Search for: All records

The efficacy of leadership training on undergraduate engineering and technology students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. A leadership development program (LDP) at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) emphasized active involvement and inter-personal relationship among participants to build a community of STEM leaders. The LDP recruited academically talented and economically disadvantaged STEM majors from partner community colleges and trained them as leaders. The directors framed the LPD within Social Interdependence Theory to promote and enable students to cooperatively learn to lead themselves, build leadership skills, and participate in leadership teams. The COVID-19 pandemic imposed extra challenges on implementing this model when teaching and learning switched to an online modality. Program organizers followed the program tenets and “Challenged the Process” to find innovative ways to maintain connections among and with students. Working together, students learned to apply their leadership training by organizing and completing service projects. Additionally, students practiced leadership skills within registered student organizations. Through dedication by students and coaches, the program exceeded expectations through the pandemic. The LDP continued with 100% graduation and 100% retention rates. Students in the LDP continued to show large, statistically significant gains in Leadership Self-efficacy, Motivation to Lead, and Grit compared to peers. This model of leadership development conceptually framed within the Social Interdependence Theory was effective. The LDP at SIUC is an exemplary program and could be a model for engineering leadership programs to follow. 

An engineering leadership development program (LDP) at a major midwestern university has received NSF S STEM grant support for the past 10 years and has achieved higher and faster time to graduation rate for engineering transfer students in a peer comparison study ( DeRuntz et.al 2019) ( DeRuntz, et. al 2017) (Palmer, et. al. 2016) ( Kowalchuk , et. al 2013). Through the award of a Track 2 S STEM three years ago, the LDP has now expanded into the STEM majors at the university and has made an important discovery regarding the evolution of Leadership Knowledge among some of the STEM leaders. The participants in the LDP program have shown statistically significant changes on Leadership Self Efficacy Survey ( Bobbio , Manganelli , 2009) and the Motivation to Lead Survey (Chan, Drasgow, 2001) when compared to their peers. We noticed an apparent regression in the Leadership Knowledge data scores. However, upon further examination there appeared to be a response shift bias in these results ( Rohs 1999). In other words, participants rated themselves higher on the pre test and then lower on the post test; even though they had made significant gains as measured in the other program data collected by the external evaluator. This conclusion is further confirmed by interactions and observations recorded by the program Co PIs, coordinator, coaches, and senior leadership. 

In this study, the authors explored prevalent leadership styles found in industry from an engineering student’s internship experiences. Over four years of internships, observations and interview responses were recorded to address three questions: What is the dominant industrial leadership style? What is the dominant leadership style in the broader engineering sector? What is the dominant leadership style entry-level engineers should know to be successful? Reflections on personal experiences within the engineering industry suggest an ideal leadership style that an entry-level engineer or a similar technical individual can utilize. Previous research on leadership and success formed a basis for claims as to which leadership techniques can lead to success for an entry-level engineer. Further, this study builds upon prior research on the correlations between leadership skills taught in college and the resulting success beyond the classroom. Leadership styles are ranked in order of their utilization in industry with a corresponding value for entry-level engineers. They are: pacesetting, authoritative, democratic, coaching, and delegating. From the study, the authors concluded by suggesting that there is a correlation between knowledge in leadership for both subjective and objective success of entry-level engineers. Ideally, every engineer should be taught a multitude of techniques, and recommendations are that engineers should strive to learn many leadership styles, whether they intend to hold a position of leadership or not. 

The Hoshin Kanri X-matrix has been used in quality management systems in engineering to improve the efficiency of manufacturing and business processes. The X-matrix was adapted from this field and used to effectively manage a large-scale leadership development program. In this unique application, the X-matrix was applied to improve the efficacy as well as the motivation of leadership development program participants. The implications of integrating the X-matrix into a technical leadership development program are many: (1) it becomes a motivational tool that helps participants relate their efforts to become a leader and its impact on their chosen student organization, (2) it develops their understanding of their responsibility to the larger organization, (3) it develops their leadership communication abilities, and (4) it develops their skill in using a valuable organizational management tool that can be applied throughout their professional career. 

The United States’ global leadership is predicated upon not only a sufficient technical workforce, but more critically, leaders among them who will inspire them to create the technology better and faster than our competitors. Caterpillar, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and Siemens among others have created their own internal leadership development programs. This not only highlights the need for strong leadership in a work environment, but it also reveals the necessity for leadership education in new engineering employees. Industry is also responding to this shortage by supporting the creation of technical leadership development programs at universities. Leadership development is a relatively new and growing trend in engineering colleges with an estimated 80% of the programs in North America having been created in the past ten years. Through this partnership, a corporate sponsor and university can work together to implement a specialized curriculum that makes program graduates skilled and competent in their field upon graduation. A review of these leadership development programs will evaluate their key components that facilitate accountability, achievement, and excellence. This paper is based upon the results of a national survey of ASEE Engineering Leadership Division (LEAD) members to compare and contrast the innovative components that have been implemented within various engineering leadership development programs. The following components will be examined: cross-cultural education, team-based applied projects, leadership coursework, mentorship, and corporate sponsorship, among other components. The main objective of this paper is to examine these components, identify innovative practices, and promote the importance and growth of engineering leadership education.