by Peter A. DeLisle, Severns Project on Engineering Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Taken from The Balanced Engineer: Entering a New Millennium, proceedings of IEEE-USA's 1999 Professional Development Conference. Order no. UH2986, $25.00 members.
The idea that engineers must be interpersonally effective has come of age. For years, we suffered the ignominy of the plaid-pants, flowered-shirt, white-socks, taped-glasses, pocket-protected stereotype. While generally accurate, the packaging didn't reflect the contents. The stereotype gave many of our friends a convenient place to park their introverted selves, and many companies an excuse to neither consult the professional problem-solver (engineer) on matters pertaining to leadership, nor set an expectation of professional capability in communication, problem-solving, and conflict management.
As conventional wisdom in business practice and management failed to embrace the complexity of the technological world, the engineer emerged as the individual able to make reasoned judgments about products and practices, who could guide the development and sustenance of environments conducive to invention and creativity. No business school could have ever conceived of, nor articulated, Netscape or Yahoo. Hewlett and Packard were leading engineers 60 years ago, allowing generations of men and women to learn from their hard-headed, soft-hearted approach to engineering productivity.
The driving force for engineering interpersonal effectiveness is the recognition of the part that technically prepared men and women have to play in the future of commerce and industry. One could argue, while fracturing an old metaphor, that engineering is the liberal arts of the 21st century.
While the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) advances the need for Colleges of Engineering to move to an outcomes-based curriculum that includes communication, teambuilding, and professional development skills for students, a huge variance in preparation and capability still exists for those of us still sporting a pocket protector. In response to this condition, this commentary on the fundamental issues in engineering interpersonal effectiveness is advanced.
My hope is that we will address the need to develop increasingly effective skill in this area with the same honesty, thoughtfulness, and drive we use to solve other problems. This paper is designed to give a starting point for the investigation and assessment.
As you can see, the most desirable place to be is cute and smart. The least desirable place to be is dumb and ugly. Of course, this way of looking at the relationships between intelligence and attractiveness is harsh, but it loosens up our thinking enough to address issues of interpersonal awareness and receptivity to feedback which is the foundation of interpersonal effectiveness. Using consciousness and competence is a more sophisticated and professional way of exploring this topic.
Consciousness means an awareness on the part of individuals about what's going on around them, and how they interact in their environment. Consciousness suggests that people understand what's actually happening to the, and can audit their personal receptivity to feedback. They can also judge how effectively others are receiving them. Consciousness also implies a willingness on the part of a person to receive feedback. In addition, individuals are able to pick up on this feedback while it's happening to them, and adjust their behavior accordingly, if it proves to be ineffective.
Competence is the individual's ability to demonstrate skills with a fully developed capability. A competent person is able to accomplish tasks in a highly effective manner with little or not close supervision. A senior mentor or teacher usually directs the training and development involved with this level of skill. As opposed to the minimal level of the capability, the competent person is able to perform at the highest development level of effectiveness. Competence, therefore, is a highly desirable professional level for individuals to achieve.
Understanding the relationship between consciousness and competence is fundamental to understanding interpersonal effectiveness. The variations of combinations between consciousness and competence are really very interesting. With the distant relationship to smart and cute, the idea that someone can be conscious or not conscious, or competent or not competent, is compelling.
For example, people can be fully capable of performing duties and fully aware of themselves and their relationships with others. This awareness could be called conscious competence. And of course, the orthogonal would be unconscious incompetence. The first state would be the most desirable place to be - the second one, the least desirable.
The other two options in the matrix present some interesting problems and consideration. People can be unconsciously competent, meaning that they are fully capable of doing a job, but aren't aware of how they developed the skill, nor are they able to teach it effectively to others. We often associate unconscious competence with people who are considered to be naturally gifted at certain tasks or skills. It's the person who can sit in front of a piano for the first time and pay beautiful music. It's the mechanic with intelligence in his fingers, or the master pastry chef who never has to look at a cookbook. This state is ideal for static situations in which there is rarely change.
However, in situations where change is both rapid and unpredictable, this domain is undesirable, and could be obsolete. Even though it implies a lack of knowledge, or a sense of being out of control, conscious incompetence is important today, when change is occurring at flank speed.
The idea of not being aware of how to do a job is daunting to most of us. None of us feels that not knowing how to do a job is desirable. Yet, in those situations driven by change that demand anew set of skills, it's our ability to learn and respond that makes us different and effective. Thus, conscious incompetence can be a desirable state, even though it doesn't feel quite right.
Let's explore a couple of examples of conscious competence, and the other variations I have described. One of the most interesting examples of consciousness and learning is not the idea of the half-life of an engineer. Perhaps 20 years ago, educators thought that the engineering preparation students received at The other two options in the matrix present some interesting problems and consideration. People can be unconsciously competent, meaning that they are fully capable of doing a job, but aren't aware of how they developed the skill, nor are they able to teach it effectively to others. We often associate unconscious competence with people who are con sidered universities would be sufficient for professional performance. After about 10 years, engineers would have to acquire new information to stay current with their professional capabilities.
As engineering has increased in complexity in the past 20 years, the need to acquire new information is critically obvious. As recently as 10 years ago, educators and employers felt that the half-life of that technical knowledge had shrunk from 10 years to three years. Now, it's often the duration of the product development cycle - as little as 18 months. The idea that your technical knowledge could become obsolete in such a short length of time is daunting. The good news is that more engineers recognize and understand this fact, and they are constantly in the process of acquiring new information related to their jobs.
This inclination to learn is characteristic of most professions but because the nature of engineering practice has changed so rapidly in the last 50 years, engineers are very well prepared to embrace this need for continuous learning. They move from unconscious incompetence to conscious capability with ease. Probably the most straightforward example comes from software engineering. The number of times that operating systems and software applications have changed over the last five years is astounding. The fact that software engineers learned the routines and protocols of these operations rapidly is an example of this willingness to learn. As a result, the best organizations talk about the need for learning to be part of their strategic activity, because they recognize that the failure to stay technically competent could be extremely harmful to the long term capability of their organizations.
You can see four domains in the window. The first domain is called the open self. This is the part that is known to us, and known to other people. It's our arena and it's very straightforward: how tall we are, what color our hair is, where we're from. When we first meet someone, our open self is reasonably small - but as we get to know people, it increases in size. The boundaries are dynamic.
Right next to the open self is the hidden self - that part of us known to us but not to other people. It's our private self - with a full range of information that we keep to ourselves. This information can be simple - like your favorite ice cream - or something deeply personal and intimate that we might not share even with the person closest to us. Above all, the hidden self is under our control. No matter how hard people try, they can't read our mind.
It's here that communication difficulties often arise with people. Sometimes, we make the mistake of thinking that people can read our mind. Even your closest confidant doesn't have the key to your hidden self. The open and hidden selves are parts we have control over. These parts are known to us, and we choose to share with others.
The next two domains in the Johari Window are not under our control. The blind self is the part of us known to everyone else, but not ourselves. This domain can be daunting. Our first reaction is to reject the presence of a blind self. It's like hearing a tape of your recorded voice for the first time. Upon first hearing it, we respond "That's not me!" Based upon our ability to perceive our voice, that is a perfectly accurate and reasonable statement to make. The problem is that the tape-recorded voice is closer to what other people actually hear than the voice we hear.
This illustration is a gentle example of a much more serious situation. We do communicate all the time with the voice that we are not completely familiar with - and don't recognize - complicated by the fact that we communicate non-verbally as well. We often send messages non-verbally that are better, clearer, and more accurate than what we say. People often read us through these non-verbal messages. Often, when we receive feedback about non-verbal communication, again, our natural reaction is to say, "That's not me."
The last part of the Johari Window is called the unknown self - not known to us nor to other people - which initially appears to make no sense. However, if we think of the unknown self in the context of how we respond to unexpected or stressful situations, then it becomes clearer. Or, if we think of it as "our future," it becomes obvious. The unknown self does not exist until it's discovered, and then it becomes hidden or open. It can also be a special talent that we didn't know we had, or an act of courage.
The most important aspect of the Johari Window is the dynamism of each of the quadrants. Your open self becomes larger as you get to know people. Your hidden self becomes smaller as you share information with others. Your blind self becomes apparent, once you seek and accept feedback from others. Our unknown self helps us anticipate and deal with uncertainty or complexity.
The most important thing for us to consider is that the Johari Window helps us organize our thinking about how we give and receive feedback. This skill is the most important one to develop for interpersonal effectiveness. Without a willingness or ability to seek feedback, we will never understand our impact on other people. In turn, others may never see us as trustworthy or capable leaders.
If we make it clear to people that we're willing to receive feedback, then its more likely people will give feedback that will prevent us from making mistakes. Others will see us as open and receptive to new ideas and opinions. All of these facto5rs will have a direct bearing on how people respond to our ideas, how we influence product development, or how we develop organizational leadership.
Organizations also have Johari Window characteristics. They have open, hidden, blind and unknown selves too. Recognizing this, we should routinely seek feedback about the things everyone else can see, but that the organization is unaware of.
We can attribute many engineering failures to neglecting organizational characteristics. Creating an environment where people can be open and honest in their observations promotes better engineering. The opposite environment creates fear, distrust, and the unwillingness to take risks - and then people make mistakes. What's most desirable is an environment where people can be honest, straightforward, seek feedback, and have the opportunity to make change, while continuing along a successful path. These same characteristics can be applied to the process of engineering and organizational leadership. The competency underlying this theory is the ab8ility to give constructive feedback.
Interpersonal effectiveness will become more apparent when communications technologies continue to shrink the world and remove the impediment of physical proximity on business, education, and diplomacy. Society will call upon engineers with greater frequency to solve problems that fall outside the domain of their academic program or professional specialty. And an engineer's willingness and ability to embrace change, tolerate variances between preparedness and expectation for performance, and to develop the conceptual flexibility needed by the profession, will provide opportunities to influence people and organizations.
TWO WORKSHOPS PLANNED IN DALLAS - CAS Workshop on Low Power and Low Voltage Circuits & Systems, Monday, March 27th, 2000 at the Harvey Hotel 1600 North Central Expressway, Plano will present the latest techniques and challenges involved in low power and low voltage circuits and system design. Topic covered: low power wireless CMOS circuits, low voltage analog circuits, and low power high-speed digital design. See www.seas.smu.edu/orgs/cas/wks.
TEXMEMS Workshop, Tuesday, May 16, 2000, at SMU, encourages interaction and dialog among scientists and engineers to foster developments in MEMS related activities at different levels: Design, Simulation, Fabrication and Applications. Sponsored by SMU, IEEE, ASME, Raytheon, TCU. See www.seas.smu.edu/texmems/.
IEEE US MEMBERS ARE INVITED to join hundreds of other engineers and scientists in the 2000 Congressional Visits Day, April 4-5, 2000 in Washington, DC. Activities will include visits with your Congressional Delegation and briefings from members of Congress and the Administration. The objective of the annual CVD is to support the long-term importance of science and technology to the Nation through meetings with Congressional decisionmakers. Meetings for IEEE members will be coordinated through IEEE-USA's Technology Policy Activities. See www.ieeeusa.org/forum/cvd/ or contact Deborah Rudolph, d.rudolph@ieee.org.
"Engineers today seem to be the stealth profession, the silent occupation....If we as engineers are unwilling to responsibly speak out on issues within our realm of expertise, who then will?"
Norman Augustine, CEO, Lockheed Martin ("L. A. Engineer," The Bridge, Fall 1994).
"What is needed is for scientists [and engineers] to become lobbyists. You have to be able to react rapidly to alerts that your input is needed in the congressional process. You have to get to know your local Congressperson and help him or her."
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-IL).
"All I am asking is that every scientist [and engineer] spend an hour or two each month being an active citizen. Do your duty and educate your fellow countrymen about the exciting world that awaits us. Help us understand what is at stake and we will help you find the resources to achieve these great breakthroughs. Every day scientists work in labs and wind tunnels and at computers to make our country a better place. Surely a little citizenship is a small enough price to pay to do the same thing in the public arena. After all, our health, prosperity, and survival are at stake."
The Honorable Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House. Excerpted from the Boston Globe, Dec. 28, 1999.
"You also need to use your membership to engage in a broader process of educating legislators and the public...They need to gain a better understanding of your world and the realities of our science and technology efforts."
Rep. George Brown (D-CA). Remarks at 1996 IEEE-USA Technology Policy Symposium.
IEEE-USA HAS LAUNCHED A NEW WEBSITE FEATURE, the IEEE-USA Discussion Forum (www.ieeeusa.org/boards). The Discussion Forum provides you with a way to let us know what's on your mind and to participate directly in our programs and activities. Current forums focus on IEEE-USA professional activities and grassroots efforts such as retirement/pensions, R&D funding, and immigration reform. New forums will be added as new interest networks and audiences are identified. Registered users can post messages and reply to the messages posted by others, so sign-up today and start posting!
CS AND EE BUCKS GRADUATE ENROLLMENT TRENDS - According to a National Science Foundation Databrief released in mid-December, graduate-level enrollments in computer science at US higher education institutions was up 5.1% in 1998, while graduate enrollment in electrical engineering rose 2.5%. These increases ran counter to the overall trend for engineering, which saw enrollments dip by 0.7%, with the biggest decreases in the civil and industrial engineering disciplines. See the NSF Databrief at: www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/databrf/db00307.htm
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY (NSF'S PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES) - The National Science Foundation has a special program, "Program for People with Disabilities" (PPD), which focuses on helping young people with hearing, visual, orthopedic, and speech impairments, and with learning disabilities such as dyslexia and attention-deficit disorder, in the study of science and engineering. When you look at the history of science, it's not much of a stretch to understand the Program's commitment. From Italian Renaissance astronomer Galileo (who was blind) to Albert Einstein (who was dyslexic) to contemporary astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (whose movement and speech are severely affected by Lou Gehrig's disease), the annals of pathbreaking research are replete with the work of people with disabilities.
The program's mission is reinforced by a 1996 NSF study of 450 college students who were pursuing majors in science or engineering, 50 of whom said they had a disability. Among the findings: Most students with disabilities said they had problems in communicating with professors and their fellow students. And 60% reported that instructional accommodations - such as assistance with test-taking, library or research support, and note-taking - were either rarely or never provided. See www.nsf.gov or call 703- 306-1234.
IEEE LAUNCHES NEW ONLINE STORE & CATALOG - The IEEE has taken a major leap forward in its ongoing objective to "do business electronically" with the launch of the new IEEE Online Store & Catalog. The site went live 28 Dec 1999, at www.ieee.org/store. The store is fully searchable and sells IEEE books, conference proceedings, subscriptions, standards, mixed-media products and merchandise in a secure environment. It includes such value-added e-commerce features as shopping lists and a help desk. A kickoff promotion offers a free IEEE shirt with every book purchase.
AMERICAN AIRLINES DISCOUNTS OFFERED TO IEEE TRAVELERS - IEEE Global Travel Services has established an exclusive agreement with American Airlines that gives IEEE patrons 10% off all published fares. This discount can be used for both business and personal travel, and travel can originate from inside or outside of the United States. For more information, contact Global Travel Services, www.ieee.org/travelonline/or ieee-travel@ieee.org.
IEEE PAST PRESIDENTS LISTED ON HISTORY CENTER WEB SITE - The IEEE History Center has added a listing of past IEEE presidents under the "What's News" link on its Web site at www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center. Notable leaders include: AIEE: 1891-92 Alexander G. Bell, 1892-93 Frank J.Sprague, 1901-02 Charles P.Steinmetz, and IRE: 1936 Alan Hazeltine, 1954 William R. Hewlett.
40 yrs
30 yrs
25 yrs
20 yrs
You're negotiating to do a job that will take all of January, 31 days. The employer offers to pay you one cent for the first day, two cents for the second, and so on, doubling the amount each day. "Alternatively," he says, "I'll pay you a flat $100,000,000 for the job." Which payment will you choose?
Answer to November's Brainbuster:
The question is, "Which road would a member of your family tell me is the road to Millinocket?" Either a truth teller or a liar will point to the correct road.
Jean Eason, Editor