Engineering
Professionals’
Expectations of
Undergraduate
Engineering Students
MONICA F. COX, PH.D.; OSMAN CEKIC, PH.D.; BENJAMIN AHN;
AND
JIABIN ZHU
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a study that sought to identify constructs
that engineers in academia and industry use to describe attributes they consider important for undergraduate engineering students to possess. We explicitly targeted the attributes of leadership, recognizing and managing change, and synthesizing engineering,
business, and social perspectives. Our findings indicate ways that engineering students
can engage in technical and nontechnical activities that enhance their undergraduate
engineering experiences. The final goal of this ongoing effort is to develop, validate, and
implement a tool that examines undergraduate students’ embodiment of the three targeted attributes.
N
In 2005, Purdue University began a curricular initiative called the Purdue Engineer of 2020 (Meckl
et al. 2009a). Mostly based on the National Academy
of Engineering’s (2004) Engineer of 2020 report, this
initiative includes eight abilities (e.g., decision making, teamwork), six knowledge areas (e.g., analytical
skills, engineering fundamentals), and six qualities
(e.g., strong work ethic, adaptability in a changing
environment) that Purdue engineering students are
encouraged to embrace for the 21st century.
This paper presents information from an empirical
study about the attributes engineers in academia and
industry identify as being important for undergraduate engineering students to possess. Of the abilities,
ational initiatives have explored
the attributes undergraduate engineering students need to be successful workers in industry once
they graduate with their engineering degree (Lang et al. 1999).
Among these desired attributes are the ability to communicate effectively; to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; to function on
multidisciplinary teams; to understand the impacts
of engineering solutions in global and societal contexts; and to engage in lifelong learning [Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
2001; McMasters 2004].
APRIL 2012
60
Leadership and Management in Engineering
knowledge areas, and qualities identified in a study
sponsored by a Purdue University Engineer of 2020 seed
grant (Meckl et al. 2009b), we examined the attributes
of “leadership” (referred to as leadership throughout the
paper), “recognize and manage change” (referred to as
change throughout the paper) and “synthesize engineering, business, and social perspectives” (referred to as
synthesis throughout the paper). We targeted these three
attributes because of their alignment with a graduatelevel Leadership, Policy, and Change course taught in
the College of Engineering at Purdue University for
students in the School of Engineering Education
(Cox et al. 2009) and with national and global initiatives highlighting the importance of professional skill
and leadership development among engineering students (Graham et al. 2009).
Although the importance of leadership is mentioned
in the literature, few empirical studies have examined
the leadership attributes of college students in engineering (Komives et al. 2007; Kouzes and Posner 2008). In
engineering, leadership is promoted in the form of
minors, formal undergraduate degree programs, formal
graduate degree programs, and graduate courses
(Graham et al. 2009). In addition, leadership has been
identified as a skill that needs to be included in the curricula for future engineers (Cox et al. 2009) and that allows
an individual to cope effectively with change in systems or
organizations (Kotter 1990). Unfortunately, many engineering faculty members have not been trained formally to
teach leadership and as a result, have not explored ways to
include leadership principles in their courses.
The issue is also relevant to discussions in the engineering community of ways to develop future engineering leaders. About the same time that leadership
development models for college students emerged, the
engineering education community also started to focus
on the leadership abilities of graduating engineers
(American Society for Engineering Education 1994; Farr
et al. 1997). One of the most important developments in
this area was ABET’s (2001) Engineering Criteria 2000
(EC2000), which included criteria emphasizing the ability to work on teams, to communicate, to engage in lifelong learning, and to develop social and ethical
responsibility as program outcomes. After publication
of EC2000, leadership development gained momentum
in engineering education. Leadership was pronounced
one of the most important elements needed in graduating engineers. Since then, the emphasis on leadership in
engineering has increased and has been included in
STEM education policy reports by the National Research
Council (2006), the National Academy of Engineering
(2004, 2005), and Sheppard et al. (2007).
Recently, Graham and colleagues (2009) consulted
more than 70 individuals and reviewed 40 programs
internationally to identify good practices in leadership
development in engineering fields. They found that
many programs are less than 10 years old and that
most of the programs were not focused specifically
on engineering students. With the new developments
in leadership development of engineering students at
the undergraduate level, it becomes imperative to explore how these programs or courses are affecting the
undergraduate students who enroll in them and who
will be future engineering leaders.
One validated instrument designed to measure the
leadership skills of college students is the student
version of the Leadership Practices Inventory (SLPI),
developed by Kouzes and Posner (1998; see also
BACKGROUND
Professional Skills Development in Engineering
Studies have explored engineering students’ development of professional skills. Table 1 summarizes the
focus of some of these studies, the data collection
methods used to explore research questions in these
studies, and the major findings of each study. These
findings identify a broad range of professional attributes needed by undergraduate engineering students,
particularly in areas in which students are deficient
given current curricular practices in engineering.
Focus on Targeted Attributes
Leadership, change, and synthesis have been explored
separately and in a variety of contexts, particularly
outside of engineering (Kotter 1990, 1996; Bolman
and Deal 2003; Kouzes & Posner 1998; Northouse
2007; Schein 1992). Within the context of engineering, leadership has appeared in several studies, but
change and synthesis as defined in this paper have
not appeared in the literature exploring the desired
attributes of undergraduate engineering students. In
fact, change usually refers to curricular changes or
reform (Merton et al. 2009), and synthesis usually
refers to traditional definitions of engineering synthesis or to integration of engineering topics across
multiple years of a curriculum (Bordogna et al.
1993). To gain an understanding of ways to synthesize engineering, business, and social perspectives,
engineering students often work in multidisciplinary
teams, conduct service learning projects, or engage in
capstone design projects that include students or
experts with experiences related to this paper’s definition of synthesis.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
61
APRIL 2012
APRIL 2012
62
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Desired attributes of engineering
graduates from an industrial perspective
Competency gaps in science,
technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) community
college and university graduates as
perceived by industry and business
leaders
McMasters
and Matsch
(1996)
Meier et al.
(2000)
Martin et al.
(2005)
Alignment of outcomes of revised
engineering programs with the needs of
industry
Views of students and graduates on the
content of their courses as preparation
for working as professional engineers in
industry
Perceived importance of American
Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET) attributes as identified by
aerospace engineers
Keenan
(1993)
Lang et al.
(1999)
Engineering students’ transition from
college to entry-level positions
Focus
Katz (1993)
Reference
Phase 1—Literature review and
practitioner interviews
Phase 2—Surveys and focus groups
with business professionals
Phase 3—Survey analysis
Discussions with individuals in
industry, academia (including
students), and government
Survey responses from 167 students
in enhanced engineering curricula
and from 353 students in traditional
curricula
172 survey items developed by the
Industry–University–Government
Roundtable for Enhancing
Engineering Education that address
Criterion 3 of ABET’s (2001)
Engineering Criteria 2000
Interviews with 16 chemical
engineering undergraduate students
at a Cape Town, South Africa,
university about their current skills
that prepare them for jobs in industry
Interviews with students, professors,
and professional engineers
Data collection
Table 1. Past Studies Exploring Students’ Professional Skill Development
Students identified their technical backgrounds,
problem-solving skills, formal communication
skills, and lifelong learning abilities as strengths.
Weaknesses included working in multidisciplinary
teams, leadership, practical preparation, and
management skills.
Many students have no practical engineering
experience and do not know how to work in teams
or in a large-scale system. Faculty have little to no
experience working with industry. Industry needs to
work with academia to make their needs clear.
Apprenticeships are recommended for students.
Some competencies that should be added to STEM
programs include information sharing and
cooperation with coworkers, teamwork, adaptation
to changing work environments, and ethical
decision making and behavior.
Highest ranked items are located in Appendix B of
Lang et al.’s (1999) paper.
Students have problems working on teams,
communicating, and understanding workplace
expectations.
Engineering graduates who took more courses in
nontechnical areas thought they were better
prepared for industrial jobs.
Major findings
Graduates need increased technical communication
skills. Career advancement is positively related to
engagement in technical communication activities.
One-page survey given to
engineering students enrolled at the
university between 1994 and 1996
METHODS
To identify the elements of leadership, change, and
synthesis that were most important to experts in engineering, we collected qualitative data via semistructured interviews with 11 engineers from industry and
12 engineering faculty members.
PARTICIPANTS
Industry Experts
We recruited 11 industry experts from the industrial
advisory boards of several departments in a college of
engineering at a large Midwestern university. These
experts were diverse in gender, rank, engineering
discipline, years of industry experience, and leadership
styles. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the
industry participants.
Effectiveness of current engineering
courses at a university and areas and
methods for optimally expanding and
improving the technical
communications program
Major findings
Data collection
Academic Experts
To recruit experts from academia, we sent recruitment
e-mails to individuals with faculty appointments in a
college of engineering at a large Midwestern university. We selected 12 engineering faculty participants
on the basis of the diverse perspectives they contributed to the study and on their level of involvement in
leadership development efforts on campus. Interviews
were scheduled and conducted at a time and place of
participants’ choosing. To achieve congruence among
answers, we used the same interview protocol as that
used to interview industry participants. Gender, rank,
Sageev and
Romanowski
(2001)
Focus
Reference
Table 1. (Continued.)
Cox et al. 2010). The SLPI was inappropriate for use in
this study because the students whom we surveyed
were already in leadership positions and because academic and industrial employees’ definitions of desired
leadership characteristics might be different from
those used in developing the SLPI.
A standardized instrument is needed that is specifically designed to explore and measure undergraduate
engineering students’ leadership skills and attributes
and their ability to embrace change and to synthesize
multiple perspectives. The literature lacks such a survey instrument or even operational definitions of leadership, change, and synthesis in engineering fields as
observable and measurable attributes. In an effort to
develop such an instrument for engineering students,
we solicited operational definitions of leadership,
change, and synthesis from engineering professionals
working in industry and academia via one-on-one
interviews. This paper presents those definitions as
constructs that will be used to develop a survey instrument that measures attributes of leadership, change,
and synthesis in undergraduate engineering students.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
63
APRIL 2012
each attribute might be useful in enhancing the professional life of an engineer, and (3) the operational definition of each attribute (using measurable verbs and
descriptive adjectives). We also solicited real-life examples for each attribute to clarify the concept and to add to
the operational definition of the attribute.
Before conducting interviews with faculty and industry experts, we sought to operationalize each of the
three attributes within the context of engineering. We
conducted literature reviews to identify such definitions, but the search was futile; we found no specific
definitions of the three abilities within the context of
engineering.
field of study, years of industry experience, and leadership styles of the participants from academia are displayed in Table 3.
Data Collection
We conducted interviews with academic and industry
experts using an interview protocol containing 17 semistructured questions about participants’ education, position, and experiences as leaders and about the Purdue
Engineer of 2020 attributes of “leadership,” “recognize
and manage change,” and “synthesizing engineering,
business, and social perspectives.” We asked interviewees
about (1) the importance of each attribute, (2) the ways
Table 2. Characteristics of Industry Experts Interviewed
Industry
experience
(years)
Rank
Field
Male
39
Sales manager
Male
11
Team leader
Male
21
Female
22
Managing
director
Asset
manager
Male
26
Director
Female
27
Male
33
Chief
engineer
Vice president
of technology
Chemical
engineering
Chemical
engineering
Chemical
engineering
Chemistry and
chemical
engineering
Chemical
engineering
Electrical
engineering
Mechanical
engineering
Male
31
Director
Chemical
engineering
Male
15
Manager of
employee
development
Mechanical
engineering
Male
32
Engineer
Interdisciplinary
engineering
Female
20
Director
Civil
engineering
Gender
APRIL 2012
64
Self-reported leadership style
One that is typically called the “servant
leader.”
Not a micromanager; coach.
The leader can get through obstacles and find
ways to get the jobs done.
My leadership style is extremely collaborative.
It is a feminine leadership style.
Enable employees to have the tools that they
have to have to effectively solve the problem.
I do not micromanage; pretty hands-off.
I tend to not be a detailed person. I tend to
produce results because I think I am a good
judge of talent, and I am very able to get
people excited about what we are working on.
I have lived with being transparent. And the
advantage of that is it communicates an awful
lot to my superiors, to my peers, and to my
subordinates.
Really, leadership is about enabling people. I
just have to make sure that I know how to go
about finding the right resources so I can
remove barriers so you can do your function.
Here is all this work out here to do. And we
can come together as a team and help these
people and provide a service.
Very direct. Very practical. Fluid and, I would
say, innovative.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Table 3. Characteristics of Academia Experts Interviewed
Industry
experience
(years)
Rank
Tenure
start
10
Professor
Female
None
Female
Male
1
(after B.S.)
None
Associate
professor
Professor
Male
Gender
Male
Ph.D. field
Self-reported leadership style
1993
Environmental
engineering
1998
Electrical engineering
and computer science
Civil engineering
Participatory (others’ participation is
important; I try to set the vision; I do
not have to receive credit for success).
Flexible, adaptive, and inconsistent.
1997
15
Assistant
professor
Professor
2002
Female
None
Professor
1982
Male
None
Professor
1970
Female
17
Professor
2006
Male
1
1987
Male
None
Male
12
Associate
professor
Assistant
professor
Associate
professor
Professor
Female
None
2007
2007
2000
1996
A mixture of consensus building and
decision making.
Mechanical engineering Hands-on and an enabler.
Chemical engineering
Hands-off; I try to recruit or hire the
best people and to clearly define
people’s roles in an organization or in
a group.
Aeronautics and
Not dictatorial; I nudge everyone
astronautics
onto the same page.
Chemical engineering Contextual; classic when I am clearly
put in charge and more collegial at
other times.
Veterinary medicine
Visionary; I pay less attention to
and surgery
details. I am strong headed; I have
difficulty listening sometimes but am
aware of this issue.
Mechanical engineering I build consensus among different
constituents.
Mechanical engineering I try not to control students.
Aeronautics and
astronautics
Environmental science
and engineering
Data Analysis
We transferred electronic transcripts of the interviews
to Atlas.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin) for analysis. Phrases or ideas were the
unit of coding, rather than individual words. The initial reading of two transcripts provided some common
codes that we later transferred to a code book
(MacQueen et al. 1998). We then reread the transcripts and updated the code book as new codes
emerged. The code book included a definition for each
code and descriptions of the nuances between codes.
We later opened the code book to other engineering
education researchers not directly affiliated with this
Leadership and Management in Engineering
I offer guidance but keep a focus on
my own project.
I am very democratic; I value input
from everyone in my unit.
study for discussion. Following discussions with them,
we revised the definitions to provide clarification. Furthermore, for codes that might lead to confusion, we
included descriptions of situations to help identify
where the code should and should not be used.
RESULTS
We gathered data on the constructs that emerged from
the interviews with the experts from industry and academia in a table format. Tables 4–6 present constructs
for leadership, change, and synthesis, respectively.
65
APRIL 2012
Table 4. Leadership Constructs Identified by Engineering Experts
Construct
Definition
Leadership
Characteristics of a leader or leadership, leadership examples, or desired characteristics
of leaders or leadership
Self-reported leadership styles of the respondents, some informed by the literature and
others not
Ability to inspire people through good relationships, to share a vision, and to energize
people to achieve that vision
Ability to go above and beyond the call of duty, be a go-getter, do more than expected
with an assignment, and initiate new tasks or projects without being told to do so
Ability to provide the necessary tools (tangible or intangible) for employees to
perform their duties or jobs without a need for micromanagement; selection of the
right people for the right job
Unique and sometimes unconventional ideas and methods to achieve a goal
Ability to work with and organize people from different backgrounds in work-related
situations
Actionable process of getting things done or evaluating leadership by looking at the
success or the failure of a project or the completion of tasks
Ability to identify the talents and strengths of followers and to assign tasks based on
their abilities
Ability to communicate or present ideas to other members of the group
Ability to use technical skills and respondents’ views of technical competence as part
of leadership skills
Innate comfort in making decisions and being confident that they are the right
decisions
Ability to consider multiple inputs in directing or leading groups
Ability to take risks in making decisions, speaking out, or admitting to being wrong
Ability to get the job done by assigning tasks to people who are competent in
achieving them
Ability to process data and base decisions on the data
Ability to consider followers’ comments and be aware of their concerns
Ability to be accountable for one’s actions and tasks
Ability to think innovatively or differently from others
Ability to instill trust in followers by keeping promises and being and acting
competent in technical matters and in relationships with other people
Ability to take risks and learn from mistakes
Ability to organize and lead groups
Commitment to teamwork and awareness that a task is something that the whole
group, company, or organization should achieve together
Explicit use of coaching or guiding
Curiosity and will to succeed
Cognitive abilities
Leadership style
Motivation
Proactive
Empowerment
Vision
People skills
Outcomes driven
Know the people
Communication
Technical competence
Confident
See big picture
Courage
Delegate
Input driven
Ability to listen
Responsibility
Outside the box
Trust
Willing to be wrong
Organization
Common goal
Coach people
Drive
Reasoning and
intelligence
Fairness
Ownership
Integrity
Ability to instill trust in followers by being fair and treating them equitably
Accountability for both accomplishments and failures and ability to assume
responsibility even for tasks not assigned explicitly to the individual
Trustworthiness and adherence to one’s word
APRIL 2012
66
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Table 5. Change Constructs Identified by Engineering Experts
Construct
Technological
advancement
Process change
People skills
Different areas of
competency
Change management
Flexible
Awareness
Organizational change
Competition
Social change
Economic change
Lifelong learning
Definition
Use of new technologies in one’s professional life and adjustments based on
technology
Familiarity with the way things are done and the process for getting these things done
Ability to work with people from different backgrounds, disciplines, or cultures and
with different perspectives
Ability to work on different kinds of jobs, across disciplines, and with diverse
technologies
Ability to deal with and manage the change process
Ability to be adaptable to environmental changes and new ideas, processes, or
innovations
Ability to recognize change and act on that change
Ability to make adjustments or changes in a company’s organizational structure or
work environments
Changes that are a result of a competitive industrial environment
Societal changes and their influence on engineers’ ability to perform their jobs
Influence of the larger economic climate on work environments
Learning of new skills over the course of one’s career
Table 6. Synthesis Constructs Identified by Engineering Experts
Construct
Social responsibility
Holistic thinking
Business perspectives
Customer orientation
Politics
Cost
Definition
Responsibilities to society, the environment, and humankind
Ability to make decisions based on multiple points of view or considerations
Consideration of business elements during product design
Ability to listen to customers and consider their needs during
product design and development
Political environment in relation to the engineering profession
Ability to consider the social or financial costs of products during
the design and production process
DISCUSSION
Several of the leadership constructs that the engineering leaders identified did not differ greatly from typical definitions and characteristics of leadership that
have been reported in the business, organizational,
and other leadership literatures. The constructs of synthesis and change, however, were defined in new ways
by these engineering professionals. Since we did not
find any literature that explicitly discussed engineering students’ abilities to recognize and manage change
and to synthesize engineering, business, and social
perspectives, the constructs our sample identified
within these two attributes add much to a larger
conversation about the operationalization of these
attributes among engineering students from the perspectives of engineering professionals.
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Of the leadership constructs that the interviewees
identified, two are closely affiliated with the field of
engineering or with characteristics of engineers. First,
technical competence was identified as being important
for a leader. This construct implies that although professional skills are extremely important, leaders must be
credible in their disciplines. Second, being data driven
was identified as an important element of leadership.
More specifically, engineering leaders are expected to
use the data around them to make sound decisions.
Engineering professionals defined change in several
different ways. Technological advancement emerged
as one construct that explicitly relates to engineering,
since engineers are expected to work in environments
in which the technology is always changing. These
professionals identified nonengineering change
67
APRIL 2012
constructs related to professional characteristics (i.e.,
being flexible, understanding the role of competition
in change, and having an awareness of the need to
change), people (i.e., having people skills and engaging in lifelong learning), knowledge (i.e., demonstrating different areas of competency), process (i.e.,
knowing the process for getting things done and managing change), and different types of change (i.e.,
organizational, social, and economic).
For the synthesis constructs, although all elements
relate to nonengineering concepts, these constructs are
very much aligned with current engineering trends
(e.g., sustainability and green engineering) and relate
to several attributes that other authors have identified
as important (Prados et al. 2005; Shuman et al. 2005).
Synthesis constructs include an awareness of the political, business, and societal aspects of engineering. Synthesis also relates to the elements of globalization and
an awareness of nonengineering aspects of professionalism. People elements are reflected in interviewees’
references to social responsibility and the need to
orient oneself to customers and their needs. Interviewees also emphasized that engineering students must
understand several nonengineering fields and ideas,
think holistically, and consider both business (e.g.,
cost and budgetary issues) and political perspectives
when making decisions.
about these themes and their placement in the context
of the leadership, change, and synthesis constructs are
presented in Table 7.
Implications for Practice
The following lessons for improving the training
of engineers can be learned from the interviews we conducted with the engineering professionals in this study:
• Leadership, change, and synthesis constructs can be
incorporated into the existing engineering curriculum without adding new courses to an already
bloated plan of study.
• Leadership, change, and synthesis constructs can be
incorporated in assessments of student learning
(e.g., framing formative or summative questions
within the context of these leadership questions).
• Engaging students in authentic individual in-class
projects will allow them to explore the implications
of their work for engineering and for other sectors
(e.g., business and the larger society).
• Students can engage in activities within their projects that relate to engagement with diverse stakeholders. Questions of interest might relate to how a
technological innovation might affect clients, managers, or society.
Future Work
We developed pilot survey items from the constructs
listed in Tables 4–6 and sent this survey to four experts for review (i.e., one engineering graduate student
Commonalities across the Three Attributes
We organized the findings by five themes: people, society, organization, competency, and money. Details
Table 7. Themes Identified Related to Leadership, Change, and Synthesis
Theme
Description
People
Respondents identified people skills as an important theme related to the leadership and
change attribute. Respondents cited the need to know the people one leads and to coach them.
They emphasized consideration of the needs of clients as part of the synthesis attribute.
For the change and synthesis attributes, respondents made connections to society. They noted
that societal changes affect how engineers do their jobs and that engineers must take into
consideration the impacts of their work on society, the environment, and humankind.
Related to the change attribute, respondents noted that organizational change is inevitable and
that as a result, engineers need to be aware of the environment in which they function.
Regarding the leadership attribute, engineers need to know how to organize groups, be
flexible, and show others the way to success.
As part of the leadership attribute, a successful engineering leader must be technically
knowledgeable and possess different areas of competency.
Respondents identified a need for engineers to be sensitive to economic changes within their
environments and to consider financial costs as they synthesize engineering and
nonengineering perspectives.
Society
Organization
Competency
Money
APRIL 2012
68
Leadership and Management in Engineering
who worked in industry, one industry representative
who still works in industry, and two engineering
faculty members). These experts rated each item using
a 4-point Likert scale, and their responses led to the
selection of items (a procedure known as the Q-sort)
that were included in a survey completed by 800
engineering undergraduate students at a large midwestern university. We will assess the reliability
and validity of these survey items using exploratory
factor analysis. The final goal of the project is to develop, validate, and implement a tool that examines
undergraduate students’ embodiment of the three targeted attributes of leadership, change, and synthesis
and to develop seminars and workshops aligned with
these attributes.
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).
(1994). The green report: Engineering education for a changing world, ASEE, Washington, DC.
〈http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/
publications/The-Green-Report.pdf〉 (Nov. 30,
2011).
Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership, 3rd Ed.,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bordogna, J., Fromm, E., and Ernst, E. W. (1993).
“Engineering education: Innovation through integration.” J. Eng. Edu., 82(1), 3–8.
Cox, M. F., Berry, C. A., and Smith, K. A. (2009).
“Development of a leadership, policy, and change
course for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics graduate students.” J. STEM Educ.,
10(3–4), 9–16.
Cox, M. F., Cekic, O., and Adams, S. G. (2010). “Developing leadership skills of undergraduate engineering students: Perspectives from engineering
faculty.” J. STEM Educ., 11(3–4), 25–36.
Farr, J. V., Walesh, S. G., and Forsythe, G. B. (1997).
“Leadership development for engineering managers.” J. Manage. Eng., 13(4), 38–41.
Graham, R., Crawley, E., and Mendelsohn, B. (2009).
“Engineering leadership education: A snapshot review of international good practice.” Bernard M.
Gordon–MIT Engineering Leadership Program,
Cambridge, MA. 〈http://web.mit.edu/gordonelp/
elewhitepaper.pdf〉 (Nov. 30, 2011).
Katz, S. M. (1993). “The entry-level engineer: Problems in transition from student to professional.”
J. Eng. Edu., 82(3), 171–174.
Keenan, T. (1993). “Graduate engineers’ perceptions of
their engineering courses: Comparison between enhanced engineering courses and their conventional
counterparts.” High. Educ., 26(3), 255–265.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., and McMahon, T. R.
(2007). Exploring leadership for college students
who want to make a difference, 2nd Ed., Wiley,
San Francisco.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership
differs from management, Free Press, New York.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change, Harvard Business
School Press, New York.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (1998). Student leadership practices inventory, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2008). The student
leadership challenge: Five practices for exemplary leaders,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Lang, J. D., Cruse, S., McVey, F. D., and McMasters,
J. (1999). “Industry expectations of new engineers:
CONCLUSION
In this study, we looked at the views of faculty members and industry experts on leadership, change, and
synthesis. Rather than focus on personal best stories of
students (Kouzes and Posner 1998), we relied on engineering experts in industry and academia to define
constructs in engineering leadership, ability to manage change, and ability to synthesize business and social perspectives and to relate them to undergraduate
engineering education. The results revealed some differences in the views of the industry and academic experts. However, because academic and industrial
tracks for engineering students are not separate, all
of the different views should be considered in improving the education of undergraduate students as engineers. Furthermore, with this study, we hope to create
a new area of discussion related to development of an
instrument that will aid in the assessment of leadership, change, and synthesis abilities of undergraduate
engineering students. In this way, employers (in either
industry or academia) of engineers may empirically
measure such attributes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by an Engineer of 2020
seed grant from the Purdue University College of
Engineering.
REFERENCES
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET). (2001). Engineering criteria 2000, third edition:
Criteria for accrediting programs in engineering in the United
States, ABET, Baltimore. 〈http://www.ele.uri.edu/
faculty/daly/criteria.2000.html〉 (Nov. 30, 2011).
Leadership and Management in Engineering
69
APRIL 2012
A survey to assist curriculum designers.” J. Eng.
Edu., 88(1), 43–51.
MacQueen, K., McLellan, E., Kay, K., and Milstein, B.
(1998). “Code book development for team based
qualitative analysis.” Field Methods, 10(2), 31–36.
Martin, R., Maytham, B., Case, J., and Fraser, D.
(2005). “Engineering graduates’ perceptions of
how well they were prepared for work in industry.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 30(2), 167–180.
McMasters, J. H. (2004). “Influencing engineering
education: One (aerospace) industry perspective.”
Int. J. Eng. Educ., 20(3), 353–371.
McMasters, J. H., and Matsch, L. A. (1996). “Desired
attributes of an engineering graduate—An industry perspective.” AIAA Paper 96-2241, 19th
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Advanced Measurement and Ground Testing
Technology Conference, New Orleans.
Meckl, P., Harris, M., and Jamieson, A. (2009a).
“Purdue Engineer of 2020.” [Microsoft PowerPoint presentation]. 〈https://engineering.purdue
.edu/Intranet/Groups/Committees/Engr2020/2020
Resources〉 (Nov. 30, 2011).
Meckl, P., Harris, M., and Jamieson, A. (2009b).
“Purdue’s Engineer of 2020 seed grant program.” [Microsoft PowerPoint presentation].
〈https://engineering.purdue.edu/Intranet/Groups/
Committees/Engr2020/2020Resources〉 (Nov. 30,
2011).
Meier, R. L., Williams, M. R., and Humphreys, M. A.
(2000). “Refocusing our efforts: Assessing nontechnical competency gaps.” J. Eng. Edu., 89(3),
377–385.
Merton, P., Froyd, J. E., Clark, M. C., and
Richardson, J. (2009). “A case study of relationships between organizational culture and curricular change in engineering education.” Innovative
Higher Educ., 34(4), 219–233.
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century,
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating
the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education
APRIL 2012
to the new century, National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). Rising above
the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America
for a brighter economic future, National Academies
Press, Washington, DC. 〈http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/11463.html〉.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice, 4th Ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., and Lattuca, L. R.
(2005). “Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence.”
J. Eng. Edu., 94(1), 165–184.
Sageev, P., and Romanowski, C. J. (2001). “A message
from recent engineering graduates in the workplace: Results of a survey on technical communication skills.” J. Eng. Edu., 90(4), 685–694.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd Ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Sheppard, S., Colby, A., Macatangay, K., and
Sullivan, W. (2007). “What is engineering
practice?” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 22(3), 429–438.
Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., and McGourty, J.
(2005). “The ABET ‘professional skills’—Can
they be taught? Can they be assessed?” J. Eng.
Edu., 94(1), 41–55.
Monica F. Cox is associate professor, School of
Engineering Education, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN. She can be contacted at mfc@
purdue.edu.
Osman Cekic is assistant professor, School of
Education, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University,
Canakkale, Turkey.
Benjamin Ahn is doctoral student, School of
Engineering Education, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Jiabin Zhu is doctoral student, School of
Engineering Education, Purdue University, West
LME
Lafayette, IN.
70
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Copyright of Leadership & Management in Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment