Advancing Women Engineer-Leaders

ADVANCING WOMEN LEADERS 1

i

Advancing Women Leaders: Leadership Education for Engineers

by

Phyllis MacIntyre, Ed.D.


ii

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on research into leadership development for women engineers practicing in

British Columbia, Canada. The paper reports on the results of a quantitative correlational study

using the Leadership Practices Inventory to operationalize leadership and explore associations

with levels of university education, executive coaching, years of engineering practice, and the

location of practice as rural versus urban. The number of women leaders continues to increase in

Canadian corporations while the influence of women engineer leaders is not as progressive.

Growth in the fields of engineering leadership education, management education, and leadership

education offered sufficient evidence to pursue research that furthered the leadership

development of women engineers. In university engineering education inclusion of leadership

education improved, while attention to leadership development for professional women

engineers remained sparse. The participants assessed their leadership practices and a

correlational analysis will associate their leadership to levels of education programs, executive

coaching, years of professional practices, and location of practice in terms of rural or urban. The

study concluded with recommendations for program components of leadership development to

advance women leaders in engineering.


1

Introduction

The shortage of leaders to meet the needs of business and government organizations is a

dominant issue in Canadian organizations (Calnan & Levac, 2009). Henein and Morissette

(2007) described Canada’s lack of leadership education and developmental pathways as a

national deficiency needs more words. Women engineers seek support and direction for

leadership development from engineering associations and affiliated societies (Calnan & Levac,

2009). Leadership is a process that takes place over a period of years and learning leadership

requires both formal and informal education that goes beyond the traditions of a Canadian

engineer’s university experience and the engineer-in-training program.

One remedy to improve the supply of leaders is to improve access to leadership education

for practicing professionals. According to Ely and Rhode (2010), leadership development for

women is the combination of learning conceptual frameworks of leadership, practice to integrate

and apply the leadership skills, leadership identity, and support through ongoing coaching and

mentoring to sustain the leader’s growth. In Canada, Henein and Morissette (2007) stressed the

importance of a community of practice that renews and promotes leader’s development and

growth.

Evidence of women leaders in American business shows approximately 25 per cent of

top management is women (Catalyst, 2015). In contrast, the influence of women leaders is less in

evidence in engineering profession; Lambert (2009) noted that the number of women is under-


2

represented in engineering and the path of leadership development includes barriers that male

engineers do not experience. IN

The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) surveyed engineers and asked

the following question; “What is the vision of success you would like to see for women

engineers in Canada?” The intent of the survey was to capture engineers’ perceptions about

women leaders in their workplace situations. The survey responders numbered 2,432 with 58.8%

women and 41.2% men; they reported that women engineers want leadership education (Calnan

& Levac, 2009, p. 4). For women engineers already in practice, they look to engineering

associations and affiliated societies for leadership education that advances their leadership in

professional practice and in business.

The recognition that engineers need to develop leadership capacity is a theme that

heightened in the late twentieth century when competition of engineering services became

global. Bonasso (2002) foresaw the challenges that globalization presented for engineers, who

were perceived as only technical problem-solvers. He argued that technology applications had

broader social and the cultural implications, and a complexity that was not present in earlier

times. He believed engineers made more than physical contributions and that engineers had to

take the lead and change perceptions of their public role.

One response to the market changes in engineering services was an increase in the

number of engineers with a post-graduate engineering specialization. A specialization increased

FDUUSER

Cross-Out


3

the engineer’s technical expertise rather than broadening to the global and business context.

Contributing to the general problem was engineers’ perception of leadership training as a soft

skill with less value in a technical field. Specifically, the challenge for technology organizations

and professional engineering leaders was to identify the preferred strategies needed to develop

engineers as leaders or to risk using leaders without technical expertise for strategic planning and

decision-making. For large technology organizations, globalization resulted in structural changes

that facilitated individual and organizational adaptation to change. For example, at Texas

Instruments the organizational structure was stripped of hierarchy to create cross-functional

teams that provided opportunities for women to advance (Foust-Cumming, Sabatini & Carter,

2008; Moss Kanter, 1997).

Employers of all sizes expect engineering graduates to have equal skill in technical

expertise, business knowledge, and leadership capability. Dunn’s (2009) research assumed a

future in which technical expertise became a commodity, making leadership skills even more

important in the competitive market for engineering services. In the case of a new discipline,

such as nanoelectronics, the engineer’s education better reflects the cross-disciplinary nature of

engineering, science, and business (Brun & Neilson, 2010).

Leadership Education for Engineers

Farr and Brazil (2009) characterized the impact of globalization on engineering practice

as negative and disruptive and proposed that engineers develop leadership capability through a


4

combination of training, experience, and career growth. University educators recognized the

different demands that engineers faced and engineering curriculum expanded to include

leadership. The scholarly discipline of engineering leadership recently emerged in the US

(Haghighi, Smith, Olds, Fortenbury & Bond, 2008).

Since 1995, Pennsylvania State University (PSU) offered a minor in engineering

leadership development in the undergraduate degree. The curriculum objectives included skill

development in communication, project planning, management, organizational leadership,

economics, and marketing. Learning outcomes addressed technology management, shared

leadership in teamwork, creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. Learning diversity took

place on virtual team projects with exposure to the global context through partnership with an

engineering school in Morocco. The PSU curriculum was a rich combination of applied science,

engineering, and cultural studies

Other advances in the curriculum for engineering leadership combined a mix of applied

sciences, engineering, entrepreneurship, and social sciences like a virtual team experience

through the Internet technology of Skype. Crumpton-Young, McCauley-Bush, Rabelo, Meza,

Ferreras, Rodriguez, Milan, Miranda, and Kelarestani (2010) defined engineering leadership in

the context of leading a technical team based; they surveyed engineering students and

professional engineers whose priorities included communication, problem solving, and a keen

awareness of their role as a leader. In Australia and European universities educators reported on


5

the lack of engineering leadership programs in contrast to advancements in American

engineering schools and curriculum in master’s programs integrated experiential learning

(Khattak, Ku & Goh, 2012).

Leadership Education in Canada

Although leadership courses and activities improved in American undergraduate

engineering education, little or no attention surfaced in professional practice for women

engineers. In corporate leadership the number of women leaders as a percentage of women in

senior corporate positions rose from 9.8% in 2001 to 17.7% in 2011 (Catalyst Inc, 2012). In

engineering, the influence of women leaders was less in evidence (Calan & Levac, 2009).

Henein and Morissette (2006) proposed a national leadership strategy to make leadership

development a priority for federal and provincial governments, stress the value of capable

leaders, support investment in leadership education, and take a strategic, long-term perspective.

Leadership capacity in women engineers is part of this crucial resource; a resource that Canada

needs to develop or acquire.

The most progressive leadership education for engineers began at the University of

Toronto in 2004. Faculty in the department of applied sciences and engineering began a

certificate program, known as Leaders of Tomorrow (LOT). The LOT program incorporated

learning to lead teams, the social and psychological dynamics of relationship building, and the

identity of leader. Reeve (2010) stressed the urgency for engineering leadership education and


6

emphasized the social responsibility of engineers to lead public policy debates on the impact of

new technology on Canadian society. He claimed that a bond of trust existed between engineers

and the Canadian public, a bond that might be lost without sufficient engineering leadership.

Touchie, Pressnail, Beheeshti, and Tzekove (2010) argued for engineering leadership that

focused on sustainability and a holistic thinking, a contrast to the business orientation of

leadership education in the US. Numerous factors contributed to changes in the practice of

engineering and educators recognized that leadership capacity was essential for Canadian

engineers (Fishbein & Chan, 2010). Projects have implications across national and cultural

boundaries; and large-scale engineering projects raised ethical issues that questioned the role of

engineers. Lessons from the program LOT indicate that leadership education begins in the

undergraduate engineering education and strengthens with active faculty involvement.

Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

This research described the leadership capacity of women engineers by using the Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI) to operationalize leadership according to five subscales known as

modeling the way (MW), inspire a shared vision (ISV), challenge the process (CP), enable others

to act (EOA), and encourage the heart (EH). To discover influences between leadership capacity

and leadership development a correlational analysis explored association to levels of education,

executive coaching, years of engineering practice, and the location of practice as to rural or

urban. Five research questions informing the study were:


7

1. Is there a significant relationship between the five subscales of the LPI and highest

level of education achieved?

2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the hours of executive coaching

and the five subscales of the LPI?

3. Are there statistically significant relationships among the five subscales of the LPI?

4. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the five subscales of the LPI

and the location as urban or rural?

5. Is there a relationship between the five subscales of the LPI and the number of years

in practice?

Theories of transformational leadership, management and leadership, and engineering

leadership conceptualized the conceptual framework of this study. Adult learning theory,

experiential learning theory, cognitive learning theory, and constructivist theory contribute to the

curriculum for learning leadership. Constructivist learning includes learning collaboration skills

through instructional techniques that integrate perception, beliefs, and previous experience. In

engineering education, constructivist approaches represent a significant departure from the

tradition of learning scientific principles and application protocols (Gredler, 2005; Tan, 2006).

On the pedagogy of leadership, Cunliffe (2008, 2009) described relational leadership as

the leader’s ability to develop relationships and interact with followers. Her inclusion of moral

activity might be a response to the history of corporate scandals and unethical behavior of the


8

previous decade. Eriksen and Cunliffe (2010) deepened understanding of leadership and

strengthened the constructivist pedagogy for teaching leadership; see Figure 1: Conceptual

Framework.

Learning Leadership

Women engineers acquire technical expertise in undergraduate education and enter the

workforce with immediately applicable skills. Not surprisingly, the culture of engineering

includes technical learning and knowledge with a normative measure of strength. Stereotypes

apply within the engineering discipline that influences behavior in the profession. The of the

technical learning in electrical, mechanical, and civil engineering is more challenging than in

industrial or environmental engineering (Frehill, 2007). One interpretation is that engineers lack

a clear line of sight between the technology in use and the human application of the technology

products (Gata & McKay, 2003). An engineer working on the turbines of a hydroelectric system

or the intricacies of electronic micro-circuits is distant from the social capital that results from

the technology. Also of relevance in this study is the influence of stereotypes and biases on the

leadership development of women (Ely & Rhode, 2010). The research explored the ways of

learning leadership as evidenced in the formal management and leadership education programs

and curriculum.


9

Figure 1:

Conceptual Framework


10

Management Education

Leadership and management are intricately entangled, even though differences of

definition and interpretation prevail (Allio, 2011). Managers and leaders acquire and manipulate

capital, human resources, intellectual capital, and the visible assets of property, equipment, and

computing power. Management focuses on the current arrangements, while leadership takes a

futuristic time horizon of vision (Bennis, 1999; Mintzberg, 2004; Thomas & Carnall, 2008).

Curriculum improvements in management education, in particular the MBA, suggested

ways to add leadership to engineering education. By the late twentieth century criticism of

business education highlighted its excessive analytical focus on finance and economics (Sinclair

& Hintz, 2007). Ackoff (2002) noted the pedagogical limitations of business education, which

left students unprepared to continue to learn after graduation. Academics responded with

innovations in action learning, shared reflective thinking, and the development of personal

competency in listening, speaking, and collaborative thinking (Buckley & Monks, 2004;

Mintzberg, 2004, 2005; Mintzberg & Gosling, 2004; Monaghan and Cervero, 2006). Business

schools conducted curriculum reviews and added the meta-abilities of self-knowledge, critical

reflection, emotional resilience, and leadership (Bennis, 1999; Ducoffe, Tromley, & Tucker,

2006; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Shoemaker, 2008).

Engineers continue to use the MBA degree as a source of learning business, management,

and possibly leadership. In previous decades, management dominated the MBA curriculum and


11

leadership currently takes an equal stance due to the growing demand for leaders in business and

government. In planning for engineering education, universities faced similar curriculum

demands for leadership in global engineering services. For engineering education, the added

challenge is to provide leadership in the application of new technology and teach engineers how

to contribute to relevant public policy debates (Farr & Brazil, 2009; Fishbein & Chan, 2010;

Reeve, 2010).

Leadership Education

Burns (1978) published seminal research on leadership that introduced a continuum of

leadership styles ranging from transactional to a full range, transformational approach. As cited

in Jandaghi, Matin, & Farjami (2009), Burn’s first concept of transformational leadership

emphasized the dual roles of leaders and followers who move in alignment intellectually and in

pursuit of an higher level of purpose.

In leadership development an apprenticeship model serves the as a scaffold for the formal

and informal education. The developmental journey of a leader begins with questions of identity,

which requires guidance from leaders, educators, and peers within the profession. Learning

comes from a combination of formal university education where cognitive thinking and

conceptual frameworks take priority. The informal education provides learning the abstract and

contextual thinking of leadership. Henein & Morissette (2007) proposed an emphasis on a

practice field through service learning and community projects, suggesting that leadership


12

development starts with civic education, building on strengths of leading diversity to leading in

the broader international context. Recent curriculum changes reflect a broader range of

leadership education in Canadian universities. Examples include integration of problem-based

learning and community services learning in the arts, business, and health sciences (Kuruganti,

Needhamm & Zundel, 2012).

In the applied sciences education, engineers learn to take calculated risks. As a leader, the

engineer learns to move with the uncertainty and unpredictability of the technology application

in engineering school and possibly in an organizational context through a co-operative education

program. Equally important to a leadership development is the formation of a community of

leaders that is present throughout the engineer’s career. It is through community specific to the

profession that leaders have continuous learning and support (Alelandrou, Swaffield & MacBeth,

2013; Reeve, 2012). This community of practice involves formal and informal learning and

creation of networks that reinforce the importance of leaders developing leaders. For Canadian

engineers, vibrant, technical communities of practice already exist through professional licensing

agencies and university affiliations.

Learning Leadership

Reflexivity

Densten and Gray (2001) examined the importance of integrating reflective practice in

leadership development programs and noted it is a constructivist learning approach that links


13

leadership theory to the student’s experience. Brookfield (1995) and Lougham (1996) integrated

reflective practice into education for new teachers and claimed that the teachers improved their

ability to facilitate student learning. Known as double loop learning, the process involved the

teachers in shared reflection and group learning (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 1999). Through the

double-loop learning, leaders learned the value of relationships how to while also question

personal attitudes and beliefs.

Cunliffe (2009) goes beyond reflective practice to emphasize critical thinking, in contrast

to Schon’s (1983) approach of a professional’s reflection-in-action. She teaches leadership using

a philosopher’s metaphor of three intertwining threads of relational leadership, moral activity,

and reflexivity. Reflexivity incorporates critical, conversations and the inclusion of moral

activity indicates business history of the previous decade; and her research deepened leadership

pedagogy.

Situated Learning

Situated learning gained favor in the MBA and in engineering in the US and in Europe.

Situated learning is a partnership between a university and large industry employer to offer a

degree or certificate program that emphasizes learning the company’s processes. Participants

strengthen networks between the university and business as the next generation of managers and

engineers enter the industry. In engineering education the Learning Factory at Pennsylvania State

University is an example of situated learning (Lamancusa, Zayas, Soyster, Morell & Jorgensen,


14

2008). A new engineering curriculum emerged in which the learning is active and stimulating,

both practical and theoretical. The Learning Factory provides a venue for practice-based

curriculum, interdisciplinary learning, and technology entrepreneurship. Some learning factories

include outreach projects to developing countries, a product of the collaborative efforts of

engineering educators, conferences, professional associations, NGOs, and government agencies.

The Engineer for the Americas program has similar intent; it promotes education of

engineers in Latin America and fosters foreign direct investment for entrepreneurial and

technology-based business. For the participating countries, the program encourages a spirit of

engineering leadership beyond the primacy of market growth (Morell, 2008).

Sometimes the situated learning does not work; Thursfield (2008) studied an MBA

developed by university academics and senior managers in a government agency. The aims of

the program were to increase collaboration and collective learning across the agency. Although

the managers learned reflective practice, they were not able to collaborate with other agency

managers and share collective learning due to the insurmountable organizational politics.

Secondly, the assessment of a participant’s performance remained individual, which does not

promote collaboration and shared learning. These limitations provided a basis for Thursfield

(2008) to argue against situated learning for an MBA program.

Executive Coaching


15

Kolb’s (1984) model of adult learning proved foundational to coaching, enabling learners

to connect new knowledge to the reality of their work experience. Turesky and Gallagher (2011)

reinforced the value of coaching as an instructional framework for experiential learning. By

teaching the leader awareness of learning preferences the leader grasped a wider range of

behaviors, which enhances relationships with followers, peers, and others. Griffiths and

Campbell (2009) compared adult learning to the process of coaching, as it provides a

conversational context for questioning, reflecting, and listening. The learning takes place through

iterations as the coachee tests her learning in practice, then de-briefs with the coach before

proceeding to the next iteration.

Joo, Sushko & McLean (2012) defined coaching as a developmental practice for

managers, particularly in organizations that moved away from vertical hierarchy to team

structures and horizontal coordination. Managing teams requires skills in leadership including

the ability to merge technical and strategic perspectives. As noted earlier, technological change

combined with trends in globalization made business alliances the norm and team structures

support these business partnerships. Coaching has been instrumental in helping leaders broaden

their perspectives and accommodate the changing nature of business.

All forms of coaching apply facilitated learning with the coach teaching through inquiry

and by skillful questioning that retains a solution focus (Bower, 2012). Executive coaching

teaches leaders goal-setting, strategic thinking, and conversation skills, and how to lead


16

transformative change (De Hann, Bertie, Day & Sills, 2010). Through the learning process the

leader develops competencies that further a culture of organizational learning (Cerni, Curtis &

Colmar, 2010). It also combines organizational and leadership development approaches a

learning exchange talks place between the coach and the leader, and provides a practice field for

identity work (De Haan & Duckworth, 2012)

Ely, Ibarra & Kolb (2011) examined the leadership development of women and

characterized the process of achieving leadership as involving identity work. Identity work is

now an integral part of leadership development; it is an integration of self-understanding,

leadership experiences, developing relationships, and the pursuit of a higher purpose. Executive

coaching provides the leader with a practice field for this identity work, where the leader

experiments, implements change, and uses the coach’s feedback to assess her actions and

behavior. The outcome research on executive coaching reports productivity gains and increased

leadership effectiveness (Bowles, Cunningham, De La Rosa & Picano, 2007; Thach, 2002;

Perkins, 2009). Other studies showed increased self-efficacy in goal-setting, more belief in self,

increased ratings on feedback from direct reports, and the ability to ask superiors for

improvements (Bower 2012; De Hann, Duckworth, Birch & Jones, 2013).

Method

The study population consisted of professional women engineers licensed by the

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC)


17

APEGBC had a membership of approximately 12,000 professional engineers in which 1322

were women; that was, 11per cent (Personal Communication with Chief Operating Officer of

APEGBC, March 2013).The sampling criterion limited the study participation to women

engineers with five years’ experience in professional practice, including the two years as an

engineer-in-training. The intention was to select women engineers who had experience as a

leader, which might not be possible in less than five years of practice. This criterion narrowed

the target population to 722.

Determination of the sample size was conducted using G*Power (Heine, 2013) and

correlations required the most stringent sample size. For a two-tailed test, using an effect size of

.30, an alpha of .05, and a power of .80, the sample size calculated by G*Power software

calculated a sample size of 82 participants. Data collection took place in the spring of 2014, from

March to May. Participants received printed surveys by mail and the study’s sample size was 52

with responses from 38 participants.

In this study the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) was an important starting point for

the women engineers to describe their leadership in terms of the five subscales modeling the way

(MW), inspire a shared vision (ISV), challenge the process (CP), enable others to act (EOA), and

encourage the heart (EH).. The LPI is an inventory of thirty statements; rated on a Likert scale

from 1 to 10, the higher the rating, the more likely the participant applied the behavior (Kouzes

& Posner, 2002, 2011, 2013). The total score of the self-assessment was the sum of the


18

subscales; and data was continuous. Kouzes and Posner (2002) claimed that leadership was a

learned behavior that developed through the study of the five practices; and research continues to

support their claims (Duygulu & Kublay, 2010; Tourganeau & McGilton, 2004; Vito & Higgins,

2010).

Implications of This Research

The descriptive statistics of LPI scores produced a profile of leadership for the

professional women engineers. In terms of the highest mean scores of the five subscales, enable

others to act (7.84) was the dominant leadership practice in this study. Enable others to act

describes the leader’s collaborative style of interaction and engagement. Specific leader

behaviors within this leadership practice included building trusting relationships with followers,

actively listening to and responding to diverse points of view, supporting decisions made by

followers, and promoting the follower’s growth as a leader (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, 2013). The

leader behaviors of enable others represent the leader’s comfort with strengthening her

followers’ capability, including the followers’ aspirations for leadership (Jandaghi, Matin &

Farjami, 2009).

Although the second highest mean score was for the subscale of modeling the way (7.49),

the lower reliability on this subscale suggested the participants did not interpret the leader

behaviors consistently; and similarly for challenge the process, with lowest Cronbach Alpha

reliabilities (0.44 and 0.63), respectively. See Table 1 for the summary of descriptive statistics


19

for the five subscales of the LPI. One leader behavior under challenge the process was to

experiment and take risk (6.13). This statement is noteworthy with respect to the perception of

risk, which differs substantially between engineering and business. For the professional engineer

the highest purpose is safety and security of the technology application, given that engineering

standards and protocols minimize risk. Although anecdotal, a note from one woman engineer

reinforced this difference when she wrote that no risk was taken in engineering while plenty of

risk was common in her business.

Examination of the scores for the full thirty statements of the LPI in Table 2 show the

highest mean score for follow through on the promises and commitments the leader makes (9.05)

and secondly, treat others with dignity and respect (9.03). These results indicate that the women

engineer leaders valued the importance of creating relationships across cultures, disciplines, and

the many domains that engineering touches. The leader behaviors with the least mean scores

included show others how their long term interests can be realized by enlisting in a common

vision (5.18) and describe a compelling vision of what our future could look like (5.32). These

leader behaviors are part of the subscale for inspire a shared vision, the subscale with the lowest

mean score (6.07) of the five leadership practices. These findings imply women engineer leaders

do not view their leadership beyond the future possibilities of a specific technology. The

visioning process is characteristic of a futuristic perspective and an essential part of the identity

work for women’s leadership development (Ely, Ibarra & Kolb, 2011).


20

For women engineer leaders to build on their leadership strengths they require a

continued education that draws upon the pathways already defined in engineering leadership

education, management education, and leadership education. Sustainability is a Canadian theme

that extends to all realms of engineering practice and business, including succession of women

leaders in the engineering profession. Only through leadership development that is grounded in

Canadian engineering and education values will women engineers create a legacy within the

profession (Alexandrou, Swaffield, & MacBeth, 2014).

Dinpolfo, Silva & Carter (2012) reinforced the proactive responsibilities of senior leaders

to develop future women leaders by investing time to sponsor and promote inclusive leadership

development. This study suggested that the ways of integrating engineering and leadership are

complex and learning leadership is equally complex. Like the intricacies of management

education and leadership education, leadership development requires a combination of learning

that is reflective, situated, and experiential, and includes executive coaching. A program

approach that embraces these many ways of learning will provide women engineer leaders with

continued opportunities for leadership development.

As noted by Garcia (2009), the leader’s thinking is incomplete unless it incorporates

dialogue and reflection with others. Leaders require a practice field for shared reflection,

experience, and deliberate learning. In the organizational context, Garcia’s (2009) approach

suggested a practice field in which women engineer leaders expand their critical thinking to a


21

wider range of issues related to the organization’s culture and its social responsibility. These

critical skills can be learned through coaching and mentoring, which generate the professional

conversations needed for leadership growth.

In this study, years of engineering practice showed association with the leadership

capacity of the women engineers; see Table 4 Pearson Correlations between Five LPI Subscales

and Years in Practice. Years of practice are an inadequate measure to guide current and future

leaders in the profession. For women engineers in professional practice clarity of leader identity

will help to integrate the multiple roles of leader, engineer, and business woman. In this study,

executive coaching was not associated with the leadership capacity of the participants; see Table

6 Point-Biseral Correlations between Five LPI Subscales and Executive Coaching and Table 7

MANOVA and ANOVA for LPI Subscales by Executive Coaching.

Recommendations

This research described the leadership of a sample of women engineers in British

Columbia. The leadership profile shows they are collaborative, relationship oriented leaders

whose influence will strengthen through ongoing, leadership development within the profession.

The recommendation includes a program model approach, drawing upon three components:

sources of leadership education, a community of practice for women engineer leaders, and

provision of the practice fields for leadership learning, see Figure 1, Program Components for


22

Leadership Development. Advancements in the application of learning and curriculum

improvements combine to provide ways of learning leadership that accelerate leadership

development. Formal education provides the leader access to the theory and practice of

leadership in existing management and leadership education programs. With guidance and

learning the engineers will create the context that matches women engineer leaders. The missing

elements of leadership development are access to the facilitated learning of executive coaching

and the group learning that enhances visioning and relationship building, particularly in

community with senior engineer leaders.

New ways of learning leadership necessitates fields of practice that stimulate the

professional conversations, integrating engineering and leader identity, and encourages

relationship building. A community of engineer leaders comprises organizational leaders from

engineering firms, key employers, university engineering faculty, and the leaders of professional

engineering associations and affiliated societies. Through community a culture of leadership

emerges, one for articulating, sharing, and generating leadership development for women

engineers. Through a community of leaders, women engineers will further refine the

contributions for their leadership development.

For example, a women engineer leads a diverse group of stakeholders in the discussion of

the public policy implications of a technology. Usually the stakeholders confront the engineer for

explanations of the technical standards; a leader’s response varies from a technical response.


23

Leading requires the engineer to tactfully translate the technology into language that is relevant

to the stakeholders’ lived experience. It is through leadership development and her identity work

that enables the woman engineer to lead and teach stakeholders about the technology in question.

Suggestions for Further Research

At the time of writing, the research expanded to a larger sample of women engineers

practicing in British Columbia, Canada. The limitations of the smaller sample size made testing

the associations between variables less certain. With a larger sample size, the interpretation of

the results of the correlation analysis may prove that stronger associations exist than evidenced in

this study. Given the top leadership practices of women engineer leaders are enable others to

act, it is important to clarify the sources of leadership development for women and male

engineers. The infrastructure for leadership development of women engineers is lacking in

Canada. A coordinated programmed approach involving professional engineering associations

and affiliated societies together with engineering firms and university engineering faculty offers

the way forward for a community of leaders for current and future women engineers. This is a

feasible educational endeavor that will enhance leadership in the engineering profession.


24

Figure 2: Program Components for Leadership Development

APEGBC

Engineering

Societies

Inter

Disciplinary

Relevant

Organizational

Leaders

Women Engineers

Resources

Engineering Deans and Faculty

Advance

Leaders


25

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of the Five Leadership Practices

Scale No. of items α M SD p

Model the Way 6 .44 7.49 0.75 .200

Inspire Shared Vision 6 .89 6.07 1.59 .200

Challenge the Process 6 .63 6.93 1.12 .200

Enable Others to Act 6 .75 7.84 1.00 .020

Enable the Heart 6 .79 7.09 1.13 .200

Table 2

Mean and Standard Deviation and 30 Statements of Leadership Practice Inventory

Leadership Practice

Leader behavior

M SDS SD

Challenge the process

3. seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and

abilities

7.39 1.69

8. challenge people to try out new and innovative approaches to

their work

6.55 1.84

13. search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for 6.21 2.03


26

Leadership Practice

Leader behavior

M SDS SD

innovative ways to improve what we do

18. ask “what we can learn” when things do not go as expected 7.89 1.52

23. make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plan,

and establish measurable milestones for the projects and

programs that we work on

7.68 1.60

28. experiment and take risks even when there is a chance of

failure

6.13 2.16

Inspire a shared vision

2. talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets

done

6.24 1.88

7. describe a compelling image of what our future could be like 5.32 1.99

12. appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future 5.55 2.11

17. show others how their long-term interests can be realized by

enlisting in a common vision

5.18 2.13

22. paint the "big picture" of what we aspire to accomplish. 6.89 1.93

27. speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and

purpose of our work

7.32 1.90

Enable others to act

4. develop cooperative relationships among people I work with 8.53 1.06

9. actively listen to diverse points of view 8.00 1.09

14. treat others with dignity and respect 9.03 0.94

19. support the decisions that people make the own 7.58 1.59

24. give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding 7.79 1.77


27

Leadership Practice

Leader behavior

M SDS SD

how to do their work

29. ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills

and developing themselves

7.97 1.38

Modeling the way

1. set a personal example of what I expect from others 8.39 1.05

6. spend time and energy on making certain that the people I work

with adhere to the principals and standards we have agreed on

6.34 1.74

11. follow through on the promises and commitments that I make 9.05 1.05

16. ask for feedback on how my actions affect other people's

performance

5.50 1.84

21. build consensus around a common set of values for running

our organization

6.63 2.02

26. am clear about my philosophy of leadership 6.95 2.29

Encourage the heart

5. praise people for a job well done 7.79 1.49

10. make it a point to let people know about my confidence in

their abilities

7.16 1.42

15. make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their

contributions to the success of our projects

6.42 1.87

20. publicly recognize people who exemplify a commitment to

shared values

6.92 1.88

25. find ways to celebrate accomplishments 6.63 1.50

30. give the members of the team my coworkers lots of 7.63 1.46


28

Leadership Practice

Leader behavior

M SDS SD

appreciation and support for their contributions


29

Table 3

Pearson Correlations between Five LPI Subscales

LPI subscales MW ISV CP EOA EH

Model the Way -

Inspire Shared Vision .17 -

Challenge the Process .17 .74*** -

Enable Others to Act -.00 .13 .29 -

Enable the Heart .21 .39* .37* .53*** -

Note. * p < .05. * p < .01, *** p < .001 Otherwise p > .05.


30

Figure 2:

Scatterplot between Subscales of Leadership Practices Inventory.


31

Table 4

Pearson Correlations between Five LPI Subscales and Years in Practice

LPI subscales Number of years in practice p

Model the Way .26 .123

Inspire Shared Vision .35* .033

Challenge the Process .27 .108

Enable Others to Act -.01 .961

Encourage the Heart .17 .304

. Note. * p < .05. Otherwise p > .05.

Table 5

Spearman Correlations between Five LPI Subscales and Level of Education

LPI subscales r p

Model the Way -.11 .516

Inspire Shared Vision .15 .361


Enable Others to Act -.18 .271

Encourage the Heart -.14 .387


32

Table 6

Point-Biserial Correlations between Five LPI Subscales and Executive Coaching

Executive coaching received

Scores for LPI subscales r p


Inspire Shared Vision -.04 .835


Enable Others to Act .00 .980


Table 7

MANOVA and ANOVA for LPI Subscales by Executive Coaching

MANOVA

F(5, 29)

ANOVA F(1, 33)

Source MW ISV CP EOA EH

Executive

Coaching

0.73 0.66 0.04** 1.01 0.00 0.05*

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Otherwise p > .05.


33

Table 8

Point-Biserial Correlations between Five LPI Subscales and Location

Scores for LPI subscales Location p


Inspire Shared Vision .19 .248

Challenge the Process -.01 .980

Enable Others to Act .04 .799


Note. * p < .05. Otherwise p > .05.

Table 9

MANOVA and ANOVA for LPI Subscales by Location

MANOVA

F(5, 32)

ANOVA F(1, 36)

Source MW ISV CP EOA EH

Location 0.84 0.71 1.38 0.01 0.07 0.57


34

References

Ackoff, R.L. (2002). Interview by Glenn Detrick. Academy of Management Learning 1, 56-63.

Alexandrou, A. Swaffield, S. & MacBeth, J. (2014). Scottish teacher leaders: Two accidental

journeys enacting leadership for learning. In Teacher Leadership and Professional

Development. Abingdon, Scotland: Routledge

Allio, R.J. (2011). Henry Mintzberg: Still the zealous skeptic and scold. STRATEGY &

LEADERSHIP 39(2), 4-8. DOI 10.1108/10878571111114419.

APEGBC. (2010). What is a P.Eng? Association of Engineers and Geoscientists of British

Columbia. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from http://www.apeg.bc.ca/reg/peng.html

APEGBC. (2013, May). Registration & Licensing: Engineer-in-Training (EIT). Retrieved May

26, 2013 from http://www.apeg.bc.ca/reg/eit.html

APEGBC (2013, August). APEGBC Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC. Retrieved

August 17, 2013 from http://www.apeg.bc.ca

Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full Range leadership: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Avolio, B.J. (2005). Leadership Development in Balance: MADE/born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/reg/peng.html

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/reg/eit.html

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/


35

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1), 9-32.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21–27.

BC Stats. (2013, January). 2012 Sub-provincial Population Estimates. Retrieved September 16,

2013 from

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

Bonasso, S.G. (2002,April). Twenty-first-century engineering projects – More than bricks,

mortar, and money. Leadership and Management in Engineering 2(2), 14-18.

Brunn, E. & Nielson, I. (2010). A model for the development of university curricula in

nanoelectronics. European Journal of Engineering Education 35(6), 655-666.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Calnan, J. & Levac, O. (2009, September). The Future is Now: Engineers Take the Lead.

Retrieved from http://www.apegm.mb.ca/pdf/WAC/tfinettl.pdf

Catalyst. (2015). Pyramid:Women in S&P 500 Companies. New York: Catalyst. Retrieved June

4, 2015 from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies.

Catalyst Inc. (2012, July). The Catalyst Pyramid: Canadian Women in Business. Retrieved from

http://www.catalyst.org/publication/198/canadian-women-in-business

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

http://www.apegm.mb.ca/pdf/WAC/tfinettl.pdf

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies

http://www.catalyst.org/publication/198/canadian-women-in-business


36

Catalyst Inc. (2012, August). Women in Management in Canada. Retrieved from

http://catalyst.org/publication/247/3/women-in-management-in-canada

Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. & Colmar, S.H. (2010, March). Executive coaching can enhance

transformational leadership. International Coaching Psychology Review 5(1), 81-85.

Crumpton-Young, L., McCauley-Bush, P., Rabelo, L., Meza, K., Ferreras, A., Rodriguez, B.,

Milan, A., Miranda, D. & Kelarestani, M. (2010). Engineering leadership development

programs: A look at what is needed and what is being done. Journal of STEM Education

11 (3&4), 10-21.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2008). Orientations to social constructivism: Relationally responsive social

constructionist and it implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning,

39(2), 123-139.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2009). The philosopher leader: On relationalism, ethics and reflexivity – A

critical perspective to teaching leadership. Management Learning 40(1), 87-101.

De Haan, E. & Duckworth, A. (2012, March). Signaling a new trend in executive coaching

outcome research. International Coaching Psychology Review 8(1) 6-19.

De Haan, E., Duckworth, A, Birch, D. & Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching outcome

resrecah: The predictive value of common factors such as relationship, personality mach

and self-efficacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research (In Press).

http://catalyst.org/publication/247/3/women-in-management-in-canada


37

Dinpolfo, S., Silva, C. & Carter, N.M. (2012). High potentials in the pipeline: leaders pay it

forward. New York, NY: CATALYST.

Dunn, K. (2009). The Case for Leadership Skills courses in the Engineering Curriculum. In 2009

ASEE Midwest Section Conference Proceedings Conference. Retrieved from

http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/midwest/2009/Dunn-98.pdf

Duygulu, S. & Kublay, G. (2010, September). Original research: Transformational leadership

training programme for charge nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(3), 633-642.

Ducoffe, S.J. Tromley, C.L. & Tucker, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary, team-taught, undergraduate

business courses: The impact of integration. Journal of Management Education, 30, 276-

295.

Ely, R.J.,Ibarra, H. & Kolb, D. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for

women’s leadership development programs. INSEAD Faculty & Research Working

Paper. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from

http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=48085

Ely, R.J. & Rhode, D.L. (2010). Women and leadership: Defining the challenges. In Handbook

of Leadership Theory and Practice: A Harvard Business School Centennial Colloquium.

Boston, MASS: Harvard Business Press.

Eriksen, M. & Cunliffe, A. (2010). Response to Jeffrey McClellan: Relational Leadership.

Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 7(2), 97-100.

http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/midwest/2009/Dunn-98.pdf

http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=48085


38

Fan, M. (2010, May). Systema and leadership: One tool to enhance foundational leadership

competencies developed. Engineering Leadership Review 1(1). 45-56.

Farr, J.V. & Brazil, D.M. (2009, March). Leadership skills development for engineers.

Engineering Management Journal 21(1), 3-8.

Fishbien, J. & Chan, A.D.C. (2010). Global engineering begins at home: A response to Kobelak.

The Journal of Public Engagement 2(1), 7-8. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from

http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/chan/publications.shtml.

Foust-Cumming, H., Sabattini, L. & Carter, N. (2008, February). Women in Technology:

maximizing talent, Minimizing Barriers. New York: catalyst Publication. Retrieved from

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-technology-maximizing-talent-minimizing-

barriers

Frehill, L.M. (2007). What do women do with engineering degrees? Proceedings of the WEPAN

2007 Conference. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cpt/courses/CIT581HRI/Announcements/WEPAN2007Wh

atDoWomenDoWithEngrDegrees.pdf

Garcia, E. J. (2009). MBA lecturers’ curriculum interests in leadership. Management Learning,

41(1), 21-36.

Garcia, E.J. (2009). Raising leadership criticality in MBAs. Higher Education, 58, 113-130.

Gatta, M. & McKay, D. (2003). Engineering their future: The educational and workplace

http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/chan/publications.shtml

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-technology-maximizing-talent-minimizing-barriers

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-technology-maximizing-talent-minimizing-barriers

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cpt/courses/CIT581HRI/Announcements/WEPAN2007WhatDoWomenDoWithEngrDegrees.pdf

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cpt/courses/CIT581HRI/Announcements/WEPAN2007WhatDoWomenDoWithEngrDegrees.pdf


39

experiences of female engineers. Report prepared for the New Jersey Council on Gender

Parity in Labor and Education. Retrieved from

http://www.njstatelib.org/digit/w872/w8722003.pdf

Gredler, M. 2005. Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NY: Pearson Education.

Griffiths, K. & Campbell, M. (2009, August). Discovering, applying and integrating: The

process of learning in coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching 7(2),

16-30.

Haghighi, K., Smith, K.A., Olds, B.M., Fortenberry, N., Bond, S. The time is now: Are we ready

for our role. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (2), 119-122.

Henein, A., & Morissette, F. (2007). Made in Canada Leadership. Mississauga, ONT: John

Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.

Heine, H. (2013). G*Power 3. Retrieved May 26, 2013 from http://www.psycho.uni-

duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/

Jandaghi, G., Matin, H.Z., & Farjami,A. (2009). Comparing transformational leadership in

successful and unsuccessful companies. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3),

211-216

Joo, Sushko & McLean (2012) Multiple faces of coaching: Manager-as-coach, Executive

Coaching, and Formal Mentoring. Organization Development Journal 30(1), 19-38.

http://www.njstatelib.org/digit/w872/w8722003.pdf

http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/

http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/


40

Khattak, H., Ku, H. & Goh, S. (2012, June). Courses for teaching leadership capacity in

professional engineering degrees in Australia and Europe. European Journal of

Engineering Education 37(3), 279-296.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership practices

inventory updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 191-199.

Kouzes J.M. & Posner B.Z. (2002). Appendix0512BP. In The Leadership Practices Inventory:

Theory and Evidence Behind the Five Practices of Exemplary Leaders. Retrieved

February 19, 2013, 2012 from

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/UserFiles/lc_jb_appendix.pdf

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2013). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) 4/e Facilitator’s

Guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2011). The Leadership Challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2011). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) New Norms

November, 2012. Retrieved March 6, 2013 from

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/UserFiles/lc_jb_appendix.pdf


41

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/Research-section-Our-Authors-Research-

Detail/leadership-practices-inventory-lpi-new-norms-november-2011.aspx

Lamancusa, J.S., Zayas, J.L., Soyster, A.L., Morell, L. & Jorgensen. (2008). The learning

factory: Industry-partnered active learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 5-

12.

Lambert, A.D. (2009). Women in engineering: The gendered effects of program changes, faculty

activities, and student experiences of learning. Retrieved January 26, 2013 from

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1601514471&sid=1&Fmt=2&cl

ientId=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (2005). The magic number seven-plus or minus a couple of managers. Academy of

Management Learning and Education 4, 244-247.

Mintzberg, H. & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of

Management Learning and Education 1, 64-76.

Morell, L. (2008). Engineering the workforce to support economic development. Latin American

and Caribbean Journal of Engineering Education, 2(1), 13-18.

Moss Kanter, R. (1997). When Giants Learn to Dance. London: International Thomson Business

Press.

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/Research-section-Our-Authors-Research-Detail/leadership-practices-inventory-lpi-new-norms-november-2011.aspx

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/Research-section-Our-Authors-Research-Detail/leadership-practices-inventory-lpi-new-norms-november-2011.aspx


42

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C.T. (2004). The Business School ‘Business’: Some lessons from US

experience. Journal of Management Studies 41(8), 1501-1520.

Reeve, D. (2010). There is an urgent need for engineering leadership education. Engineering

Leadership Review 1(1), 1-6. Retrieved December 28, 2010 from

http://lot.utoronto.ca/elr.

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking management

education. California Management Review, 50(3), 119-139.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,

NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Sinclair, A. & Hintz, P. (2007). Developing managers: Re-examining Ten Myths about MBAs

and Managers. Journal of Management Development 10(7), 53-65.

Tan, Oong-Seng. (2006, August) Development of a thinking programme for engineering

students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 43(3), 245-259.

Tarnai-lokhorst, K.V. (2014, May/June). Gender balance in Engineering: Is this an issue worth

pursuing? INNOVATION . 18(3), 26-27. Burnaby, BC: Association of Professional

Engineers and Geoscientists of BC.

Thomas, H. & Carnall, C. (2008). Leadership development: Integration in context. Strategic

Change 17, 193-206. DOI: 10.1002/jsc.826

http://lot.utoronto.ca/elr


43

Thursfield, D. (2008). Managers’ learning in a UK local authority: The political context of an in-

house MBA. Management Learning 39(3), 295-309.

Touchie, M., Pressnail, K.D., Beheshti, A., & Tzekova, E. (2010, May). A Promise to Future

Generations. Engineering Leadership Review 1(1), 7-13.

Tourangeau, A.E. & McGilton, K. (2004). Measuring leadership practices of nurses using the

leadership practices inventory. Nursing Research 53(3), 182-189.

Turesky, E.F. & Gallagher, D. (2011, June). Know thyself: Coaching for leadership using Kolb’s

experiential learning theory. The Coaching Psychologist 7(1), 5-14

Vito, G.F. & Higgins, G.E. (2010). Examining the validity of The Leadership Challenge

inventory: The case for law enforcement. International Journal of Police Science &

Management 12(3), 305-319.

Documents

Advancing Women Engineer-Leaders