The following is mostly for those who hire, but it also provides some great insights for those wanting to assess a potential company.
Do you expect new employees to fit in or do you “adopt” them into your company? And by adopt, I mean you go out of your way to help them become part of the company in all aspects.
Until now you might not have thought much about this expectation, and just followed some process in place.
Hopefully though, you have realised that, to get the most out of a new engineering team member, you should do your utmost to help new employees understand the new culture so that they can quickly navigate it, feel welcome, and be productive.
But if you have not, then let’s talk more about it now.
First off, while it might seem obvious now why you should put the effort into adopting any new engineer into your team, within the global engineering context it is even more important.
This is because, while your new employee will have excellent core skills, they still need to understand the nuances of the new company they find themselves in. Otherwise, they are more likely to work in a non-aligned manner, spend excess time understanding simple things instead of working, and not be able to share ideas on how to make things better (because they don’t know enough to spot the flaws). That means you are wasting a valuable resource.
Adoption in this sense is more than things like knowing where the coffee machine is, the company culture regarding start and finish times or working from home, or meeting everyone on the floor. Although these things are important.
It involves things like:

• How is an idea to improve things put forward?
• How are decisions made within the company culture?
• How do we track engineering decisions for future reference?
• How does one approach those in other departments when their input is needed?
• How are people assigned to tasks?
• Where do engineering tasks usually come from?
• How are tasks tracked and established as completed?
• What are the fundamentals of the major technology (or technologies) at this company?
• If something is not going well, then how is it communicated to someone?
• How does the company promote people (if at all)?
• What are the priorities of engineering work: speed of execution; conformance with standards; engagement with others; rigorous documentation; validation before implementation; etc.?
• Is there a desire for cultural change or are things well established and aligned with corporate needs as they are now?

This list could go on.
The theme above that you are potentially picking up is that these are related to the more subtle aspects of how engineering is done – subtle even though the implications are significant.
What you might also be thinking now is that you are not quite sure if you could explain these things to someone. They are potentially things that have become so obvious to you that you can’t see them as unique to your company, or industry, or country.
But in the global engineering context, these things cannot be assumed. And if a new person gets them wrong, then their ability to perform can be severely limited.
If you have a role in welcoming new people to a company, then think now about how comprehensive your induction system is. Does it cover the items mentioned above? Do you even have one?
In my case, I have come up with a checklist of all the things I think are important for an engineer to be a productive member of my team – even things that some might think should be obvious. I then assign induction buddies (people from the team) to go over that list with them to ensure they understand each and how that relates to their work. The induction buddy also becomes a person the adoptee can go back to if anything remains unclear.
If you are applying for a role in a new company, then a good question is: how does your induction process work?  I often add something about understanding the respective technology and the company’s engineering processes – but you should add what you think suits given the nature of the role. The answer can tell you a lot about how well a company will adopt you. Usually, you can sense the surprise because they have never thought about this, or they have a well-defined system in place that they can describe in detail.
 
 

Recently, I have been involved in numerous aspects of the engineering hiring process. I have noticed some phenomena and some changes that would be of value to the global engineer. So, in this issue, I am going to share with you what I have learned from my experience in hopes it helps you progress your career more.
Applicant Tracking System (ATS) really do mean there is a vital part of your resume
When I reviewed the resumes of applicants through the ATS (a program designed to make the hiring process easier) for a role I was wishing to fill, I noticed that each time I clicked on the applicant’s link, the ATS showed a preview of the top 1/3 of the first page of the resume. The end result was that I automatically used this to do an initial screening. Therefore, you should ensure that this part of your resume has a summary of your skills and what you have to offer. If a resume had a summary in this section and that summary aligned with what I was looking for, then I was more likely to pass it to the next stage.
Portfolios are great for engineering roles
 Portfolios are usually for roles like industrial design, graphic design, fashion design and other roles where you can assess the skill of the applicant by what they share.
However, in the engineering context, a section that was dedicated to the various achievements that the applicant was most proud of helped phenomenally. An image was good, if confidentiality allowed, but otherwise a descriptive heading so the hiring manager could grasp the nature of the challenge was a great start. Then a description of the nuances and how the challenge was completed.
I didn’t care how much longer it made the resume; this was excellent insight to assess an applicant.
Photos are good in the right context
I recall one applicant who had a photo of himself on the front page of the resume. He just looked like a design engineer. The rest of the team agreed that after seeing his photo, they could easily imagine him sitting in the same department next to the others in the team.
I suspect the photo was taken by a professional who asked him the role and industry he was interested in, then took care of the rest. He had the right clothes, worn the right way and he had an expression that conveyed that mix of creativity and practicality with a strong dose of cooperation that you want in all members of an engineering design team.
There is no substitution for proper assessment of skills in the interview
Many hiring managers still seem to think that they can come up with the ideal questions to assess skill. In my experience, they can’t. I think half the reason is that they don’t actually think about the skills they really need, and instead focus on specific domain knowledge.
I have found that the best way to assess an applicant is by giving them:

• some pencil and paper,
• a relevant challenge described on another sheet of paper, and
•  an hour or more to explore and solve (if possible) that challenge.

You get to see their knowledge, the way they think, the way they formulate new questions for better understanding, how well they communicate with words and pictures, and their comfort with this type of work.
It would be best if you get challenged like this in an interview, but, the fact is, you will likely need to show domain knowledge for the respective role. And it’s hard to say which aspect the interviewer will latch on to – sometimes they ask you about a specific challenge they had the prior week which is not even indicative of their usual work.
AI was a huge help
I used AI in a number of ways:

1. I used it to screen the resumes and rank them based on the attributes I wanted. The great thing about this, is that it read the entire resume looking for evidence of the attributes I was after. Thus, it would find things I would miss – making it fairer on the applicants. Because it also explained why it ranked each applicant the way it did, I was able to refine the prompt if needed and I felt very confident in the findings. This is ideal when you have 100s of applicants – especially if they have extra sections like portfolios in their resumes.
2. Once we had culled the applicants down to about 30, the HR support team was then able to call those 30 for a prelim interview. Because they dictated the answers – likely using AI – we have complete text of their responses. By ensuring the questions asked were aligned with the attributes we were after (things like what’s your favourite engineering design tool or philosophy and why) each answer revealed a lot about their experience and practice. Again, these answers could be put into AI for quick assessment.
3. Developing questions. AI provided great feedback to the questions and assessments I had conceived. It helped me refine them to ensure that there was a minimised chance of misunderstanding and that they indeed assessed for the desired attributes. It therefore helped remove unconscious bias.

I can see it only doing more in the future.
Summary of key points for the global engineer

1. Make sure you have a clear expression of yourself and what you offer in the top third of the first page of your resume.
2. If you are going to do a photo, then consult a professional photographer who understands the goal and purpose of the photo.
3. Consider adding a portfolio (or any other supporting sections). This helps an interested engineering hiring manager learn more about you once they show interest in your application. It also works well with AI systems that can digest a lot of information.
4. Soon AI will become more common, and I can see it making things fairer, but until then, you do need to be ready for idiosyncratic domain-specific questions from employers.

This newsletter is all about how you can be the sort of engineer who can work, and be valuable, in any company in any part of the world.
Obviously, to do this, you need to be a good engineer.
But is that all?
This edition is about how being a good engineer can actually limit your ability to be a global engineer.
How is this so?
An interesting piece of research that I note in my book – The Global Engineer – found that people who are competent often fail when deployed in new cultures and places whereas those who are less competent show higher levels of success.
Why is this?
The research found that competent people were unaccustomed to finding things difficult. Because of their competence, life had, on the whole, been easy. Then, in a new environment, where they had less experience, they encountered challenges. This made them feel less adequate – a new feeling for them and one that is unpleasant. They simply could not handle this – and they quit.
Less competent people, who had numerous struggles in life, were, on the other hand, robust. They were familiar with these experiences and the associated feelings. Because of this familiarity, they knew how to push through and carry on. Thus, they were more successful.
The lesson for the global engineer?
Yes, you should always work on your engineering skills. You might even be lucky enough to have had them all the time – or at least for long enough that you can’t recall being incompetent. But, if you do wish to ply those skills in a new context, then be ready for a period of discomfort and displeasure – the type that makes you feel less than you used to feel about yourself and question if you were ever truly a good engineer in the first place.
Ask yourself now these two questions:

1. When was the last time you felt discomfort because your competence seemed lacking?
2. Would you be able to endure a period of such “incompetence” as you moved from one role to another (and it might be because of things outside of the role – say a new country or culture) in your efforts to be a global engineer?

They will help you determine if you have or if you need to develop this toughness to be a global engineer.
For all your engineering ability, it might be this mental toughness, needed to get through such periods, that actually makes you a global engineer.

When going for a job, engineers know they can do that exact job. They know they do it well. They would not have applied otherwise. But when it comes to explaining why they can do the job (be it in their resume, their cover letter or the interview), the message does not always get across.
So the job goes to someone else – likely someone who previously had a job that was almost the same (that’s the go-to-move used by many employers).
You have probably experienced the above yourself.
In the previous article, The Need for Willpower, I talked about how frustrating it can be to have strong global engineering skills while working for people who are certain they know better.
I also said I would explain how you can use these to better explain yourself when going for a job.
So let’s talk about that now.
​
For graduates: proving you understand engineering, not just exams
Graduate engineers often look identical on paper.
Same degree. Same subjects. Same grades.
What interviewers are really trying to determine is whether you understand engineering, or whether you simply learned how to pass engineering exams.
This is where noting framing, first principles, and systemic thinking can give you the edge.
Point to any example you can and explain:

• how you framed the problem,
• where you relied on first principles, and
• how you considered the system beyond your immediate task,

you will then immediately distinguish yourself from the majority of graduates.
Design projects or any work experience during study are best here. They are often the closest thing students experience to real engineering practice: incomplete information, competing constraints, trade-offs, and uncertainty. If you have access to design projects — especially open-ended ones — leverage them heavily.
For example:
“At first I thought this was a materials problem, but after reframing it as a thermal–mechanical interaction, the constraints became obvious…”
or:
“Rather than relying on testing, which would be time consuming, I went back to first principles to inform my decision. I found that…”
and:
“I didn’t want to simply assume what was presented. I considered the broader system for opportunities or risk and found that I could…”
Statements like this tell an interviewer something very important: you weren’t just executing procedures — you were thinking like an engineer.

Experienced engineers: making expertise transferable
For experienced and senior engineers, the challenge changes.
At this level, employers aren’t just evaluating what you’ve done. They’re trying to work out whether your capability is locked to a specific industry, organisation, or economic environment — or whether it travels.
This is where global engineering fundamentals really matter.
Instead of listing achievements, you explain how you think:

• how you’ve reframed problems when projects stalled,
• how you’ve used first principles when standards, precedent, or organisational habit were misleading,
• how you’ve thought systemically to uncover risks or opportunities others missed.

Crucially, you make explicit that these are generalised attributes:
“It should be noted that I was not following standard procedure. They’re engineering fundamentals applicable to all industries. Industries like [INDUSTRY YOU ARE APPLYING TO]. That’s why they apply even when the context changes.”
This is especially important if you’re moving between industries, organisations at different levels of maturity, or regions with very different economic backgrounds. Engineering does not exist in a vacuum — constraints, incentives, and decision-making are shaped by economic reality just as much as by culture or structure.
Being able to articulate that awareness signals depth.

Engineering managers: scaling judgment across people and contexts
For engineering managers — engineering leads, heads of R&D, CTOs — the emphasis shifts again.
At this level, you’re no longer just applying framing, first principles, and systemic thinking yourself. You’re developing them in others.
Strong candidates for these roles can clearly explain:

• what good engineering judgment looks like,
• how they encourage it in their teams,
• and how those attributes need to be interpreted differently across industries, cultures, organisations, and economic environments.

This is where global engineering truly becomes a leadership skill.
A manager who understands that framing, systems, and first principles manifest differently depending on context is far better equipped to guide teams. Not by imposing answers, but by shaping how problems are understood in the first place.
What’s more, the fact that you know what the attributes are of the expert engineer will likely separate you from other would-be managers. You show that you are indeed an expert engineer – as expected of a manager – as well as having the required leadership attributes. A powerful combination you should articulate.

Why this works: labels make thinking visible
A lot of engineers already do these things. But they just don’t label them – making it hard for other to understand or see your ability.
When you say:

• “I reframed the problem…”
• “I went back to first principles…”
• “I broadened the system boundary…”

you’re giving the listener a framework they can link your past actions to – making it easier to appreciate and recall.
I’ve used this approach myself repeatedly when applying for roles. I link all the actions I mentioned to an attribute of engineering expertise. And without fail, people switch on. They understand what I did and how significant it was because I gave it a name and explained the meaning.
If you’ve read my book, you’ll know there are many other attributes worth developing — fixation, attachment, goal analysis, and more — particularly for leadership roles. But framing, first principles, and systemic thinking are the core.
They are the fastest way to make your engineering capability legible.
And once it’s legible, it becomes employable.
Also, if your application involves moving countries, working across cultures, or managing international teams, one book I strongly recommend is The Culture Map. It provides a practical framework for understanding how communication, authority, and decision-making vary globally — all of which directly affect engineering work.
Start mentioning these things in your next application. And all the best with that application too – along with all the others that follow. I hope your engineering career continues to be onward and upward – offering you all you wanted from it.