't growing -- that sounds an awful lot like a fault from the top. Sure, it's painful to have to change approaches and adapt to the ever-changing technological landscape. But I think the real problem is most likely that the people who get promoted into leadership roles in engineering are often selected on their production capabilities and technical skills, then thrust into a role where they are now primarily in charge of people and not technical tasks. That promotion is often not accompanied with leadership training. Sure, some were able to find the correct path on our their when we were younger, but many others don't. That doesn't make them the whole problem if there is inadequate mentorship, training, and leadership.

My biggest ask of current leaders and even the retired engineers is to pass down the "why" and not just the "what" of processes and procedures. If you know the "why" behind a policy or expectation, it makes it easier to value the importance. It also makes it easier to know what needs to stay the same and which aspects can be adjusted as things change over time. The importance of precise drafting didn't change when we went from pen and paper to CAD. The level of detail and look-and-feel of deliverables changed, but the foundational philosophy didn't. That same thing is true of so much of what we do.

I think some of the current disappointment I hear from industry with management and direct reports is a delayed impact of years of "do it because I said so" leadership instead of building buy-in and a true understanding of the reason behind what was being demanded. It isn't too late to course correct and invest time and resources in truly developing great leaders who help build others up.

I recently read Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet, and I think it is a great starting place for mangers who don't understand why the people around them aren't engaged and accountable.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

I agree with those observations.

From my perspective, it really starts with a genuine strategic focus on training. In the same way that we should look at both the immediate impacts and the life-cycle impacts of our technical work, we need to look at the life-cycle benefit of well-trained employees at every level. That includes leadership training for those in managerial roles and technical training for those in every role.

One leadership consultant I know put it like this (my summary from memory) -- it's better to prevent a fire than to fight the fires as they break out. A manger's time is not best spent rushing to complete technical work themselves. True leadership is investing your time in the people who report to you so that you can get things done through other people instead of just working yourself into the ground while no one else gets more competent.

I think the reason that many small civil firms go under after the first or second generation is that the focus is so heavily on the now that there's not enough investment in the someday. The leader retires and suddenly there's a huge knowledge gap. The more accountability and ownership you keep at the top, the more likely it is to topple if you try to grow too fast or the top leaves.

I'm incredibly blessed to work for a firm in which there has been thought put into handover of ownership. We also had some ingrained training culture, but no formalized training program. We've grown a lot in my time at the firm, and one of our strategic planning initiatives in recent years was creating a more robust training program. We're building from what we already had and trying to ensure that everyone has access to adequate training. There's a special emphasis on the first couple years at the firm to get that solid foundation in place with opportunities beyond that to specialize. It also includes leadership training.

We're still in the rollout phase, but I think we're definitely on a good track to set ourselves up for years of continued success. Good training is a "loss" of billable hours upfront with an excellent return on investment for years to come.

Dear Heidi

In our Quality TG of FIDIC I talked on Friday with a Manager from the Danish Rambøll Group about Design Management.

One factor he called "misalignment of resources" concerns senior managers doing too much work himself (partly unavoidable in  preliminary design) or delegating detail design to young people who are not up to it (yet). Typically, the old generation delegates numerical analysis and design to the "digital natives" generation without neither sufficient practical experience nor supervision. The latter is again a consequence of the senior managers doing too much work themselves rather than supervising, perhaps also because they were disappointed with the results of delegated work.

It seems a sad fact that, due to economic or time pressure, fewer and fewer engineering firms are really prepared to grant a thorough training on the job and unbillable hours for exchange of experience and lessons-learnt workshops. Moreover, some intermediate functions like senior technicians or specialists may have been rationalized away, when their supervision time was regarded as unproductive.

What do you suggest to break this vicious circle of "lean - mean - ignorant"?

Regards, Martin

Dudley, I'm not sure I'm following some of your concerns with the way the information has been presented.

What is the specific concern with the file management? Is it who the email recipients are? Is it the local copies not being within a secure server location and on personal laptops instead? Is the policy current, or is it based on outdated systems?

I don't see much related to grammar in the second point. Is the concern that reports aren't being written with the right aspects in focus? Are things being mislabeled? Is it a result of sloppy work or a lack of training and an assumption that they know how it's always been done?

I can't follow point 3 on what they're doing vs what you think should be done with the way it is written.

With what you're presented, I'm not sure this is just a problem with the new generation of managers. It sounds like a lack of leadership and knowledge transfer which would fall on the "older" generation of previous managers and the current managers. Sure, there are some trends and changes, but if the people who are new to industry aren't writing reports correctly, aren't managing files per policy, aren't growing -- that sounds an awful lot like a fault from the top. Sure, it's painful to have to change approaches and adapt to the ever-changing technological landscape. But I think the real problem is most likely that the people who get promoted into leadership roles in engineering are often selected on their production capabilities and technical skills, then thrust into a role where they are now primarily in charge of people and not technical tasks. That promotion is often not accompanied with leadership training. Sure, some were able to find the correct path on our their when we were younger, but many others don't. That doesn't make them the whole problem if there is inadequate mentorship, training, and leadership.

My biggest ask of current leaders and even the retired engineers is to pass down the "why" and not just the "what" of processes and procedures. If you know the "why" behind a policy or expectation, it makes it easier to value the importance. It also makes it easier to know what needs to stay the same and which aspects can be adjusted as things change over time. The importance of precise drafting didn't change when we went from pen and paper to CAD. The level of detail and look-and-feel of deliverables changed, but the foundational philosophy didn't. That same thing is true of so much of what we do.

I think some of the current disappointment I hear from industry with management and direct reports is a delayed impact of years of "do it because I said so" leadership instead of building buy-in and a true understanding of the reason behind what was being demanded. It isn't too late to course correct and invest time and resources in truly developing great leaders who help build others up.

I recently read Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet, and I think it is a great starting place for mangers who don't understand why the people around them aren't engaged and accountable.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.

Casting aspersion?  Exactly how long are we supposed to sit on the sidelines?  Shall we wait for the next bridge or building to fall, only to receive the response "my bad?"  I owned and sold a 400-person engineering consulting firm before I returned to teaching at the University.  My experience is that the top 5% have not changed.  These folks exemplify a unique combination of intelligence, dedication, curiosity, leadership, and community engagement. Their achievements are a testament to their hard work and commitment to excellence, making them role models for their peers and future generations.  But there is now a substantial race to the bottom amongst the middle 70% that still represent "serviceable" professionals.  They desire to do whatever is necessary to pass (or stay employed) and after that, not much more.  You can't even pay most of them to attend a conference, let alone speak at one.  Publish?  You already mentioned their incompetence with the English language.  Given the option, more than 50% would prefer to work less than 40 hours (let alone the 50 hours that we routinely work to master our craft), don't want to attend society functions to network, let alone participate in meaningful client interactions.  I have no advice except that there is definitely a greater understanding of work and work ethic amongst my international students when compared to our home-grown crop, many of whom didn't even take calculus in high school, let alone pass it.

I've been a licensed engineer for 29 years. I've supervised numerous employees directly and as the senior engineer reviewing others' work. Now in many ways I am more of a consulting advisor on analyses done by contracting consultants and also advising management on strategic direction.

So, what is your take on current societal and managerial attitudes and philosophies? Everyone in my management chain is younger than me. Some examples of where things differ nowadays:

1. Email attachments. Younger colleagues attach 20 MB reports, draft or potentially sensitive ones, sent to several email recipients. They also stash a private copy on their computer hard drive, "just in case." This is a bad practice according to our cybersecurity team and IT overall. Also contrary to policy. Management doesn't view this as a big deal and lets it go. In my day, I would encourage my staff to consider the policy, why emailing such things isn't helpful, listen to any concerns, then enforce the policy. What if there's an audit or public record request? Intelligent, thoughtful people came up with the policy.
2. High school grammar and engineering precision. A flow chart is different from a free body diagram. Loads and influences which are much less significant than others should not be emphasized. Factors of safety are expressed with one decimal place. In a report the asterisk isn't a multiplication symbol and engineering units matter. Engineering conclusions should read straightforwardly and demonstrate reflection and insight based on facts laid out previously. Lay out a case then justify your position with relevant facts not padding. Statements to regulators should be specific and backed by verifiable facts. Nowadays, management feels such things are not essential. There's even implication I am making a mountain out of a molehill by raising such trivial issues. You don't need to be a native English speaker to understand these things.
3. Cite lots of references you didn't actually read through-references off topic are fine, just have lots of references, and it doesn't matter if your references don't follow conventional citation standards or if the reader actually would not be able to locate the reference as written. Again, not a priority with engineering managers.
4. Asking folks to step up, do important work that is in their wheelhouse, learn and grow, be accountable. So many people want to do the minimal work possible, or even miss deadlines, after all it's not really a deadline is it? Management overlooks. Management gives them a pass, extends deadlines, or forgets about the whole thing. In my day I would coach such people, find out how to engage them, lend them a hand, then let them perform, and potentially earn a promotion someday. I mean, if people don't step up and rise to challenges, overcoming adversity, what will they talk about in their next behavior-based interview? I get it that many people view this as cultural discrimination but that's not where I'm coming from.

OK, it is a generational difference, so please understand, and I don't mean to cast aspersion. But many of us would benefit from advice about changing with the times. Sorry for the long post! It seems to me something is lost when we lower standards, and I am not so sure my generation had it wrong all these years. I will retire soon and be on my way.