Or how to calm the maverick within This is the first "culture check" article I will write that will specifically look at different backgrounds (in a fairly broad sense because there are so many of them) and how it could cause issues in your engineering. I am focusing on the negative aspects because engineers love having problems to solve.
What are the key attributes of western culture? Western cultures are typified by a longer period of wealth and a stronger focus on individualism over the focus on the group. There are other aspects, but these are the ones that I will focus on in the context of engineering – because they are the ones that proved significant in my research. And the effect on engineering? If you are from a wealthy western country, then you are, most likely, from a post industrialised society. That means the majority of wealth comes from the services and knowledge industries – and it has also been like this for some time. And manufactured goods are frequently considered ultra-cheap; thus, the alternative name “The throw away society”. In such a society, we become more interested in customised and bespoke products. Brands can hold some sway, but not because they are associated with wealth; because they are usually associated with an image or persona. You can’t as easily convince people you are successful by owning certain brands anymore – because the fact is many could afford something that is practically comparable. Status thus comes from uniqueness and thus exclusiveness. An engineer from such a society will always have more of a tendency to try something new. But not because they know it will be a better solution – even though it might be. But for the sake of the novelty itself – and the perception that the cost is not that great, nor much of an issue. Now couple this with the tendency to individualism. Such an engineer would now be more motivated to pursue such an idea for their own glory. If it helps the company, then great. But if it becomes a success, then they would be more inclined to say “That was my idea” as opposed to saying “That helped to company enter a new market”, “That cut cost and boosted revenue”, that reduced down time” and so on. Thus, with a tendency to gravitate to the novel without worrying as much about cost and with less thought given to the greater group, the western engineer is more likely to go rogue and be a maverick. This might be what’s needed at times. But, let’s be honest, good engineering happens when the engineering team is implementing solutions that are aligned with each other and with the business goals. And the practical implications are…? Western managers are probably aware of this – even if they don’t know it – and can manage it. Acknowledging the great idea and engineering excellence and then noting that in a different context we could pursue it, but, for now, we need to focus on something more aligned with the broader goals. I know I have had to at times. But if you are from another background, then this is something to be aware of should you ever be managing western engineers. And I mean based on cultural/economic/national background – don’t assume if they have a different ethnicity from what you expect, have some heritage similar to yours, or can speak your language, then they will think like you. These tendencies could still be there. If you are a western engineer, then ask yourself now, and indeed then, and then then again, if you tend to pursue ideas for the sake of novelty and personal glory as opposed to doing it for the engineering team, the company, and societal, success.
0 Comments
Or, How to be the engineer that gets stuff done In this article I will to talk to you about a 3 step process that will ensure you are the type of engineer that gets stuff done – even when relying on other people. And then I will talk a bit more about how this can play out in a global context. Given that there is always an increasing demand for speedier delivery and the world is getting smaller, this can be essential for many engineers.
The driver Have you ever worked with people who seem relentless and just get things moving? Maybe you are one of these people – in which case, skip to the next section. But it is more likely that you want to be one of these people. You possibly think they are just demanding or pushy or focused. Certainly you would say that they are driven. But is it actually a very simple process that they follow to make things happen. And here it is:
So now you know how to be a driver engineer. The global context If you want to be a global engineer, then you need to understand how the above process could play out in other cultures (ethnic, national, company and so on). Not all cultures have the same take on time. What you consider a deadline others will consider a guide. So consider, when you approach someone at a deadline, if you should be talking like something was missed or like you are just following up to see how things are progressing. Also, the other might happen – the person you are talking to will get annoyed if you don’t give them a deadline that will allow them to prioritise their work. Cultures will vary in how specific their communication is. You might feel that you have been perfectly clear, but people in other cultures could think you are vague or overly specific (to the point of insulting their intelligence). I think this is less likely in engineering because we can often establish, through physical reality, what details are indeed important. But still, it could be an issue to be mindful of. Hierarchy is another one. Across different cultures who can rightly ask someone to do something (based on the position of the two people) varies. Therefore, from the onset, ensure that you in a position that is suitable to make the respective request of that person – you might be OK to talk directly to them or you might need to speak to their manager or you might need to speak to your manager who will then speak to their manager who will then speak to them. Finally, consensus. Make sure you can just ask the other person to do something. It might be that you are expected to engage first to ensure everyone involved agrees before any action is take. The three steps above assume that, if required, you have already done this. Happy driving I hope that you now find your tasks, when reliant others, are completed in a more timely manner. Whether you be in a different culture or not. A sequel to “The Reason Engineering School Let You Down”
The last article I wrote for this newsletter elicited a lot of responses. It is the most read and commented upon article in the series thus far. That tells me that many of us have a deep interest in the education and training of engineers. It also revealed something else – many seemed to assume that if you do well on the exam, then you understand the respective theory.
I am going to explore that assumption more in this article: Do good exam marks really mean good understanding? It’s all on the surface. When I was an academic and involved in education research, I was introduced to a phenomenon called surface learning. It is where students study to pass the exam as opposed to studying for understanding. We all probably have some experience doing this, where we drilled questions (maybe even used Schaum’s) or we remembered things. Or we know a fellow student who would get good marks, but never seemed to actually understand anything. That’s all surface learning. You can get away with this when the exam is set such to allow for this. And many exams are like that. They don’t assess understanding, just your ability to drill problems to pick up on the procedure and repeat it at speed. As an example of how pervasive this is, take the time to watch the video below. It features Eric Mazur, a physics lecturer, talking about his students and how shocked he was when he assessed conceptual (read “actual”) understanding after the first year of physics.
Some key points from the video:
Surface learning isn’t just about the student it is encouraged by most exams in engineering courses around the world. As I mentioned in the previous article: many exam questions will list only the variables needed to find the answer. In such a scenario, students only need to recognise the pattern (or the recipe). This is why grades don’t always (and often don’t) reflect understanding. The exam format can encourage procedural fluency at the cost not conceptual understanding. But what to do about it now? If you would like to improve your conceptual understanding of first principles, and you should, then one of the best sites you can go to is Arbor Scientific. They offer numerous teaching resources that you can sign up for, but they also have a great conceptual questions page - https://www.arborsci.com/pages/next-time-questions. Go check them out and get the resources once you are done. I liked the double boiler question and the bikes and bee question. See which ones get you thinking or reveal your lack of understanding so you can improve it. Before I finish though, I’d like to ask: what conceptual understanding tools do you know of? I am always keen for more and others here can benefit from them too. Or: Should engineering be taught at university? Do you ever think that your engineering degree didn’t fully prepare you to be an actual engineer? You probably should.
That’s because, on the whole, they were not actually trying to. No matter what they said or thought they were actually doing. The good news. Once you understand where the system failed you, you can correct for it. You can become the engineer your degree should have produced. Let me explain all this. Why universities don’t actually create engineers Engineering academics rarely feel responsible for turning you into an engineer. Their incentives lie elsewhere:
This is not malicious. I always subscribe to Hanlon’s Razor. It’s systemic. Many academics have never worked as engineers. Their understanding of engineering is theoretical, not practical. They teach what they know: theory, proofs, derivations, and the clean version of a world where every variable is stated and every problem fits onto a page. But real engineering isn’t like that. And that’s the heart of the problem – the prevalent ignorance in academia when it comes to engineering practice. The shift away from real engineering In my book, I went over the history of engineering education and how that has affected what and how engineers are taught – and how that would affect your engineering skill. Engineering degrees once contained far more project-based learning. Students sketched, built, tested, failed, iterated, and learned (although not specifically taught because it is hard to teach) how to think like engineers. But during the space race, universities started adding enormous amounts of theory. There were genuine reasons for it—missiles and rockets needed deeper mathematics—but the long-term effect was that the identity of engineering shifted toward pure analysis. Today, degrees still lean heavily toward theory. Project-based learning is expensive. It requires materials, workshops, technical staff, safety compliance, and academics who actually know how engineering is done. And the people making curriculum decisions often have little awareness of the engineering value of those projects – while also having budgets that they need to meet. This leads to the situation we have now: Engineering degrees that are perfectly aligned with academia… and poorly aligned with engineering. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that engineering sits closer to the trades, since engineering is ultimately about making the world better, while universities are designed to teach theology, philosophy, and science. From that, engineering degrees should be taught at more dedicated institutes. In his book The View from Here, Reece Lumsden noted that research into the career performance of engineers found that those who studied at more highly reputed universities did not enjoy the same career success. An example that says it all Think back to the typical exam questions you encountered. You were probably given the exact variables you needed. Not fewer. Not more. Just the right ones. All you had to do then was find (or remember) the formula that used those variables and you could be 97.45 percent confident you’d found the “correct” approach. Real engineering is never like that. You never have all the information you want from the onset. You often have extra information you don’t need. Your first job is to work out which variables matter. And often the fastest way to do that is to find the right model before you find the right formula. That difference (between the tidy world of exams and the messy world of engineering) is why so graduates can feel lost when they first enter industry. And why some engineers might never become the engineer they could be – they were never shown how it should really be done. What I saw as an academic Most engineering academics today have little industry experience. They went straight from undergrad to postgrad to academia. If someone wanted to do engineering, then I think that they probably wouldn’t have stayed in academia. A science degree would have been a better option. So, there is probably also something about the kind of person who, today, chooses to be an engineering academic. They were maybe not really keen on the whole engineering thing in the first place – even though they did the degree. When I taught engineering, I had the benefit of industry experience. That meant two things. First, I set design-and-build projects. Students then had to think like engineers. To apply judgement. To sift real data from irrelevant data. To design under constraint. To experience the outcome of the wrong decision. Second, I deliberately included information that wasn’t needed in exam questions. Some students hated this. I had more than my fair share of complaints. But I still sometimes receive messages on LinkedIn from past students saying that my subject was the only one that actually prepared them for work. There are exceptions. Germany, where industry–academia ties are deep and culturally valued, is a strong example of this. But these systems are unfortunately rare. Good news, you can correct for the system’s failure Let’s talk more about what you can do. You might not have received the education you needed, but you can fill the gaps. We now understand what project-based learning actually builds inside an engineer:
Here’s how: 1. Notice when you’re framing Every time you start a task, pause and check: What exactly is the real problem here? What assumptions am I making? Most engineering errors arise before the calculations even begin. 2. Map the system Ask: If I change this, what else changes? Who else is affected? What unintended consequences exist? 3. Use first principles routinely Even though the way you were taught the theory probably does not help you apply it, put the extra effort in to finding the right theory and then applying it. You can also practice these skills through:
The bigger point: you aren’t the problem If your degree didn’t make you feel like an engineer, it wasn’t because you lacked talent. It was because the system wasn’t designed to produce engineers. The good news is that the skills that matter most in engineering aren’t locked behind university doors. They’re learnable. Trainable. Practicable. And you can begin strengthening them today. The degree gave you the theory – even it was abstract. Experience will give you the engineering – but not as much as you could have. Deliberate practice will give you engineering expertise – if you choose to. Or, when capitalism killed engineering Why was it that the Europeans (and even the Soviets sort of) had supersonic flight, but Americans did not? Did it perhaps all come down to the engineers and their ability? In this article I will consider such questions in more detail so we can better understand how various factors affect your engineering and your chances of success when taking on big challenges.
Some background Depending upon the newspaper you read, you might have seen this recent article in The Telegraph about the history of the Boeing 2707: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/boeing-2707-america-lost-concorde. The Boeing 2707 is described in the article as “America’s lost Concorde”. Interesting words; how was it lost; circumstance; incompetence; tragedy; or is it about the loss of an engineering race? It leaves the reader wondering just how it is that America never had its own commercial supersonic aircraft. The article argues that the Boeing 2707 did not succeed because of the following:
A global engineering lens Would we reach the same conclusions if we look at this as global engineers? And, could we learn lessons from this consideration? In my book, I cite another book (The Origins of Turbojet Revolution by Professor Edward Constant II) that compares the efforts to progress aeronautics in both Europe and America. Professor Constant noted that a lot of engineering in the U.S. was guided by commercial realities associated with longer flights (think New York to Los Angeles) carrying more people. This means larger planes with more comfort. In Europe, the focus was purer, and on fast efficient flights. This offers potential insights into why the American design was too ambitious. There was still the notion of carrying a large number of people, which is congruent with large scale commercial operations. The swing-wing would increase efficiency during the slower portions of a flight – the beginning and the end. This is only significant for shorter flights such as domestic ones (that’s why they worried about people complaining about noise). Thus, it seems Boeing was making the 2707 a domestic and international plane – and thus increasing the potential for sales. The Concorde on the other hand would get out of one country and stay at top speed until it reached its destination far away – disturbing no-one in between – a purest approach for a very specific (and small) market. Not very capitalistic at all. Based on the above, we could argue that points 2 and 4 were ultimately more about culture overriding engineering decisions. Points 1 and 3 can be combined. Indeed, the Europeans had a headstart, but so did the Soviets in the Space Race. The U.S. could have caught up and surpassed if they really wanted to. But there was no perceived national security threat as there was in the Space Race. So political support, being both delayed and then reduced, likely played a role. And considering point 5, the U.S. government was probably overly spooked to support commercial supersonic flight in the first place, and wise to reduce support later on. Assuming it was all about direct commercial gain and there was no interest in the value of spin off technologies. Lessons for engineers Culture can cause you to create an engineering design brief that is not well aligned with the laws of physics. This can sometimes be through your commercial attitudes. Make sure you are realistic about your commercial goals and that they are aligned with engineering realities. And if they are not aligned, then accept that you will need something like government support to succeed. Failure is not a result of engineering skill – or lack thereof. Although it might be a result of engineers not challenging culture with sound engineering principles. You need, at times, to combine engineering and commercial reasoning to find the right direction forward – which might mean ceasing efforts. So will America have a supersonic commercial airliner? The Boom Overture, scheduled for release in 2029, has tried scale models already. It shows similarities with the Concorde – delta wings and fewer passengers. And the company seems to be focused on offering a speedier alternative to business class flights along long flights – showing a combination of commercial thinking with engineering thinking. So yes, I do think there is a good chance that the U.S. will indeed have a supersonic commercial airliner. But what do you think?  Or When fear and shame override logicWelcome to the next “What would an Engineer Do?” article.
As a reminder, these articles take current issues that sit outside engineering and look at them through an engineering lens. The goal is twofold:
Why shaken baby syndrome? Depending on the country you are in, you might have seen debate about the validity of evidence used in shaken baby syndrome convictions. You might also be in a country where courts now require an independent witness. The physical evidence alone is no longer considered sufficient. At the very least, you may remember a time when that physical evidence was accepted as proof. It is in a state of flux so it is a timely topic, which makes for greater interest. It is also well outside of what many would assume is the domain of engineering. Some background You can read more about the science and controversy around shaken baby syndrome here, but the key points to note are:
And that means something more concerning. Because the evidence that was used as first principles cannot be treated as first principles, around the world people have been convicted of a crime they did not commit. And a terrible crime at that – so terrible they would never have committed it. And yet still, when courts are confronted with reports challenging the status quo based on the above, some judges have responded by saying words to the effects of:
You likely recall Albert Einstein’s response to the book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein. He said “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” This shows that science works on facts and logic – not popularity – and a single piece of evidence that contradicts a theory disproves that theory. Science is not based on consensus or longevity of an idea. It rests on evidence and logic. And in this instance, it seems the logic has been lost. How are we in this situation? More use of engineering expertise principles Did the judges not understand science? Or, was there something else going on, something that would be familiar to the global engineer? Imagine if you were a judge who just had it suggested to them that a key piece of evidence that the legal profession relies has come under question. For context, the legal profession relied on this so much that some defendants said that their own lawyers did not believe them. You would start thinking that maybe many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. That is not a pleasant thought, you would be attached to the original idea that the evidence is strong and your profession has done nothing wrong. You would be fixated on it – this would make it hard to accept contradictory evidence. Ideally, this attachment would not result in a fixation that would override the proper application of first principles. As an engineer, you know that once contradictory evidence emerges, previous conclusions must be revisited. So, we would hope and expect, that an engineer would, when in such a situation, understand the weakness of the theory, and acknowledge that all prior decisions made (under the assumption the theory was a strong one) are not justified. First principles should override fixation and attachment. But this is not what seemed to happen with these judges. The takeaway for the global engineer This case highlights a deeper professional lesson. Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard; detaching from your own preferred theories, your past assumptions, and maybe even your professional pride when the evidence shifts? That can be the challenge of genuine first-principles thinking. Think back to a time when you were attached to an idea that clouded your judgement. Or when you saw a colleague resist evidence that contradicted their preferred model. Anyone can do it. The key is to notice it and then to do your best to let go of it – no matter how serious the issue at hand. References used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Guthkelch https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-court-ruling-in-shaken-baby-case-was-ignorant-and-embarrassing-20251013-p5n25z.html https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2025/diagnosing-murder https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/this-man-spent-six-years-in-jail-but-experts-say-his-case-has-question-marks-all-over-it-20251029-p5n6c9.html |
AuthorClint Steele is an expert in how engineering skills are influenced by your background and how you can enhance them once you understand yourself. He has written a book on the - The Global Engineer - and this blog delves further into the topic. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed