A step toward saving the profession.
Earlier this year, I wrote an article on the apparent shortage of structural engineers and what caused it to happen, if, in fact, it has. I identified many contributing factors that made the employment situation worse than it ought to be. But since the employment market is a dynamic eco-system, with many moving parts that change over time, for reasons we only see in hindsight, finding “the solution” or “a handful of possible solutions” is nearly impossible. I concluded, however, that if a shortage exists, then it was something that engineers and educators did to themselves, with more than a bit of help from government policies enacted by the officials we elected.
A survey by the SE3 Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) generated data from working professional engineers on career satisfaction, career development, pay and benefits, work-life balance, etc. Key findings included the following:
- Eight in ten respondents reported being either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their career overall.
- 56% of respondents had considered leaving the profession, the top reasons for which were seeking higher pay, better work-life balance, and less stress.
- Respondents who had left the profession noted poor management/leadership as one of the leading reasons they had left, suggesting that overall, poor management/leadership is a core cause for people leaving the structural engineering profession.
- Employees who worked more hours each week were more likely to have considered leaving the profession.
- Respondents overall indicated that pay/compensation was the top reason they had considered leaving the structural engineering profession and, for those who had left the profession, one of the leading reasons why they had left. Male respondents earned considerably more than female respondents, except for entry-level respondents.
Data can be skewed by who responded to the survey. Still, the overall picture for the future of engineering doesn’t look so good to me: 20% of employees are less than satisfied with their jobs, a little more than half have considered leaving the profession entirely, people believe they are over-worked and/or underpaid, and most importantly, they believe that management/leadership is poor. Ouch! It doesn’t matter if these impressions are true, since there is always the other side of the coin, but if the engineering staff believes it, then it needs to be dealt with.
But to be fair, employers need to earn a profit to survive and grow in a competitive marketplace where forces largely out of anyone’s control set fees and salaries. Not surprising, not everyone is cut out for an often challenging and pressure packed career in structural engineering. COVID and the lasting and destructive impacts on the workplace didn’t help either.
So what are we as a profession collectively going to do to improve employee retention and general happiness? I suggest stepping up leadership and mentorship at all levels would be a good start.
It should come as no surprise that people like working with people they enjoy being with, people whom they respect, people who are engrossed in their work, are having fun, are willing to teach and inspire, and by their own careers and professional involvement show a path that others can emulate. Part of being a great leader or mentor is working harder and smarter than everyone else and showing how it is done through action. It should be clear to leaders and mentors that the word is out on your firm if staff is leaving or it is hard to recruit. No one said it would be easy to save the profession.
So to start, the firm needs to focus on its culture. One could argue that this may be the most critical function of leadership. It can be a positive reinforcing process that motivates or a vicious downward circle that depresses and creates negativity, depending on how it is done. If the results of the SE3 survey are a reflection on the entire industry, we aren’t doing a very good job on the people part.
Unfortunately, most leaders/mentors have yet to receive formal training. Therefore, they have established company cultures somewhat through trial and error, what they observed and perhaps personally experienced within their firm or elsewhere, not always for good either. One could also argue that great leadership and/or mentorship skills can’t be taught, and the culture built will likely reflect their own personalities. You either are a great leader or mentor, or you are not. Starting your own firm or being the most aggressive person in the room isn’t a qualifier.
A trend that has emerged over the past several years is for “speed mentoring” and “arranged mentoring.” Speed mentoring is akin to online dating. Collect a group of people in a room, generate conversations, and hope that mentorship relationships develop. Arranged mentoring is facilitated by eliciting interests and experiences and setting up mentoring relationships, somewhat comparable to arranged marriages by the village elders in the old days. If this has worked for you, that is fantastic, but this is a very passive approach with a low probability of success.
I suggest there is a better, more active way. Be constantly observant, seek knowledge, and approach each interaction as a learning opportunity. Many people have influenced me over the years and I learned quite a bit. But for every good thing I learned, I learned some valuable lessons about what not to do or how not to act. And those lessons, good and bad, happen all the time, 24/7/365. I realized quickly that no one is perfect, and searching for a saintly mentor who will dispense from on high that knowledge you seek in terms of learning, growing, and being successful, may be disappointing. I want to suggest that those people don’t exist, or if they do exist, there aren’t many of them. If you found one, that is fantastic.
If creating a positive leadership and mentorship culture wasn’t hard enough, the really hard part is making it a natural and enduring part of your organization. Patting yourself on the back at the annual meeting or the holiday party and then forgetting until the “next time” doesn’t make it so. The staff will see through this, and their silence will speak volumes.
For those concerned about the future of engineering, look inward first and make your firm the kind of rewarding place that people will enjoy working at and that you would find attractive to work at if you were considering an engineering career. If you bring joy and excitement to your work, lead by example, treat people fairly, show interest in them, make every day an opportunity for teaching and learning, and help staff grow personally and professionally and succeed, there won’t be a shortage of engineers. If you treat your engineers as easily replaceable, abuse the employment relationship, put your success above that of others, focus on short-term results above long-term investment, or don’t think you are being watched closely, there will be a shortage of engineers. And the deficit will start at your firm first. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. The firms that do it well will succeed. The others will fade away, as they should.■