Something I've often said when asked about being a "woman engineer" or "female engineer" is that I don't really want to be known by those labels. I want to primarily be known as a dang good civil engineer. I don't have a problem with that label occasionally being used in the proper context, but it is easy for it to go too far.
I think there is a place to recognize our differences, but I think we limit ourselves when we default to categorizing people into gender or race. I know women who can default to being cold, rigid workaholics. I know men who handle themselves with gentleness and an understanding that there is a place for appropriate vulnerability in the workplace.
Where I do agree with Bill's original post is that we need to understand that we are all better at our jobs and treat each other better when we aren't burning ourselves out. Recognizing the importance of emotional intelligence in the workplace helps us be better leaders, designers, and consultants. (Something we discussed in a recent leadership training* is that to achieve engagement in employees, you have to be able to have influence. To have influence, they have to trust you. To trust you, you have to have healthy communication together. All of that takes some emotional intelligence.)
Instead of labeling traits as masculine or feminine, I think we need to do a better job as leaders at modeling healthy attitudes and behaviors in the workplace and having conversations when we don't see that happening in employees or other leaders. We can do all of that without framing it around diversity, equity, and inclusion which can be politicized or misused in the workplace.
*The leadership training is based on the book "Counter Mentor Leadership: How to Unlock the Potential of the 4-Generation Workplace"
------------------------------
Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-11-2024 11:11 AM
From: John Dudlicek
Subject: The Masculinity Trap: Rethinking engineering culture
Read both of these articles and your questions...
Our role as engineers should not be focused on inclusion and diversity at all. Our job is to efficiently build stuff that is useful and safe to the public. Our function has nothing to do with leading social change. As soon as we start focusing on that, we weaken ourselves. The article states we should be "...making more room for women to lead, even if that means stepping back at times." So I should step back and allow someone else to lead just because that person is a woman? What if that person is a woman who clearly lacks the ability to be a strong leader or engineer? Should I step back and defer my leadership to encourage other diversities? I suggest that does no good for anybody. As a leader in my company, I step back sometimes and mentor as a training opportunity for young engineers/project managers. But I target potential leaders based on my observation of their skills and leadership traits--not based on gender, ethnicity, or any other non-engineering or leadership skill related attributes. Engineering attributes are objective, so I hope we're not arguing those. But what are leadership attributes? There are objective data driven metrics for that too, and none of them involve gender or race. My wife is a good civil engineer. She is tough, self-reliant, and has relentless focus. Call those masculine traits if you want, and fight against them if you want, but those are traits that lead to accomplishment.
------------------------------
John Dudlicek P.E., M.ASCE
Vice President
Highland IN
------------------------------