TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities

Cindy Rottmann, Robin Sacks & Doug Reeve

Version Post-print/ accepted manuscript

Citation (published version)

Rottmann, C., Sacks, R., & Reeve, D. (2015). Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities. Leadership, 11(3), 351-373.

Copyright / License The Author(s) 2014

Publisher’s Statement Rottmann, C., Sacks, R., & Reeve, D. Engineering leadership: Grounding leadership theory in engineers’ professional identities. Leadership, 11(3) pp. 351-373. Copyright © [2015] (The Author(s)). Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715014543581

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace

because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

1

EngineeringLeadership:Groundingleadershiptheoryinengineers’professionalidentitiesThisisaversion2copyofthearticle.Itdoesnotincludeallfinaledits.Forthefinalversionofthearticlealongwithpaginationandcompleteformatting,pleaseseehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715014543581Rottmann,Cindy,Sacks,Robin,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2015).Engineeringleadership:

Groundingleadershiptheoryinengineers'professionalidentities.Leadership,11(3),351-373.doi:10.1177/1742715014543581

AbstractInrecentyearstheUS-basedNationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andEngineersCanada(EC)haveurgedengineeringeducatorstosupplementtechnicalcourseworkwithmultipledomainsofprofessionalskillsdevelopment.Onesuchdomainisthatofengineeringleadership.Whileleadershipeducationisbeginningtobeinfusedintosomeundergraduateengineeringprograms,ithasnotyetgainedtractionasalegitimatefieldofstudy.Thelegitimacyofthefielddependsonengineersrecognizingthemselvesasmembersofaleadershipprofession.OurpaperfacilitatesthisprocessofrecognitionbygroundingleadershiptheoryintheprofessionalexperiencesofengineersemployedbyfourCanadianengineering-intensivefirms.Ourconstantcomparativeanalysisofqualitativedatacollectedthroughninefocusgroupsandseveninterviewssuggeststhatengineersarelargelyresistanttodominantleadershipparadigmsdrawnfromotherdisciplines,butthattheydo,infactleadinwaysthatblendkeyaspectsoftheiridentitieswithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluence.Ourcompoundmodelofengineeringleadershiphaspracticalandtheoreticalimplicationsforengineers,leadershiptheoristsandengineeringeducators.Keywords:leadership,engineering,groundedtheory,professionalidentity,resistance

Introduction:EngineeringleadershipdependsonengineersrecognizingthemselvesasleadersRecentpolicydocumentsandprogramreviewsacrossinternationaljurisdictionshaveencouragedengineeringeducatorstobridgetheschooltoworktransitionbysupplementingtechnicalcourseworkwithsocial,communicationandleadershipskillstraining(Graham,2012a,2012b;NAE,2004;Rover,2006;Wakeman,1997).WhiletheinclusionofleadershiptraininginundergraduateandgraduateengineeringprogramshasreceivedsupportfromtheUS-basedNationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andEngineersCanada(EC)(EC,2009,2012a;NAE,2004,2005),engineeringleadershipwillnottakeholdasalegitimatefieldofstudyorpracticeuntilitisacceptedandimplementedbyacriticalmassofpracticingengineers.Theacceptanceandimplementationofengineeringleadershipeducationdependsonwidespreadrecognitionofengineeringasaleadershipprofession.Currently,thereareatleastfourbarrierstothisrecognition.First,thetypicalcareertrajectoryofmostengineerstakesthemthroughfivetotenyearsoftechnicalwork

2

intoprojectorprocessmanagementroles(Reese,2003,2004).Forindividualswhoseloveofengineeringcomesfromtheirtechnicalproblemsolving,thesuddenshifttoresolving“peopleproblems”canfeelbothuncomfortableandun-engineer-like(Reeve,Sacks,Rottmann,Daniels,&Wray,2013).Second,engineerswhoholdatraditional,hierarchicalviewofleadershipmayexperiencethephenomenonasinconsistentwiththeegalitarian,team-basednormsoftheirdiscipline(Breaux,2006;Graham,2012a).Third,thesomewhatamorphousterm“leadership”doesnotalwaysresonatewithmembersofanoccupationalgroupwhosereputationshingeontheirtechnicalprecision(Gopakumar,Dysart-Gale,&Akgunduz,2013;McGrath,2010).Finally,whenfacultiesofengineeringsupportleadershipprimarilythroughoptional,extracurricularinvolvement(Alajek,Ham,Murdock,&Verrett,2013;McGrath,2010),acriticalmassofstudentsmayviewitasperipheraltothecorecurriculum.Fortunately,thestoryisnotalldoomandgloom.Thesefourbarriersaresurmountablesolongasthreeconditionsaremet:First,engineeringstudentsmustbesocializedtothinkoftheirdisciplineaslegitimatelyhavingbothtechnicalandhumanisticelements(CEAB,2008;EC,2009;NAE,2004).Second,engineersmustbeexposedtoleadershipeducationthatforcesthemtounpacksimplistic,traditionalorhierarchicalnotionsofleadership(Baranowski,2011;Foster&Sheridan,2013;Grasso&Martinelli,2007;Harris,1989)andthird,engineeringleadershipmustbemoreclearlydefinedonthebasisofengineers’professionalexperiences(Andrews&Farris,1967;Reeve,2010;Reeveetal.,2013).ThefirstoftheseconditionswassetintomotionadecadeagobytheNAEthroughTheEngineerof2020:VisionsofEngineeringinthenewCentury(NAE,2004).Thesecondisbeginningtotakeholdinfacultiesofengineeringacrossinternationaljurisdictionsthroughseedgrants,industrysupportandfacultyinitiatives(Hsiao,2013;NAE,2005,2013;Pitts,Klosterman,&McGonagle,2013;Polito&Martinich,2008;Simpson,Evans,&Reeve,2012).Thethirdoftheseconditions—generatingaclear,empiricallybasedconceptionofengineeringleadershipderivedfromtheactualworkexperiencesofengineers—hasnotyetbeenaddressed.Ourpaperfillsthisgap.Inparticular,weanswerthefollowingresearchquestion:Howdoengineersconceptualizeleadershiponthebasisoftheirprofessionalexperiencesinengineering-intensivefirms?Webeginbybrieflyreviewingtheliteratureonengineeringleadershipanddescribingourgroundedtheorymethodology.Next,wepresentourfindingsandillustratethemthroughatheoreticalmodelconnectingengineeringidentity,traditionalnotionsofleadership,resistance,professionallyrecognizedmodesofinfluenceandthreecompoundengineeringleadershiporientations.Finally,wecomparethesefindingstolong-standingleadershiptheoriesandidentifyimplicationsofourstudyforleadershipresearchers,engineeringeducatorsandseniorengineersworkinginindustry.

LiteraturereviewThereisasmallbutgrowingbodyofliteratureintheemergingfieldofengineeringleadership,muchofitlocatedwithinthelargerfieldofengineeringeducation,and

3

mostofitpublishedwithinthelastdecade.Theearliesttextsconstitutecallsforreforminengineeringeducation.Thesewerefollowedcloselybyengineeringleadershipprogramdescriptions.Outsidethefieldofengineeringeducation,mainstreamleadershiptheorieshavebeenappliedtoengineers’work.Thethreemostcommonsourcesareengineeringeducationconferenceproceedings,LeadershipandManagementinEngineeringandtheJournalofEngineeringEducation.Beforepresentingourfindings,webrieflyreviewthisbodyofliterature.Callsforreformhavecomefromnationalengineeringorganizations(EC,2009,2012b;NAE,2004,2005,2012,2013)aswellasfromprofessionalengineersthemselves(Baranowski,2011;Bonasso,2001;Cassin,2003;Flowers,2002;Ivey,2002;Kalonji,2005;Katehi,2005;King,2012;Kirschenman,2011;Mawson,2001;Pierson,2013;Reeve,2010;Vest,2005).Thesecallsarebasedontwocomplementary,butdistinct,rationales.TherationalefirstarticulatedbytheNAEenlistsaglobalcompetitionargument—theUnitedStateswillfallbehindothernationsifgraduatesofengineeringprogramsareexclusivelytrainedintechnicalproblemsolving.Stateddifferently,globalmobilityandcompetitionresultingfromincreasinglytransnationaleconomiesdemandthatNorthAmericanengineersleadcross-cultural,inter-disciplinaryteamsandrespondtoarangeofstakeholderconcerns.Theycannotdothiswithoutmergingthehumanisticandtechnicalelementsoftheirprofession.Arelatedrationaleformergingtechnicalandhumanisticaspectsofengineeringisrootedintheideaofprofessionalservice(Bonasso,2001;Cassin,2003;Grasso&Martinelli,2007;Hill,Lorenz,Dent,&Lutzkendorf,2013;Mawson,2001;Pierson,2013;Vallero,2008;Wakeman,1997).Thislineofthinkingsuggeststhatitistheprofessionalresponsibilityofengineerstotakeleadershiprolesininfrastructuredevelopment,publicsafety,environmentalsustainabilityandcommunitybuilding.Theymustnotonlysolveotherpeople’sproblemsaccuratelyandefficiently,butmustalsousetheirknowledge,trainingandexpertisetoethicallyframetheseproblemsforthemselvesandfortheirprofession.TheNAE’scallsforreformhavebeentakenupandimplementedbymanyfacultiesofengineering(Seeforexample,Athreyaetal.,2010;Bayless,2013;Cain&Cocco,2013;Ellis&Petersen,2011;Froyd,2005;Ha,2013;Hsiao,2013;Kerns,Miller,&Kerns,2005;Kumar&Hsiao,2007;McCuen,1999;NAE,2005;Osagiede,FarmerCox,&Ahn,2013;Pittsetal.,2013;Simpsonetal.,2012;Strong&Frank,2013)resultinginanamazingrangeofdeliveryoptionsandprogramelements.Engineeringleadershipeducationiscurrentlyofferedthroughself-containedprograms,stand-alonecourses,co-curricularofferings,multi-yearteamprojects,servicelearningopportunities,problem-basedlearning,coaching,mentorship,inter-disciplinaryteamprojects,professionallearningcommunities,industry-sponsored“grandchallenges”andinstitutionalcooperationbetweentwoormoreuniversityfaculties.Thegrowingnumberofconferencepresentationsandjournalarticlesonengineeringleadershipeducationisimpressive,buttheyaregenerallylimitedtoauthors’promotionaldescriptionsoftheirownprograms.Theoneexceptiontothistrendisalarge-scalereviewof40internationalengineeringleadershipprograms(Graham,2012a,2012b;Graham,Crawley,&Mendelsohn,2009).Grahamandher

4

colleagues’centralfindingwasthatengineeringleadershipprogramswereprevalentbutinsufficientlysystemic—piecemeal,isolatedandlackingininstitutionalsupport.Studiesofengineeringleadershipintheworkplacearelessprevalent,butmoreoftenempiricallybasedthanengineeringeducationprogramdescriptions.Someresearchersfocusonthedistinctleadershipneedsofemployersinspecificindustriessuchashigh-riskworkplaces(Martines-Corcoles,Gracia,Tomas,Peiro,&Schobel,2013;Slates,2008;Snowball&Travers,2012),publicworks(Singh&Jampel,2011)andthemilitary(Flowers,2002;Locurcio&Mitvalsky,2002),whileothersapplytraditionalleadershiptheorytoasubsetoftheengineeringworkforce.Researchstudiesandprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsframedusingtransformationalleadership(Breaux,2006),servantleadership(Croft,Winkelman,Boisvert,&Patten,2013),selfleadership(Colcleugh&Reeve,2013;Porter,1993)andauthorityleadership(Ning,Zhou,Lu,&Wen,2012;Zhou&Liu,2011)aidinter-disciplinarycomparisonsofleaders,buttheydisadvantageengineersbymeasuringthemagainststandardssetbyresearchersfamiliarwithotherdisciplinarynorms.Thethreeauthorswhohavecomeclosesttoconceptualizing“engineeringleadership”inananalyticallyclearmannerareFarr,MalletteandRobledo(Farr&Brazil,2009;Farr,Walesh,&Forsythe,1997;Mallette,2005;Robledo,Peterson,&Mumford,2012).Farrandhiscolleaguesidentifyninekeyleadershipqualitiesrelevanttoengineers—bigthinker,ethicalandcourageous,masterschange,risktaker,missionthatmatters,decision-maker,usespowerwisely,teambuilderandgoodcommunicator;Mallette(2005)drawson30yearsofexperienceintheaerospaceindustrytoconstructaleadershipstylebestsuitedtothemanagementofengineers;andRobledo,Peterson&Mumford(2012)proposeathree-vectormodelofleadershiptoaccommodatethecreativeworkofscientistsandengineers.Farr,MalletteandRobledohavelaidthenecessarygroundworkforadiscipline-specifictheoryofengineeringleadership,buttheytendtofocusonhowbesttoleadengineers,nothowengineerslead.Ourbriefreviewoftheliteraturesuggeststhatthereisagrowingbodyofknowledgeonengineeringleadership,butthatthisknowledgeislimitedbyaneditorialratherthanempiricalapproachtoprogramevaluation,adescriptiveratherthananalytictreatmentofdataandexcessiveattentiontothemanagementofengineers.Asignificantconceptualgapremains.Inpart,thisgaparisesfromourculturalfamiliaritywiththeword“leadership.”Weallknowwhatwemeanwhenweusethetermandmostofuscanidentifyaliving,breathingspecimen.Unfortunately,thecross-culturalprevalenceofthewordcausesustoskipovertheimportantworkofdefiningit.Engineeringleadershiphasbeenadvocatedfor,implementedinuniversitiesandevaluatedagainsttraditionalleadershipstandards,butithasyettobedefined.Ourpaperreturnstotheconceptualstartingpoint—thatis,weexaminewhatconstitutesengineeringleadershipfromtheperspectivesofengineersworkinginfourCanadianengineering-intensiveorganizations.

5

Methodology:GroundedTheoryThispaperaddressesthefirstofthreeresearchquestionsdrivingalargermixed-methodstudyofengineeringleadership—“Howdoengineersconceptualizeleadership?”Thepaucityofresearchonengineeringleadershipshapedourdecisiontoemployagroundedtheory(Glaser&Strauss,1967)approachtodatacollectionandanalysisforourinitialqualitativephase.Firstproposedin1967byGlaserandStrauss,theintentofgroundedtheoryistogenerateanintegratedsetofconceptsthatdescribesandexplainscomplexsocialphenomenaincontext.Inthe46yearssinceitwasfirstintroduced,therehavebeenmanyepistemologicalandproceduralsplitsbetweenGlaser,Straussandtheirrespectivefollowers.Fortunately,afewcoreideasremainintact—datacollectionanddataanalysisoccursimultaneously(Glaser&Strauss,1967);dataanalysisoccursthroughaniterativeprocessreferredtoas“constantcomparison”(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965;Glaser&Strauss,1967);codingisthefundamentalanalyticprocess(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser&Strauss,1967);conceptsarethebasicunitsofanalysis(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser&Strauss,1967);samplingproceedsontheoreticalgroundsandcontinuesuntilallconceptsreachthepointoftheoreticalsaturation(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965;Glaser&Strauss,1967)andthefinaltheoryisjudgedbyfit,relevance,workabilityandmodifiability(Glaser&Strauss,1967)ratherthantruthvalue,validityorreliability.Oursamplingandanalyticaldecisionsweredrivenbyeachofthesecorecriteria.Ourinitialsiteselectionstrategycombinedconvenience,purposiveand(Miles&Huberman,1994)theoretical(Glaser,1978,2013;Glaser&Strauss,1967)sampling.WebeganbygeneratingalistofengineeringintensivefirmsinthegreaterToronto(Ontario,Canada)areaandassigningapointvalueforeachofourpurposiveandconveniencecriteria.Purposivecriteriaincludedengineeringconcentration,commitmenttoleadershipdevelopmentandacrosssectionofengineeringdisciplines.Ourconveniencecriteriaincludedgeographicalproximity,institutionaltiestotheUniversityofTorontoandmemberofourorganizationalnetwork.TheseniormemberofourteamcontactedtheChiefExecutiveOfficerofhighscoringorganizationsandpitchedourresearchproposal.Fourengineering-intensiveorganizationsinfourdistinctindustrysectors—chemical,civilconsulting,software,mining&metalprocessing—metourcriteriaandconsentedtoparticipateinthestudy.Allfourcompanieshaveinternationaloffices;however,weexclusivelysampledstaffworkingintwoCanadianprovinces—OntarioandQuebec.TheCanadianofficesofthetwosmallercompaniesemployedapproximately400people,whilethoseofthetwolargercompaniesemployedapproximately4000people.Theoreticalsamplingcontinuedthroughouttheanalyticprocessaswesoughtoutnewgroupsofengineerstofillconceptualgaps.WhileourdecisiontofocusonCanadianorganizationswasprimarilyaproductofconvenience,webelievethereisvalueinexaminingengineeringleadershipinthisnationalcontext.Canadaisarelativelydecentralized,middle-powergeo-politicalentitythathasbecomeincreasinglysubjecttoandincreasinglyabletotake

6

advantageofglobalpolicies,legislationsandreformmovements.AssignatoriesoftheWashingtonAccord(1989)—aninternationalengineeringeducationaccreditationagreement—Canadianengineershaveenteredaneraofglobalaccreditationstandards(Gopakumaretal.,2013;Sweeney,2005).AstrongindicationofthisinfluenceisthecongruencebetweentheCanadianEngineeringAccreditationBoardgraduateattributes(CEAB,2008,2012;EC,2012b)andthosegeneratedbytheAmericanAccreditationBoardforEngineeringandTechnology(ABET,2011).Internationallyharmonizededucationstandardsaside,engineersinCanadafallunderprovincialjurisdictionandthuscontinuetoexertprofessionalautonomyatamorelocallevel(PEO,2013).OurresearchonengineeringleadershipinaCanadiancontextallowsustoexaminehowaparticularglobalreformideatargetinghighereducation—engineeringleadership—haslandedinaprovincialcontextwhereleadershiphasnotyetbeenfullyacceptedasakeycomponentofengineers’professionalidentities.Todate,wehaveconducted9focusgroupsand7interviewswithjuniorengineers,seniorengineersandHumanResourceprofessionalsworkinginfourengineering-intensivefirms.Focusgroupsandinterviewswereaudiotapedwithpermissionandtranscribedverbatimyielding721pagesofqualitativedata.Ourdecisiontoconductfocusgroupsemergedfromourinterestindiscoveringengineers’leadershipdiscourses.Preliminaryanalysisofthefirstthreefocusgroupstaughtusthatmanyengineersresistedtheideaofleadershipbecausetheyfoundittobeinconsistentwiththeirprofessionalidentitiesasengineers.Weattemptedtosidesteptheirresistanceinfuturefocusgroupsbyaskingthemtoplayaskill/attributesortcardgamewiththeideaofprofessionalsuccessinmind.Ouranalysisofthisactivityandthefollow-uplineofquestioningaboutinfluentialcolleaguesallowedustoconceptualizethreedistinctengineeringleadershiporientations.Wepresentedourpreliminaryfindingstorepresentativesfromeachofthefourorganizationsatacommunityofpracticeconferenceandincorporatedtheirfeedbackintofutureiterationsofouremergingengineeringleadershiptheory.Withthispreliminarytheoryinmind,webegantoorganizationallycontextualizeourfindingsthroughkeyinformantinterviewswithHumanResourceProfessionalsateachofthefourorganizations.Wealsoconductedanadditionalfocusgroupwithengineeringentrepreneurstotestourinitialfindingofresistance.Ateachstageofdatacollection,weanalyzedtranscriptsusingacombinationofopen,axial,selectiveandtheoreticalcoding(Corbin&Strauss,1990;Glaser,1965,2013;Hernandez,2009;LaRossa,2005).Opencodinginvolvedlabelingeverylineofeverytranscriptwithoneormoreconceptuallymeaningful“codes,”groupingsimilarcodesintocategories,iterativelycomparingsimilarcategorieswithadditionaldataandmarkingdistinctionswithsub-categories.Ouruseofthe“constantcomparative”method(Glaser,1965)enabledustosortdataonaconceptualbasisanditerativelyrevisecodenamessotheyreflectedparticipants’experiences.Eventually,ourconceptualrevisionprocessdeceleratedwitheachnewdatasource.Thisearlysignofdatasaturationcausedustoshiftourattentiontoaxialcoding.WefollowedCorbinandStrauss’(1990)protocolforaxialcodingby

7

hypothesizingtheconditions,contexts,actionsandconsequencesshapingeachcategoryandsub-category.Asourprocessofrevisinghypothesestoaccommodatenewdatadecelerated,weturnedourattentiontoselectiveandtheoreticalcoding.Selectivecodinginvolvedlimitingouranalysistoakeyanalyticcodeanditsrelatedsub-categorieswhiletheoreticalcodinginvolvedthreadingtogetheractors’perspectivesaboutthiskeyconcepttogenerateanexperientiallygroundedtheoreticalmodel.

FindingI:Leadershipisnotus!Ausefulpointofdepartureforgroundedtheoristsistoaskwhatproblemorproblemsactorsaregrapplingwithinrelationtoresearchers’phenomenaofinterest(Glaser,2004;LaRossa,2005).Ourphenomenonofinterestisengineeringleadership.Unfortunately,aswebegantoconductfocusgroupsandanalyzetranscripts,itbecamecleartousthatthemajorityofengineersinoursamplefoundleadershiptobeimprecise,impractical,elitistandjust“notus.”Thequotationbelowillustratesseveralofthesedimensions:

Theconnotationthatthisword[leadership]carriesissortofantitheticaltotheengineeringmind-setfrommypointofview.Forexample,thenotionofstandingontopofahill,wavingtheflag,sittingonyourhorsewiththepeasantsbehindyoucarryingtheir[pitch]forksistheexactoppositeofanythingIpersonallyoranyoneIknowwantstodo.

Implicitinparticipants’multi-dimensionalresistancewasanelementofcognitivedissonancebetweentheirprofessionalidentitiesasengineersandtheirviewsofleadershipasantitheticaltothesestronglyheldidentities.Pleaseseetableoneforalistofengineers’keyidentityfeaturesandtheirtraditionalnotionsofleadership.Table1:MismatchbetweenEngineers’identities&traditionalnotionsofleadership Engineers’professionalidentities TraditionalnotionsofleadershipKeyfeatures/Dimensions

AppliedscientistServiceprofessionalTeamworkTechnicalproblemsolverTask-orienteddoerProcessoptimizers

CharismaticvisionaryPositionalinfluenceattopofhierarchy“Greatman”—anagenticindividualSolvespeopleproblemsDelegatorChangeagent

Whenweanalyzedthetensionsbetweenengineers’identityfeaturesandtheirconceptionsofleadership,wefoundsixprofessionallyspecificdimensionsofresistance.First,thestrategicplansofcharismaticvisionariesseemedimpreciseandimpracticaltoappliedscientists.Second,hierarchicalnotionsofleadershipfeltuncomfortableandelitisttoengineerswhodefinedthemselvesasserviceprofessionals.Third,theindividualismimplicitin“greatman”theoriesofleadershipcontrastedwiththecollaborativenatureofengineers’daytodaywork.Fourth,engineerswhodependonrationalityandobjectivedatatosolvetechnicalproblemsfeltunpreparedtoresolvethehighlysubjectiveandoftenemotionalpeopleproblemsfacedbymostmanagers.Fifth,engineerswhopridedthemselvesonbeingtask-

8

oriented“doers”tendedtohavelimitedrespectformanagerswhodelegatedtaskstoothers.Finally,engineersdedicatedtooptimizingaparticularproductorprocessstruggledtokeepupwiththeiriterativeworkwheninternalchangeagentskeptrestructuringtheorderofthings.Thesesixdimensionsofresistancesuggestthatengineers’expertiseandcoreidentityfeatures—appliedscientist,serviceprofessional,teamplayer,technicalproblemsolver,taskorienteddoer,andprocessoptimizer—findlittlespaceforexpressionintraditionalperformancesofleadership.Ourfindingofwidespreadresistanceposedaproblem.Howcouldwestudythephenomenonof“engineeringleadership”fromtheperspectiveofengineerswhensomanyengineersexperienced“engineering”and“leadership”asincompatibleterms?Weaddressedthischallengebynotingthatparticipant’s“theoriesinuse”differedfromtheir“espousedtheories”(Argyris&Schon,1974)ofengineeringleadership.Thatis,whiletheyespousedthebeliefthatengineeringwasinconsistentwiththeideaofleadership,theyeasilyrecalledexamplesofinfluentialengineeringcolleaguesleadingintheirworkplaces.Statedmoresuccinctly,acriticalmassofengineersdismissedtheideaof“engineeringleadership”inthesamebreathastheytoldusstoriesaboutengineerleaders.Theirstoriessuggestthatengineeringpracticeinvolvesprofessionallylegitimateformsofinfluencewhetherornotengineersself-identifyas“leaders.”Ouropencodingprocesshelpedusidentifythreewaysinwhichengineerslead.

Finding2:ThreeorientationstoengineeringleadershipParticipants’experientiallyinformedstoriesrevealedtheworkplacerealitythatwhileengineersmayresisttheideaofleadership,theydo,infact,lead.Engineersinallfouroftheorganizationswestudiedledinatleastthreeways.Theysharedtheirwell-developedtechnicalproblemsolvingskillswithothersthroughinformalmentorship—technicalmastery;theybuilteffectiveandefficientteamsacrossorganizationalunitsbylearningaboutandleveragingtheircolleagues’strengths—collaborativeoptimizationandtheyusedentrepreneurialthinkingtobringtechnicallysoundideastomarket—organizationalinnovation.Werefertothesethreedistinctconceptionsofengineeringleadershipasorientationstohighlighttheirdevelopmentalratherthandeterministicnature.Pleaseseetabletwoforasummaryofthesefindings.Table2:ThreeOrientationstoEngineeringLeadership TechnicalMastery Collaborative

OptimizationOrganizationalInnovation

Briefdescription

Technicalexpertisepassedonthroughinformaladviceandmentorship.

Skilledfacilitationofgroupprocesswithaneyetoquality,efficiencyandengagement.

Visionaryrealizationofpractical,entrepreneurialandintrepreneurialideas.

Who? Theengineeryoumostoftengotowithyourtechnicalquestions

Theengineerwhobuildshighperformingteamsbybringingoutthebestineveryone

Theengineerwhosecreativeideasdrivethecompany

9

Keyfeatures-Technical

TechnicalexpertiseSubjectmatterspecialist;skilledapplicationofscience;highlevelpatternrecognition;creativeanddetailedanalysisoftechnicalproblems

ProcessoptimizationInterdisciplinarytechnicalgeneralist;skilledatmatchingprojectobjectives,teammemberskillsandresources;balancesqualityandefficiency

InnovationIndustryknowledge;critical,“outsidethebox”thinker;takescalculatedrisksandlearnsfrommistakes;developspatentsandpublications;problemposing

Keyfeatures-Influence

MentorshipCoachesjuniorandseniorengineers;listenstoandunderstandsothers’questions;clearlyexplainscomplexproblemstoarangeofaudiences;“go-to”technicalresourcefororganization

TeamCatalystFacilitatesinterdependence;fostersgrowththroughcriticalfeedback;helpsteamadapttochangeandconflict;inspiresandmotivatesteammembers;leveragescolleagues’strengths

RealizationAnticipatestrendandplansstrategically;changeagent(intrepreneur);establishesstartups(entrepreneur);implementsideastobenefitclientsandrespondtomarkettrends

Primarylevelofinfluence

Dyad Team/Department Organization

Jobsatisfactionderivedfrom

Lifelonghoningofcraft Extensiveprofessionalnetworks

Realizedvisions

Organizationalbenefits

Buildsclienttrustandmarket-sharethroughstrongtechnicalreputation;buildsorganizationalcapacityforproblemsolving;fostersorganization-widelearningthroughinformalapprenticeshipsystem

Reducedtimespentdealingwithmicro-politicaltensions;satisfiedemployeesworkingtotheirpotential;improvedrelationshipsbetweengeographicallydisparateoffices

Diffusionofacreative,start-upethosacrosstheorganization;organizationbecomesincreasinglyresponsivetotechnicalandeconomictrends;jobcreation;institutionalizationofnewtechnologies

TechnicalMasteryParticipantsconsistentlyspokewithgreatadmirationabouttheengineersintheirworkplaceswhowereskilledatsolvingtechnicallychallengingproblems,especiallywhenthesecolleagueswereknowntosupportothers.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationastechnicalmastery.Dimensionsoftechnicalmasteryinclude:subject-matterexpertise;integrated,holisticapplicationofmathematicalandscientifictheory;creative,dynamicproblemsolving;secondnaturepatternrecognition/thinkinginpatterns;confidenceintheirowntechnicalcompetence;peer-recognizedexpertiseandtheabilitytocomprehendcolleagues’questions,clarifytheirconfusionandsupporttheirgrowththroughformalandinformalmentorshipresponsibilities.Participantsfromallfourorganizationsdescribedtheimplicitcollegialnominationprocessusedtoidentifyindividualswiththisleadershiporientation:

Leadershipisoftenimplicit,andyouwillbeimplicitlychosenbyyourpeers…Inateam,youaregoingtohavesomebodywhojustkindofemerges…therealleaderwheretherubbermeetstheroadisyourtechlead.

10

Weconceptualizedthisorientationastechnicalmasterybecauseofthequalitativedistinctionbetweenintegratedproblemsolvingexpertiseandtheotherwisesuccessfulapplicationofknowledge,proceduresandtoolsdemonstratedbymanyexperiencedengineers.Oneparticipantmadeausefulchessanalogy:

Iwilltrytouseananalogy…playingchess.Mostpeoplelearntoplaychessinmoreorlessthesameway.Youlearnaboutthewaythatthepiecesmoveandthenyoulearnaboutthepointvaluesofthepieces…Amasterdoesn’tplaychessthatway.Amasterseestheboardasacollectionofimbalancesbetweentwoveryevenlymatchedsides…thesearefeaturesthattheamateurchessplayercan’tperceiveatall.Theygetthatonlythroughyearsandyearsofplay.Tryingtobringthisbacktotherealtopicofdiscussionhere,typicallyundergraduates…[are]stillthinkinginchesstacticsformatof“hey,thisideawouldbegoodbecauseofthesespecifictacticalconsiderations,”buttheycan’tseethebroaderpatternofwhatisgoingonintheworldtosay,“myvisionistherightvision,notjustbecauseIthinkit’sagoodidea,butbecauseitmatchesthestateofplayoftheboard.”

Engineersidentifiedbytheircolleaguesas“go-to”technicalspecialistsintheirorganizationsnotonlyknewhowtouseengineeringtoolsinareliablemanner;theywerealsoabletocreativelysynthesizeallrelevantcontextualfactorsbeforesolvingcomplexproblems.Asanengineeringleadershiporientation,Technicalmasteryintegrateselementsofmentorship,coachingandcommunicationwithhighlevelcomputational,patternrecognitionandcreativeproblemsolvingskills.Engineers,whoarestronglyorientedtothetechnicalelementsoftheirjobsandhavebeenrecognizedbyothersascompetentinthisrealm,leadbyinspiringcolleaguestosethighstandardsfortechnicalproblemsolving.Beyondthisinspirationalrole,theyleadthroughformalandinformalmentorshipresponsibilities.Informally,theyfunctionastranslatorsofcomplexconceptsandcoachesforjuniorengineerswhoneedhelptrouble-shooting.Formally,theyareoftenpromotedto“TechLead”positions,calledupontocoachjuniorengineersthroughorganizationallyimplementedmentorshipprogramsandinvitedtoexplaincomplextechnicalconceptstoclientswithnon-engineeringbackgrounds.Whiletechnicalmasteryprimarilytakesplaceattheindividualanddyadiclevel,amultiplicationofdyadicinteractionsbetweenhighlyskilledproblemsolversandnoviceengineerscanaccelerateorganizationallearninginapractical,project-specificwaythatmirrorsanapprenticeshipmodel,wherebytheapprenticehasmultipleformalandinformalguides.Individualswhoembodythisorientationgainjobsatisfactionfromthelife-longhoningoftheircraftwhiletheirorganizationsbenefitfromenhancedorganizationallearningsystemsandanexemplarytechnicalreputationamongindustryleaders.

CollaborativeOptimizationCollaborativeoptimizationwasthemostregularlycharacterizedleadershiporientationacrossthefourorganizationswestudied.Individualswhoembodied

11

thisorientationtendedtobuildandcatalyzehighperformingteamsbybringingoutthebestineveryone.Theprevalenceofthisorientationreflectsthecentralityofteamworkinengineering-intensiveorganizations.

Themajorityofengineersinanengineeringcompanyareworkinginteams.Noonepersoncanunderstandeverythingaboutasystem,youneedthepeoplewhoarespecialistsinpipelinedesign,electricalengineering—andevenwithinelectricalengineeringyouhavesomanydifferentfacetsofit,soteamworkissomethingthatiscrucialtoourengineeringeducationandthathelpsdevelopgreatleaders.

Theneedforeffectiveteamleadershiparisesbecausenoindividualspecialist,regardlessofhisorhercompetence,canindependentlydeliveralargeproject.Rather,inter-disciplinaryteamsassembledandfacilitatedbymid-careerandseniorengineersfunctionastheprimaryvehiclesofproductandprocessdeliveryinengineering-intensivefirms.Thedimensionsofcollaborativeoptimizationinclude:facilitatinginterdependence;optimizingteamprocess;motivatingandenablingothers;balancingquality,efficiencyandengagement;buildingbridgesacrossorganizationalunits;leveragingteammembers’strengths;skilfullyassemblinginter-disciplinaryteams;exhibitingorganizationalsavvy;managingconflictthroughcollegialcommunication;collectiveproblemsolving;sharedresponsibility;self-organizingsystemsandtheestablishmentoffeedbacknetworks.Thetwoquotationsbelowillustratethesedimensions—thefirstforegroundinganindividualcatalystwithinateamcontext,andtheseconddescribinganorganizationallyinfusedmentalityofsharedresponsibility:

Leadershiptometoday,atleastinsideof[XX],ismoreaboutbeinganefficientcomponentofaself-organizingsystem…Ifyouthrowmeintooneofthesesystems,Iamnotgoingtobecometheleaderofthepack,butIamgoingtomakeitworkbetter…whathappenstomepersonallyisthatIgetthrownintomoreandmoreexcitingpacks.It’slike[mycolleagues]knowthatwhenever[Iam]inoneofthesegroups,[I]willmakeitworksomuchbetter.Whenthereisaproblemandsomethinggoeswrong,everyonestepsupandsays,“howcanwehelptofixit?”Thathappensallofthetimehere.It’sneveracaseof,“that’snotmyproblem.”

Engineerswhoareknownforassemblinghigh-performanceinter-disciplinaryteamsbyleveragingthestrengthsoftheircolleaguesmostcloselyresembletheidealofengineeringleadershipdescribedbytheNAE(2004).Thatis,theyskilfullystrikeabalancebetweenthehumanisticandtechnicalaspectsoftheprofession.Theseengineersmayoccupyformalpositionsasteamleadersortheymaysimplybeknownascatalystsforeffectiveself-organizingteams,butinallcases,theypositivelyimpacttheorganizationalculture.Thesecondquotationsuggeststhattheorganizationalcultureitselfmaybeapowerfulsourceofgroupinfluence.Inthis

12

way,thecollaborativeoptimizationorientationtoengineeringleadershipisnotonlyapropertyofindividualcatalysts,butalsoacollectivepropertyofgroupsandorganizations(Ogawa&Bossert,1995).Engineerswhoembodyacollaborativeoptimizationleadershiporientationderivejobsatisfactionfromextensiveprofessionalnetworksandhighqualityprojectdelivery,whiletheirorganizationsbenefitfromproductive,collegialrelationshipsbetweenemployees.

OrganizationalInnovationFinally,engineersinallfourorganizationsspokeaboutcolleaguesandsenioradministratorswhousedentrepreneurialthinkingtobringtechnicallyandscientificallysoundideastopracticeandtomarket.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationasorganizationalinnovation.Engineerswithanorganizationalinnovationorientationtoleadershiparesimilartoentrepreneursandintrepreneurs1inotherdisciplines,buttheyaremorelikelytoanchortheirideasintechnology(softwareplatforms,chemicalprocesses,structuralconsultingpractices,sustainableminingprocessesandotherconcrete,materialsystems).Participantswithrelativelylonginstitutionalmemoriesatallfourorganizationsspokewithgreatrespectaboutchiefexecutiveofficers,directorsandotherseniorengineeringleaderswhohadplantedatechnicalseedandnurturedtheresultingproduct,processorpatentfromthegroundup.Inmanycases,asillustratedbythequotationbelow,theyoperationalizedideasthroughstart-upsandgrewstart-upsintolargerorganizations:

Honestly,inthecaseofasmallcompanythatgrewlikethis,Ifeelitisafunctionoftheinitialingredients.Itisreallythecultureestablishedbythefirstcoupleofpeoplehere.

Whileourrecentsurveyresultssuggestthatorganizationalinnovationismostprevalentatthelatterstagesofone’scareer,thisleadershiporientationisnottheexclusivepropertyofengineersatthetopoftheorganizationalhierarchy.Juniorandintermediateengineersinallfourorganizations,aswellasengineersofallagesandstagesinourentrepreneurfocusgroupfoundwaystoinfluenceorganizationalpracticesbyrepeatedlychallengingthestandardviewonarangeofissues.Thedimensionsoforganizationalinnovationemergingfromourdataanalysisprocessinclude:operationalizinginnovativeideas;systemplanning;establishingorganizationalculturebyexample;bigpicturethinking;problemposing;thinkingoutsidethebox;realizingavision;institutionalizingbestpractices;takingrisks;learningfromfailure;foundingstart-ups;persuadingotherstofollow;catalyzingchange;marketsavvyandidentifyingopportunities.Thedimensionsofproblemposing,thinkingoutsidetheboxandidentifyingopportunitiesareillustratedbythequotationbelow:1Manyengineersworkwithinexistingorganizationstoinnovateorintroducechangefromwithin—apracticereferredtoinsomeengineeringandbusinessjournalsas“intrepreneurship”(seeforexample,Hanifin,Lee,Weaver,Bloemer,&Fry,2013).

13

ColleagueswhoIperceiveaseffectiveoftenhaveabroaderpictureofwhatisgoingon,sotheyknowtheyaresolvingtherightproblemsasopposedtojustdoingthebestjobsolvingthisproblem.Youmightcallthatsortofarenaissanceengineer.

Engineerswithanorganizationalinnovationorientationtoleadershipderivedcareersatisfactionfromrealizingtheirvisionsonalargerscalethanwouldhavebeenpossiblethroughindividualproblemsolving.Beyondjobsatisfaction,theybenefitedtheirorganizationsandsocietybyinstitutionalizingandproducingnewtechnologiesandprocesses,establishingpatentsandcreatingjobsfortechnicalprofessionals.

Finding3:ReconsideringthecentralityofresistanceManyofourfocusgroupparticipantswhoresistedthenotionofengineeringleadershiprationalizedtheirresistancebysuggestingthatitwasnotanengineer’sjobtoidentifyproblems.Rather,itwashisorherresponsibilitytosolveproblemsidentifiedbyothers.Incontrasttothelargemajorityofengineerswhoexpressedthisview,thosewhoself-identifiedorwereidentifiedbyothersasinnovatorsattheorganizationallevelexpandedthepermissiblerangeofengineeringinfluencebeyondtechnicalproblemsolving.Theengineerswhoinhabitedthisexpandedroleweremorelikelythantheircolleaguestoaccept,andinsomecasesevenpromote,theideaofengineeringasaleadershipprofession:

Theriskofnottalkingaboutleadership…mighthave…consequences.Iwouldreallywanttoseemoreengineersrunningourcityorrunningourfinancialinstitutionsorpartsofourgovernment,justbecauseofthetechnicalabilityandalloftheotherproblemsolving,criticalthinking,etc…Idon’tknowhowyoudoitwithoutusingeitherthewordleadershiporconceptslikethat.

Thefocusgroupparticipants—mostlyentrepreneurs—whoseperspectivesalignedwiththesentimentsexpressedintheabovequotationwereleastlikelytoespousetraditional“greatman”theoriesofleadership.Rather,theyspokeofengineeringleadersascoaches,publicservants,inventorsandorganizationalcapacitybuilders.Theirexperiences,identitiesandperspectivesforcedustoreviseouremergenttheoryofengineeringleadershipsothatitnolongerdependedonresistanceasauniversalcondition.Wepresentthispreliminarytheoryinthenextsection.

Theorizing&ModelingEngineeringLeadershipIncontrasttoexperimentalstudiesinwhichtheoriesandhypothesesareempiricallytested,groundedtheoriesareempiricallyanditerativelygenerated.Ourtheoryofengineeringleadershipgroundedintheexperiencesandperspectivesofengineersandhumanresourceprofessionalsemployedbyfourengineering-intensiveorganizationsisschematicallyrepresentedbyFigure1.

14

Ourfigurehighlightsthecentralityoftwovariables—engineers’professionalidentitiesandtheirconceptionsofleadership—totheiracceptanceorrejectionofaleadershipidentity.Whenthisidentityiscombinedwithtraditionalconceptionsofleadership(leftbranch),engineerstendtoresistidentifyingthemselvesortheircolleaguesasleaders.Whenthisidentityiscombinedwithalternative,professionallymeaningfulconceptionsofleadership(rightbranch),theytendtoembrace,oratleastaccept,theideaofan“engineeringleader.”Thatis,without

Engineering identity

Traditional notions of leadership

Resistance to leadership

Professionally-recognized forms of influence

Compound professional identity:engineering leader

Three orientations to engineering leadership

TechnicalMastery

CollaborativeOptimization

OrganizationalInnovation

Figure 1Engineering leadership: the emergence of a compound professional identity

+

(technical expertise+ mentorship)

(process optimization+ team catalyst)

(innovation+ realization)

Conceptions of leadership

15

mergingtwoelements—engineeringidentityandprofessionallyrelevantformsofinfluence—engineersarelikelytoresistleadershipforthemselvesandfortheircolleagues.Solongasthesetwokeyelementsaremerged,engineersarewillingandabletoacceptleadershipasalegitimateaspectoftheirwork.Thecompoundidentitiesdepictedonelayerdownontherightbranchmergeaspectsofengineers’professionalidentities—technicalexpertise,processoptimizationandinnovation—withthreeprofessionally-relevantmodesofinfluence—mentorship,teamcatalysisandrealization.WeusedaVenndiagramtoillustratethiscompoundidentitywiththeleftcirclerepresentingengineeringidentity,therightcirclerepresentingpredominantmodesofinfluenceandtheoverlappingregionreflectingourphenomenonofinterest—engineeringleadership.Thefinallayerbreaksthisphenomenonofinterestintothreesub-categories—technicalmastery,collaborativeoptimizationandorganizationalinnovation.Thewordsinbracketsbeloweachorientationspecifythetwoelementsofeachcompoundidentity.Ourgroundedtheoryofengineeringleadershipsuggeststhattwoconditionsreducethelikelihoodofresistance.First,whenengineerscanseebeyondthe“greatman”conceptionofleadership,asisthecasewithmanytechnicalentrepreneurs,theyareabletoacceptleadershiproleswithoutcompromisingorrejectingtheirprofessionalidentities.Second,whentheword“leadership”isleftoutoftheconversation,itispossibleforengineerswhoseassumptionsaboutleadershipremainnarrowlytraditionaltoenvisionandaccepttheideaofprofessionalengineeringinfluenceattheindividual,team,organizationandevensocietallevel.Thesefindingssuggesttwoimportantimplicationsforengineeringleadershipeducators:first,wemusthelpengineeringstudentsunpacktheirtraditionalnotionsofleadershipandsecond,ifwewantourcurriculumdesigneffortstobeeffective,theyshouldbebuiltonkeyfeaturesofengineers’professionalidentitiesandorganizationallymeaningfulmodesofinfluence.

Discussion:MappingfindingsontoLeadershipTheoryConceptualelementswithinourmodeloverlapinsignificantwayswithideaspresentintheleadershipliterature.Forexample,theideaoftechnicalmasteryblendsGoleman’s“pacesettingstyle”withhis“coachingstyle”ofleadership(Goleman,2000)andisacloseapproximationtoMallette’s“TheoryPi”(2005).Theideaofcollaborativeoptimizationreflectsaninterestingblendoftransformational(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),transactional(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947)anddistributedleadership(Gronn,2002,2008;Spillane,2006),andtheideaoforganizationalinnovationreflectsahighlypracticalversionof“visionaryleadership”(Nanus,1992).Finally,ourthreeorientationstoleadershiplooselycorrespondwithAdizes’(1976)producer(technicalmastery),integrator/administrator(collaborativeoptimization)andentrepreneur(organizationalinnovation)roles.Weexpandontheserelationshipsintheparagraphsthatfollow.

16

Goleman’s(2000)pacesettingstyleofleadershipinvolvessettingandexemplifyinghighperformancestandards,whilehiscoachingstylefocusesonthepersonalandprofessionaldevelopmentofemployees.Engineerscapableofmergingthesetwostylesaremostlikelytobeorientedtoleadershipastechnicalmastery.Theyarealsomostlikelytotakeona“producer”(Adizes,1976)rolewithintheirorganization.Ofourthreeleadershiporientations,technicalmasteryistheonlyonetobecharacterizedintheengineeringleadershipliterature—throughMallette’s(2005)TheoryPi.TheaddedcontributionofTechnicalMasteryoverTheoryPiisthatitencompassestheworkofengineersasleaders,notjustleadersofengineers.Unfortunately,whilemostengineerswiththisdyadicapproachtoleadershiparevaluedastechnicalresources,theytendtobeinvisibleasleaders.Thisisbecausetheyarerarelylocatednearthetopoftheirinstitutionalhierarchies.Theyareresponsiveratherthancommandingandpassoninsightswhenemployeesrunintotechnicalchallenges.Inthisway,theyfunctionas“servantleaders”(Greenleaf,1977)withtechnicalexpertise.Incontrasttothesomewhatinvisibleleadershiporientationoftechnicalmastery,thevastmajorityoffocusgroupparticipantsbasedtheirdefinitionsofengineeringleadershipontheworkofindividualsinformal,highlyvisiblepositionsofresponsibility—teamleaders,projectleadersandprocessleaders.Themosthighlyvaluedengineersinthesemiddlemanagementpositionswereknownfortheirskilledfacilitationofgroupprocess,theirabilitytobuildbridgesbetweenorganizationalunits,andtheircapacitytoleverageandacknowledgeteammembers’strengths.Werefertothisengineeringleadershiporientationascollaborativeoptimization.Whenmappedontotraditionalleadershiptheory,collaborativeoptimizationrecallstherelationalaspectsoftransformationalleadership(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),thespecializedtraininginherentintransactionalleadership(Bass,1985;Burns,1978;Weber,1947),theparticipativeelementsofdistributedleadership(Gronn,2002,2008;Spillane,2006)andAdizes(1976)organizationalrolesof“integrator”and“administrator.”Likeengineersknownfortheirtechnicalmastery,thoserecognizedfortheircollaborativeoptimizationweredescribedas“doers”withsufficientknowledgeandexperiencetounderstandtheprojectstheyweremanaging.Theirintegrativeroleoccasionallyinvolveddelegation,butthisdelegationwasalwaysbasedontightrelationshipsbetweenprojectobjectivesandteammembers’skillsandstatedinterests.Finally,ourthirdorientationtoengineeringleadership—organizationalinnovation—mapsontoNanus’(1992)theoryofvisionaryleadershipandreflectsAdizes’“entrepreneur”(Adizes,1976)role.Nanustheorizesleadershipasafuture-orientedendeavourthatnotonlyrequiresanattractiveorengagingvision,butalsohastobesufficientlyrealistictobepracticallyachievable.Liketransformationalleadership,visionaryleadershipdependsonpersuasion,butitdrawsonanattractive,imaginedfutureratherthananattractive,charismaticpersonality.Organizationalinnovationgoesonestepfurtherthanvisionaryortransformationalleadershipinthatthevisionmustbeoperationalized.BergerandLuckmann’s

17

(1966)dualprocessofrealization—theapprehensionofanideaasrealandtheprocessofmakingitreal—clarifiesthisdistinction.Bothvisionaryleadershipandorganizationalinnovationdependontheapprehensionofafuture-orientedvisionasrealistic(realizationasrecognition).However,onlyorganizationalinnovationrequiresthevisiontobetransformedintoauseableproduct,processorpatent(realizationasoperationalization).Thepracticalnatureofthisinstitutionalizationprocesssuggeststhatorganizationalinnovationsharesthe“leadershipbydoing”flavouroftheothertwoengineeringleadershiporientations.Thus,engineers’leadershipcredibilitydependsontheirrealizationofinnovativeideasbeyondthevisionaryorideationalstage.AparticularlyinterestingaspectofourthreeemergentengineeringleadershiporientationsistheirpotentialtorehabilitateWeber’s(1947)“bureaucratic”authority.Weberidentifiedthreeidealtypesofauthority—traditional,charismaticandbureaucratic—thefirstbasedonsocialorfamilialstatus,thesecondbasedonthepersonalityofanindividualleaderandthethirdbasedonone’sprofessionaltrainingororganizationalposition.Unfortunately,ournegativeexperienceswithmodernbureaucraciesincombinationwithourNorthAmericancultoftheindividualhavecausedustodismissthemostaccessibleofWeber’sthreetypes.Bureaucraticauthorityanditsassociatedleadershipstyle,“transactionalleadership”(Bass,1985;Burns,1978),havebeenframedastheundesirablefoiltocharismaticauthorityanditsassociatedleadershipstyle,“transformationalleadership”(Bass,1985;Burns,1978).Theunintendedconsequenceofthiscomparisonisthat“effective”leadershipisreducedtoasingle,andlargelyunattainable,“transformational”approach.Engineers’leadershipcapacitymoreoftenstemsfromtheirsubjectmatterexpertise,organizationallocationandco-ordinatingresponsibilitiesthanfromtheirsocialstatusorcharismaticpersonalities.Thissuggeststhatifbureaucraticauthorityisrelegatedtothebackgroundofleadershiptheory,engineers’professionalleadershippotentialwillbesimilarlymasked.Tocharacterizetransactionalleadershipasaninstrumentalgameofrewardsandpunishmentsistoignorethefactthatleaderscanblendtransformationalandtransactionalelementsintheirwork(Yukl,1999).Ourpreliminaryengineeringleadershiptheorysuggeststhatitispossibletomergeinspiration,engagement,learningandspecializedtrainingwithformalorganizationalpositionandtechnicalexpertisetoproducehighquality,dynamicresultsthatfeelmeaningfultoengineers.Whileourresearchexclusivelyfocussedonengineers,itisimportanttonotethatresearchinotherprofessionshasrevealedoccupationallyspecificadjustmentstoleadershiptheoryaswell.Studiesofleadershipfromtheperspectiveoflawyers(Forrow,1989;Rhode,2010),doctors(Apker&Eggly,2004;Collins-Nakai,2006;Goodall,2011),professors(Goodall,2009),scientists(Andrews&Farris,1967;Mumford,Scott,Gaddis,&Strange,2002;Robledoetal.,2012),teachers(Bascia,1996,1997;Casey,1993;Henry,1992;Lieberman,Saxl,&Miles,1988;Little,1988;Rottmann,2006;Smylie&Denny,1990;Wasley,1991),andeliteathletes(Bridgewater,Kahn,&Goodall,2011)suggestthatmembersofmany

18

occupationally-definedgroupsreframeleadershipinwaysthataccommodatekeyfeaturesoftheirrespectiveprofessions.Thus,whilethethreeleadershiporientationslistedatthebottomofourmodelarespecifictoengineering,itispossiblethattheconceptofacompoundprofessionalleadershipidentityismorebroadlygeneralizabletootheroccupationalgroups.

ConclusionsOurgroundedtheoryofengineeringleadershipsuggeststhatdespiteovertresistancetotheword“leadership,”engineersacrossorganizationalsitesandindustriesdoinfactlead.Ifleadershipisprimarilyaboutinfluence,engineersinoursampleledbypassingonexperientiallygainedtechnicalinsights,buildingbridgesacrossorganizationalunitsandoperationalizingtheirinnovativeideas.Thesethreemodesofinfluenceledustoidentifythreecorrespondingengineeringleadershiporientations—technicalmastery,collaborativeoptimizationandorganizationalinnovation.LikeWeber’s(1947)three“idealtypes”ofauthority,thesethree“idealtypes”ofengineeringinfluencerepresentdistinctconceptionsofleadershipthatemergedfromempiricaldata.Theyarenotcharacterizationsofgreatleaders;nordotheyrepresentasetofgoalstowhichallengineersmustaspire.Rather,theydenoteconceptsthatreflectengineers’professionalexperienceswithinterpersonal,teamandorganisationalinfluence.Engineerswhoembodyoneormoreoftheseleadershiporientationsdemonstratewaystoblendthetechnical,creativeandhumanisticelementsoftheirprofession,buttheiraccomplishmentsareofteninvisibletothemselves,totheirpeersandtothepublicatlarge.Totheextentthatweexplicitlyacknowledgethesepracticesasleadership,webuildengineers’capacitytoservesocietyandfacilitatepublicrecognitionfortheirservice.

SignificanceOurconceptualbridgebuildingprojecthasconcreteimplicationsforengineersandtheirorganizations.Attheindividuallevel,ourmodelhasthepotentialtofacilitateengineers’progressalongaprofessionallymeaningfulcareertrajectorybyconnectingthreekeyengineeringskillsetswiththreecorrespondingmodesofinfluence.Juniorengineerswhoidentifywiththefirstelementofeachcompoundleadershipidentityhaveahighlyvaluedleadershippathlaidoutforthem.Attheorganizationallevel,humanresourceprofessionalscangeneratemeaningfulprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesbyblendingthetechnicalrequirementsofeachjobwithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluence.Theycanalsousethethreeengineeringleadershiporientationstobuildaneeds-assessmentforrecruitmentpurposes.Ouremergenttheoryofengineeringleadershipalsohasimportantimplicationsforundergraduateeducation.Ifitistruethattraditionalnotionsofleadershipcombinedwithkeyengineeringidentityfeaturesevokeresistancetotheideaandpracticeofleadershipamongengineers,itbehovesusasengineeringeducatorstodedicatesomecurricularspacetohelpingstudentsunpacktheseassumptions.Ourlessonsaremostlikelytobedeemedlegitimatebystudents,colleaguesandprospectiveemployersifweinfusethemwithprofessionallyrecognizedmodesof

19

influenceandkeyfacetsofengineeringidentity.Thethreeengineeringleadershiporientationsthatemergedfromourgroundedtheoreticalanalysisincludebothcriteriaandthusmakeusefulexemplars.Thedispositionalratherthanpositionalnatureoftheseorientationshastheaddedbenefitofmakingleadershipmoreaccessibletoengineersacrossthecareertrajectory.Ouranalysisoffocusgroupandinterviewdatasuggeststhatengineersleadinwaysthatarerelatedto,butdistinctfrom,theleadershippracticesofotheroccupationalgroups.Ifourfindingsholdtrueacrosstheprofession,theywillhelpusexplainengineers’collectiveresistancetocontemporarynotionsofleadershipwhilediversifyingandoccupationallycontextualizingthenotionof“effective”leadership.Leadershipscholarsinterestedinapplyingtheirtheoriestoengineeringpractice,representativesofprofessionalengineeringassociationsinterestedinsettingstandardsthatfeelmeaningfultotheirmembershipandeducationalpolicymakerswhohopetodeveloptheleadershippotentialofengineersinthefaceofoverwhelmingresistancetotheword“leadership”wouldbenefitfromintegratingkeyaspectsofengineeringidentityandprofessionallymeaningfulmodesofinfluenceintotheirrespectivedomains.Finally,andperhapsmostsignificantly,ourcompoundtheoryofengineeringleadershipinterruptsthedichotomizationoftechnicalandsocialskillsdevelopment.Itisbymergingthekeyfacetsofengineeringidentitywithprofessionallyrecognizedformsofinfluencethatengineerscometoacceptthemselvesasleaders.Atthesocietallevel,thedemystificationorunveilingofacompoundengineeringleadershipidentitymaycontributetopublicrecognitionthatengineerspossessthetechnicalskills,vision,insightandleadershipcapacitytoimprovecrumblinginfrastructure,buildglobalcommunicationnetworksandgenerateenvironmentallysustainableenergysystemsatthelocal,state,federalandgloballevels.

Limitations&NextstepsOurtheoryofengineeringleadershipaddsalevelofconceptualclarityandoccupationalspecificitytoanamorphouslydefinedterm,butitisbasedontheexperiencesofonly61engineersfromfourengineering-intensivefirmslocatedinasinglegeographicregion.Ourmethodologicalchoiceshaveallowedustogenerateadeeplycontextualizedmodel,buttheyprecludegeneralizationtoalargerpopulationofengineers.Problemswithgeneralizabilityaside,ourmodel’sgreatestlimitationisitsheavyrelianceonprofessionalidentity.Ifwefilterleadershiptheorythroughapre-existingidentitylens,itmaybemoreaccessibleandlegitimatetoengineers,industryleadersandengineeringeducatorswhoarecurrentlyworkingintheprofession,butitmayalsoreifydiscriminatoryelementswithinengineeringsocialization(Begay-Campbell,2010;Dryburgh,1999;Faulkner,2007;Korte,2009;Layne,2007;Loui,2005;Olesen,2001;Tonso,1997,2006,2009;Weiss,2013).Additionalresearchonengineeringleadershipisrequiredtotestthesignificanceofthismodelwitharepresentativesampleofengineers,andtoexpandthetheoryof

20

engineeringleadershipfromapracticaldescriptionofwhatistoanaspirationalprojectionofwhatmightbe2.

ReferencesABET.(2011).Criteriaforaccreditingengineeringprograms:Effectiveforreviews

duringthe2012-2013accreditationcycle.InEAC(Ed.),(pp.24).Baltimore,MD:EngineeringAccreditationCommission.

Adizes,Ichak.(1976).Mismanagementstyles.CaliforniaManagementReview,19(2),5-20.

Alajek,Sal,Ham,Alan,Murdock,Heather,&Verrett,Jonathan.(2013).Blurringthelinebewteenfor-creditcurricularandnot-for-creditextracurricularengineeringlearningenvironments.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Andrews,FrankM,&Farris,GeorgeF.(1967).Supervisorypracticesandinnovationinscientificteams.PersonnelPsychology,67(4),497-515.

Apker,Julie,&Eggly,Susan.(2004).Communicatingprofessionalidentityinmedicalsocialization:Consideringtheideologicaldiscourseofmorningreport.QualitativeHealthResearch,14(3),411-429.doi:10.1177/1049732303260577

Argyris,Chris,&Schon,DonaldA.(1974).Theoryinpractice:Increasingprofessionaleffectiveness.Oxford:Jossey-Bass.

Athreya,KrishnaS,Bhandari,Nidhi,Kalkhoff,MichaelT,Rover,DianeT,Black,AlexandraM,Miskioglu,ElifEda,&Mickelson,StevenK.(2010).Workinprogress-EngineeringLeadershipProgram:Athematiclearningcommunity.PaperpresentedattheASEE/IEEEFrontiersinEducationConference,Washington,DC.

Baranowski,Mitch.(2011).Rebrandingengineering:Challengesandopportunities.TheBridge,41(2),12-16.

Bascia,Nina.(1996).Teacherleadership:Contendingwithadversity.CanadianJournalofEducation,21(2),155-169.

Bascia,Nina.(1997).Invisibleleadership:Teachers'unionactivityinschools.AlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,43(2/3),69-85.

Bass,BernardM.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectation.NewYork:FreePress.

Bayless,DavidJ.(2013).Developingleadershipskillsinengineeringstudents:Foundationalapproachthroughenhancementofself-awarnessandinterpersonalcommunication.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Begay-Campbell,Sandra.(2010).Walkinginbeautyonanever-changingpath:AleadershipperspectivefromaNativeAmericanwomanengineer.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,10(4),150-152.

2InterviewswithmembersofEngineersWithoutBordersandothersocial-changeorientedgroupswouldprovideaninvaluablesourceofdataforthisproject..

21

Berger,Peter.L,&Luckmann,Thomas.(1966).Thesocialconstructionofreality:Atreatiseinthesociologyofknowledge.GardenCity,NY:AnchorBooks.

Bonasso,SamuelG.(2001).Engineering,leadership,andintegralphilosophy.JournalofProfessionalIssuesinEngineeringEducationandPractice,127(1),17-25.

Breaux,PaulJ.(2006).Aneffectiveleadershipapproachfortoday'sengineer.PaperpresentedattheIEEE/UTInternationalEngineeringManagementConference,Austin,TX.

Bridgewater,Sue,Kahn,LawrenceM,&Goodall,AmandaH.(2011).Substitutionandcomplementaritybetweenmanagersandsubordinates:EvidencefromBritishfootball.LabourEconomics,18(3),275-286.doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2010.10.001

Burns,JamesMacGregor.(1978).Leadership.NewYork:Harper&Row.Cain,Karen,&Cocco,Sandra.(2013).Leadershipdevelopmentthroughprojectbased

learning.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociation,Montreal,QC.

Casey,Kathleen.(1993).Ianswerwithmylife:Lifehistoriesofwomenteachersworkingforsocialchange.NewYork:Routledge.

Cassin,RichardB.(2003).Leadershipandcommunicationincivilengineering:Past,present,andfuture.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,3(3),145-147.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:3(145)

CEAB.(2008).AccreditationCriteriaandProcedures2008(pp.24).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.

CEAB.(2012).CanadianEngineeringAccreditationBoardAccreditationCriteriaandProcedures(pp.114).Ottawa:EngineersCanada.

Colcleugh,David,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2013).Translatingacorporateleadershipphilosophyandpracticetotheengineeringclassroom.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Collins-Nakai,Ruth.(2006).Leadershipinmedicine.McGillJournalofMedicine,9(1),68-73.

Corbin,Juliet,&Strauss,Anselm.(1990).Groundedtheoryresearch:Procedures,canons,andevaluativecriteria.QualitativeSociology,13(1),3-21.

Croft,ElizabethA,Winkelman,Paul,Boisvert,Alaya,&Patten,Kristin.(2013).Globalengineeringleadership:Designandimplementationoflocalandinternationalservicelearningcurriculumforseniorengineeringstudents.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Dryburgh,Heather.(1999).Workhard,playhard:Womenandprofessionalizationinengineering--Adaptingtotheculture.Gender&Society,13(5),664-682.doi:10.1177/089124399013005006

EC.(2009).LeadingaCanadianfuture:Thenewengineerinsociety(pp.3).Ottawa,ON:CanadianEngineeringLeadershipForum,EngineersCanada.

EC.(2012a).Canadianengineersfortomorrow:Trendsinengineeringenrolmentanddegreesawarded2007-2011(pp.63).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.

EC.(2012b).CoreEngineeringCompetencies(pp.8).Ottawa,ON:EngineersCanada.Ellis,LeightonA,&Petersen,AndrewK.(2011).Awayforward:Assessingthe

demonstratedleadershipofgraduatecivilengineeringandconstruction

22

managementstudents.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,11(2),88-96.

Farr,JohnV,&Brazil,DonnaM.(2009).Leadershipskillsdevelopmentforengineers.EngineeringManagementJournal,21(1),3-8.

Farr,JohnV,Walesh,StuartG,&Forsythe,GeorgeB.(1997).Leadershipdevelopmentforengineeringmanagers.JournalofManagementinEngineering,13(4),38-41.

Faulkner,Wendy.(2007)."Nutsandboltsandpeople":Gender-troubledengineeringidentities.SocialStudiesofScience,37(3),331-356.doi:10.1177/0306312706072175

Flowers,RobertB.(2002).Leadershipasaresponsibility.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(3),15-19.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:3(15)

Forrow,BrianD.(1989).Lawyersandleadership.TheBusinessLawyer,44(4),1699-1705.

Foster,JasonA,&Sheridan,PatriciaK.(2013).Exploringdesignidentitythrougha"reverseengineerandimprove"valueselicitationactivity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Froyd,Jeffrey.(2005).TheEngineeringEducationCoalitionsprogram.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.82-97).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Glaser,Barney.(1965).Theconstantcomparativemethodofqualitativeanalysis.SocialProblems,12(4),436-445.

Glaser,Barney.(1978).Theoreticalsensitivity.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.Glaser,Barney.(2004).Remodelinggroundedtheory.TheGroundedTheoryReview,

4(1),1-23.Glaser,Barney.(2013).Stayingopen:Theuseoftheoreticalcodesingrounded

theory.TheGroundedTheoryReview,12(1),3-8.Glaser,Barney,&Strauss,Anselm.(1967).TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory.

Chicago:Aldine.Goleman,Daniel.(2000).Leadershipthatgetsresults.HarvardBusinessReview,

72(2),78-90.Goodall,AmandaH.(2009).Highlycitedleadersandtheperformanceofresearch

universities.ResearchPolicy,38(7),1079-1092.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.04.002

Goodall,AmandaH.(2011).Physician-leadersandhospitalperformance:Isthereanassociation?SocialScience&Medicine,73(4),535-539.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.025

Gopakumar,Govind,Dysart-Gale,Deborah,&Akgunduz,Ali.(2013).Creatingfacultybuy-in:LeadershipchallengesinimplementingCEABgraduateattributes.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Graham,Ruth.(2012a).Achievingexcellenceinengineeringeducation:Theingredientsofsuccessfulchange(pp.74).London:TheRoyalAcademyofEngineering&MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.

23

Graham,Ruth.(2012b).Theonelesstraveledby:Theroadtolastingsystemicchangeinengineeringeducation.JournalofEngineeringEducation,101(4),596-600.

Graham,Ruth,Crawley,Edward,&Mendelsohn,BruceR.(2009).Engineeringleadershipeducation:Asnapshotreviewofinternationalgoodpractice(pp.41):BernardMGordonMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram.

Grasso,Domenico,&Martinelli,David.(2007).Holisticengineering.TheChronicleofHigherEducation,53(28),B8-B9.

Greenleaf,RobertK.(1977).Servantleadership:Ajourneyintothenatureoflegitimatepowerandgreatness.NewYork:PaulistPress.

Gronn,Peter.(2002).Distributedleadership.InK.Leithwood&P.Hallinger(Eds.),Secondinternationalhandbookofeducationalleadershipandadministration(pp.653-696).Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

Gronn,Peter.(2008).Thefutureofdistributedleadership.JournalofEducationalAdministration,46(2),141-158.

Ha,MinhaR.(2013).Experientiallearninginleadershipdevelopment:SelectprogramatMcMasterUniversity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Hanifin,Leo,E,Lee,RossA,Weaver,Jonathan,Bloemer,KennethF,&Fry,CynthiaC.(2013).Theinfluenceofculture,process,leadershipandworkspaceoninnovationandintrepreneurshipinAmericancorporations,andtheimplicationsforengineeringeducation.Paperpresentedatthe120thASEEAnnualConferenceandExposition,Atlanta,GA.

Harris,DouglasE.(1989).Creativityandinnovation:Theelusivecompetitiveadvantagefortechnology-drivenindustries.EngineeringManagementInternational,5(4),233-242.

Henry,Annette.(1992).AfricanCanadianwomenteachers'activism:Recreatingcommunitiesofcaringandresistance.TheJournalofNegroEducation,61(3),392-404.

Hernandez,CheriAnn.(2009).Theoreticalcodingingroundedtheorymethodology.TheGroundedTheoryReview,8(3),51-66.

Hill,Stephen,Lorenz,David,Dent,Peter,&Lutzkendorf,Thomas.(2013).Professionalismandethicsinachangingeconomy.BuildingResearch&Information,41(1),8-27.doi:10.1080/09613218.2013.736201

Hsiao,Amy.(2013).Developingengineeringmanagers:ThemasterofengineeringmanagementprogramatMemorialUniversityofNewfoundland.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Ivey,JosephM.(2002).Fivecriticalcomponentsofleadership.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(2),26-28.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:2(26)

Kalonji,Gretchen.(2005).Capturingtheimagination:Highpriorityreformsforengineeringeducators.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.146-150).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

24

Katehi,Linda.(2005).Theglobalengineer.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.151-155).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Kerns,SherraE,Miller,RichardK,&Kerns,DavidV.(2005).Designingfromablankslate:ThedevelopmentoftheinitialOlinCollegecurriculum.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.98-113).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

King,JudsonC.(2012).Restructuringengineeringeducation:Why,howandwhen?JournalofEngineeringEducation,101(1),1-5.

Kirschenman,Merlin.(2011).Leadershipofmultidisciplinaryprogramsandsystems.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,11(2),137-140.

Korte,RussellF.(2009).Hownewcomerslearnthesocialnormsofanorganization:Acasestudyofthesocializationofnewlyhiredengineers.HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly,20(3),285-306.doi:10.1002/hrdq.20016

Kumar,Sanjeev,&Hsiao,JKent.(2007).Engineerslearn"softskillsthehardway":Plantingaseedofleadershipinengineeringclasses.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,7(1),18-23.

LaRossa,Ralph.(2005).Groundedtheorymethodsandqualitativefamilyresearch.JournalofMarriageandFamily,67(4),837-857.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x

Layne,Peggy.(2007).Intheirownwords:African-AmericanwomenscientiststelltheirstoriesSWEMagazine,53(2),22-28.

Lieberman,Ann,Saxl,EllenR,&Miles,MatthewB.(1988).Teacherleadership:Ideologyandpractice.InA.Lieberman(Ed.),Buildingaprofessionalcultureinschools(pp.148-166).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Little,JudithWarren.(1988).Assessingtheprospectsforteacherleadership.InA.Lieberman(Ed.),Buildingaprofessionalcultureinschools(pp.18-106).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Locurcio,RalphV,&Mitvalsky,Kara.(2002).Mentoring:Amagnetforyoungengineers.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,2(2),31-33.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2002)2:2(31)

Loui,MichaelC.(2005).Ethicsandthedevelopmentofprofessionalidentitiesofengineeringstudents.JournalofEngineeringEducation,94(4),383-390.

Mallette,Leo.(2005).TheoryPi:Engineeringleadershipnotyourtheoryx,y,orzleaders.PaperpresentedattheInstituteofElectrical&ElectronicEngineersAerospaceConference,BigSky,MT.

Martines-Corcoles,Mario,Gracia,FranciscoJ,Tomas,Ines,Peiro,JoseM,&Schobel,Markus.(2013).Empoweringteamleadershipandsafetyperformanceinnuclearpowerplants:Amultilevelapproach.SafetyScience,51(1),293-301.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.001

Mawson,ThomasC.(2001).Anewfocus:ASCEleadershipdevelopment.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,1(1),51-52.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2001)1:1(51)

McCuen,RichardH.(1999).Acourseonengineeringleadership.JournalofProfessionalIssuesinEngineeringEducationandPractice,125(3),79-82.

25

McGrath,Laura.(2010).Reportonfocusgroupsonengineeringandleadership(pp.57).Toronto:ILead,UniversityofToronto.

Miles,MatthewB,&Huberman,AMichael.(1994).Qualitativedataanalysis:Anexpandedsourcebook(2nded.).ThousandOaks:Sage.

Mumford,MichaelD,Scott,GinamarieM,Gaddis,Blaine,&Strange,JillM.(2002).Leadingcreativepeople:Orchestratingexpertiseandrelationships.TheLeadershipQuarterly,13(6),705-750.doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3

NAE.(2004).TheEngineerof2020:VisionsofEngineeringintheNewCentury(pp.118).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

NAE.(2005).Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.208).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.

NAE.(2012).Infusingrealworldexperiencesintoengineeringeducation(pp.41).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.

NAE.(2013).Educatingengineers:Preparing21stcenturyleadersinthecontextofnewmodesoflearning:Summaryofaforum(pp.45).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofEngineering.

Nanus,Burt.(1992).Visionaryleadership:Creatingacompellingsenseofdirectionforyourorganization.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Ning,Hongyu,Zhou,Mingjian,Lu,Qiang,&Wen,Liqun.(2012).Teamtraditionalityintherelationshipbetweenauthorityleadershipandteamorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonSystemScience,EngineeringDesignandManufacturingInformatization,Chengdu,China.

Ogawa,RodneyT,&Bossert,StevenT.(1995).Leadershipasanorganizationalquality.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,31(2),224-243.

Olesen,HenningSalling.(2001).Professionalidentityaslearningprocessesinlifehistories.JournalofWorkplaceLearning,13(7/8),290-297.doi:10.1108/13665620110411076

Osagiede,Amadin,FarmerCox,Monica,&Ahn,Benjamin.(2013).PurdueUniversity'sEngineeringLeadershipProgram:Addressingtheshortfallofengineeringleadershipeducation.Paperpresentedatthe120thASEEAnnualConferenceandExposition,Atlanta,GA.

PEO.(2013).FactSheet:ProfessionalEngineersOntario.RetrievedFebruary,21,2014,fromhttp://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/23997/la_id/1.htm

Pierson,GeorgeJ.(2013).Leadershipintheworld'sthirdoldestprofession:KeynotespeechtotheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineersleadershipbreakfast.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,13(2),83-85.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000224

Pitts,Simon,Klosterman,Steven,&McGonagle,Steven.(2013).Asuccessfulapproachtoeducatingengineeringleadersatthegraduatelevel.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssocaitionConference,Montreal,QC.

Polito,C,&Martinich,L.(2008).Leadership:Soeasyevenanengineercandoit!PaperpresentedattheIEEEInternationalEngineeringManagementConference,Estoril,Portugal.

26

Porter,James.(1993).Exploitingtheleadershipassetoftheengineer.JournalofManagementinEngineering,9(3),227-233.

Reese,Carol.(2003).EmploymenthistorysurveyofASCE'syoungermembers.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,3(1),33-53.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2003)3:1(33)

Reese,Carol.(2004).EmploymenthistorysurveyofASCE'syoungermembers--2003followupsurvey.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,4(4),133-140.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2004)4:4(133)

Reeve,DouglasW.(2010).Thereisanurgentneedforengineeringleadershipeducation.EngineeringLeadershipReview,1(1),1-6.

Reeve,DouglasW,Sacks,Robin,Rottmann,Cindy,Daniels,Frieda,&Wray,Adam.(2013).Engineerleadershipinorganizationsandtheimplicationsforcurriculumdevelopment.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Rhode,DeborahL.(2010).Lawyersandleadership.BerkeleyLaw.Retrievedfromhttps://Howdoengineersleadrevision2forLeadership.docx

Robledo,IssacC,Peterson,DavidR,&Mumford,MichaelD.(2012).Leadershipofscientistsandengineers:Athree-vectormodel.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,33(1),140-147.doi:10.1002/job.739

Rottmann,Cindy.(2006).Hegemony,settlementandresistance:Theteacherleadershippolicycontest.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.

Rover,DianeT.(2006).Policymakingandengineers.JournalofEngineeringEducation,95(1),93-95.

Simpson,AnnieE,Evans,GregJ,&Reeve,DouglasW.(2012).Asummerleadershipdevelopmentprogramforchemicalengineeringstudents.JournalofLeadershipEducation,11(1),222-232.

Singh,Amarjit,&Jampel,Gempo.(2011).Leadershipflexibilityspace.JournalofManagementinEngineering,26(4),176-188.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000017

Slates,Kevin.(2008).Theeffectsofleadershipinthehighhazardconstructionsector:Injuriesandfatalitiesanissueofleadershipandnothazard.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,8(2),72-76.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(72)

Smylie,MarkA,&Denny,JackW.(1990).Teacherleadership:Tensionsandambiguitiesinorganizationalperspective.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,26(3),235-259.

Snowball,David,&Travers,Ian.(2012)."Gooutandlead:"ProcessSafetyManagement.ProcessSafetyProgress,31(4),343-345.doi:10.1002/prs.11523

Spillane,JamesP.(2006).DistributedLeadership.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Strong,David,&Frank,Brian.(2013).Engineeringeducationresearchand

developmentatQueensUniversity.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

27

Sweeney,Kevin.(2005).Internationalrecognitionofengineeringdegrees,programs,andaccreditationsystems.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.135-144).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Tonso,KarenL.(1997).Advancingwomeninleadership:Violence(s)andsilence(s)inengineeringclassrooms.AdvancingWomen,1(1),1-16.

Tonso,KarenL.(2006).Studentengineersandengineeridentity:Campusengineeridentitiesasfiguredworld.CulturalStudiesofScienceEducation,1(2),273-307.doi:10.1007/s11422-005-9009-2

Tonso,KarenL.(2009).Violentmasculinitiesastropesforschoolshooters:TheMontrealMassacre,theColumbineAttack,andRethinkingSchools.AmericanBehavioralScientist,52(9),1266-1285.doi:10.1177/0002764209332545

Vallero,DanielA.(2008).Macroethicsandengineeringleadership.LeadershipandManagementinEngineering,8(4),287-296.

Vest,CharlesM.(2005).Educatingengineersfor2020andbeyond.InNAE(Ed.),Educatingtheengineerof2020:Adaptingengineeringeducationtothenewcentury(pp.160-170).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Wakeman,ThomasH.(1997).Engineeringleadershipinpublicpolicyresolution.JournalofManagementinEngineering,13(4),57-60.

Wasley,PatriciaA.(1991).Teacherswholead:Therhetoricofreformandtherealitiesofpractice.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Weber,Max.(1947).Thetheoryofsocialandeconomicorganizations(T.Parsons,Trans.).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Weiss,PeterE.(2013).Engineeringleadershipinpositivespace.PaperpresentedattheCanadianEngineeringEducationAssociationConference,Montreal,QC.

Yukl,Gary.(1999).Anevaluationofconceptualweaknessesintransformationalandcharismaticleadershiptheories.TheLeadershipQuarterly,10(2),285-305.

Zhou,Mingjian,&Liu,Xiaohui.(2011).Theunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenautonomyorientationandcreativity:Themoderatingeffectofauthoritarianleadership.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonInformationManagement,InnovationManagementandIndustrialEngineering,Sanya,China.