Hi Steve,

I had a look at your website (given the forum rules on advertising I think we should be clear that you are a leadership consultant, but of course we can keep this discussion away from that), and I'll admit one line rather made me smile:

"But inevitably most Engineers will either aspire to, or be presented with the opportunity of a leadership position."

Not in my experience! Fundamentally the reason I found myself spending most of my career in engineering leadership was that we couldn't persuade any of the other engineers on the team to do it! (And this is in two very different industries in a selection of companies.) And quite reasonably, I don't blame them at all. 

Of course this is different in different organisations. I believe you know Plymouth rather well, which is my part of the world (and because of my various IET etc roles here I know people across a range of industries here). For the company I worked for there for many years we had a culture very different to the dockyard culture, because we were delivering in a very different environment. I have to be careful how I phrase this, because I understand why military focussed engineering works the way it does and I don't want to suggest it's "wrong". I have huge respect for my RN / Babcock friends and colleagues, they just work in a different environment. But in our world we needed a very flat structure with strong recognition of each individual's technical expertise. In a way (and this is heavily over simplified, we could discuss this for hours) the last thing we wanted was people who wanted to be leaders, we wanted people who wanted to be really good engineers, were fascinated by the possible applications of new technology, and - crucially - wanted to work in a team with others who had complementary skills. So perhaps not surprising that there was little interest from them in leadership - hence muggins here kept getting landed with it.

Now in consultancy work interestingly we find the same again. I work in the rail industry, and I feel there's a notable difference between those of us from a development background and those from a big civils / infrastructure background. The big civils side again does seem to foster a more leadership based culture, and again perfectly understandably. However people from that background can struggle somewhat in our style of consultancy work which is again very flat, very team based, very much around listening to and supporting the client rather than directing the client.

But of course not to say engineers shouldn't aspire to leadership if they want to. We all need a few of them, and some industries need (or at least use) a lot of them. They do need to go in eyes wide open that they are likely to spend a huge amount of their life in airport lounges and hotels, and none of it actually doing any engineering. And I would always advise that they need to watch out for the fact that they will spend a lot of their time talking to other leaders about how brilliant they all are, and they need to remember that none of that is "real", that bit's all just a game (albeit a vital game as it's about finding your next leadership position). The reality of leadership is the balance sheet, the P&L, and the staff turnover of their business. If you're not interested in that, don't do it. Blunt as that.

I would suggest that anyone here who is interested looks at CMI https://www.managers.org.uk/  In case anyone isn't aware, the IET has an agreement with CMI for the IET to offer the Chartered Manager award, and I'd strongly recommend any aspiring leaders / managers to look at that through the IET alongside routes to CEng. (I have no affiliation with CMI other than having got my CMgr from them before that partnership was formed.)

And for those who aren't interested, but have aspirations in a different direction, we need to drag companies kicking and screaming into the 21st century - yes we've known about this stuff for well over 25 years - and persuade them that key technical experts are as valuable (and indeed essential) to the business as "leaders" are, and to reward and recognise both paths equally. Which can involve business leaders swallowing some of their own pride.

P.S. Admission of bias (as if it wasn't already clear!): I loathe the macho culture of the traditional leadership "industry". And I'm well aware that's a somewhat emotional bias on my part. But then equally, I've worked in organisations that have rooted out that culture and done extremely well, and been a pleasure to work in, and worked (and chose to leave) others which had that culture and which have gone to the wall. So it is a bit evidence based as well, although only from my experience.

Incidentally, Steve, what I find much more interesting from the military world is how it develops "short term" leaders, i.e. given, from the perspective of those of us outside it, the excruciatingly hierarchical structure, how it still ensures that very small groups will act independently and innovatively in extreme and novel combat situations. That would be a very interesting lesson for the wider engineering industry. The other interesting area I see a lot is how to help those from a military background transition to civilian leadership roles. My experience has been that it's really tough for them, fundamentally if civilian staff don't like your style they can just walk out, and they do. You can't rely on your position, you have to demonstrate your actual capability and competence all the time. And thoroughly explain why you are asking people to do things. Which was actually what I found (and still find) very interesting in leadership - how to guide staff whilst keeping them on side. (It was great fun watching the dynamic when I had an ex-Commander and an ex-CPO working for me. In the end the ex-Commander very sensibly gave up and went freelance. The rest of us had worked out that none of us, including me, could tell the ex-CPO what to do under any circumstances, but if we asked him nicely he'd sort absolutely anything for us.)

Thanks,

Andy