Job interviews are stressful. The interviewer and interviewee alike often play an unconscious game of chicken, each trying to second guess what the other really wants to hear. Engineering graduates and early career professionals often share their goal of attaining P.E. or S.E. licensure. Yet this is often just a rote answer because it sounds like what an employer wants to hear. Clearly, an engineering license is a critical step in a career; it leads to promotion, status, and increased responsibility. Yet, many new graduates and engineers-in-training (EITs) do not fully grasp what it will take or what it means. This is not surprising considering most firms eagerly await the chance to announce the new P.E. or S.E. within their ranks and often push passage before preparation. In lieu of pushing staff to pass an exam, the profession of structural engineering will be better served when firm leaders and mentors prepare staff members for success.
Success and confidence go hand in hand, yet hiring models do little to instill confidence. Employers seek qualified people to fill roles and firms seek individuals with experience for entry level positions. The perfect candidate is someone with a good internship or preferably several good internships. Firms want someone who can “run with it.” Unfortunately, this very notion contradicts the learning model of most university programs. For many, the transition from classroom to office is disconcerting because there are gaps between what was taught in class and what is needed in practice. Therefore, from day one, they feel behind the curve and their confidence is undermined. However, if expectations are aligned with the known gaps newly graduated engineers are understood to have, leaders and managers can empower success. In this alignment, confidence is built toward success when working together to bridge the gaps.
Strong bridges are built purposefully, not by random chance. General engineering curricula provides foundational experience, it does not provide everything a new engineering candidate needs to know. When this is ignored during hiring, tension is created before the process even begins. Firms and supporting organizations such as NCSEA should recognize this and plan training programs that acknowledge the gaps and work to fill them. This needs to be purposeful, the gaps need to be defined and understood, and thoughtful (not random) steps taken to prepare training programs. Importantly, firms must invest time and energy to create internal training, or they need to invest in programs offered by professional organizations and empower their staff to participate. Equally important, new engineers need to understand that their learning is not done. Just as they invested in their college learning experience, they will need to invest in their career and professional learning. A university education is not a singular transaction but an investment in future learning. The greatest gap filled by training is the confidence built on new knowledge.
When a coin is rubbed between fingers both sides are polished equally. Training is like a coin; a well exercised training program refines both sides–the trainee and the trainer. In developing internal training programs, firms are well served in understanding that engineers are not educators by nature. However, effective training benefits the entire firm by lifting each tier of the team. To be effective, wholistic programs focus on interpersonal skills as well as technical skills. Interpersonal skills should be prioritized, not seen as a distraction from billable work. Every step of training is an investment in the future as the entire team gains skills. Trainees learn new technical information and trainers learn better ways to interact with colleagues while enhancing their skills for working with clients and project partners. Without a grand view of training opportunities and their outcomes, the distraction mentality takes hold and just like setting a coin aside allows it to lose its luster, untrained engineers will lose momentum and question their next steps.
Licensure is an outcome of good xperience; it should not be a stop toward experience.
Licensure is an outcome of good experience; it should not be a step toward experience. Just as good training builds confidence and capabilities, these in return build opportunities for increased responsibility and better project experience. When on the job training and direct project experience do not relate to core knowledge necessary for passing an exam, an opportunity toward licensure may be provided but without the tools necessary for success. Expecting an exam should be taken before well-rounded project experience has been gained highlights that our industry requires new engineers to do the work on their own. This expectation is fraught with failure and has little opportunity to help build an engineer’s confidence. Unconsciously telling ourselves “We can do this faster than training someone else to do it” empowers no one. In today’s fast paced market, hanging on and doing it ourselves increases the stress level of experienced engineers and does little to help junior engineers gain critical skills. Instead, it reinforces the feeling that new engineers don’t “know anything.” We must break this unconscious cycle by training our engineers to share experience and knowledge regardless of the number of years we have in the profession. In doing so licensure becomes the natural outcome of experience gained rather than the artificial stressor.
The path to licensure should be walked together. Leaders must empower every team member to succeed by providing the tools behind the opportunity. With effective training and on-the-job knowledge sharing prospective examinees will gain what they need from colleagues working together.■