Letter 11 The Personal Traits of an Engineer
Dear Nick and Natasha,
I hope everything is going well for you these days. At this time, I’d like to share some ideas about the personal traits of a typical engineer. I don’t like stereotypes, but sometimes there’s a grain of truth to them. Perhaps you think this is an odd topic. But, let me explain what I don’t mean and what I do mean. What I don’t mean is the engineer’s moral character, that is, their moral traits like bravery, compassion, honesty, humility, kindness, self-sacrifice, and so on. These things are fine in themselves, but they don’t necessarily make someone perform better or worse as an engineer from a scientific or technical point of view.
Rather, what I do want to talk about is the engineer’s technical competence, that is, those personal traits that often do have a very direct influence on the engineer’s ability to perform their job at a high level of quality. So, what I’m talking about here is competence, not character. Although I haven’t done a psychological or behavioral study, I’m going to suggest 12 personal traits that, from my personal experience and observations over the years, are especially evident in high-performance engineers. You can surely think of other attributes too, but the ones I’ll discuss are more than enough to make my point (see Figure 11.1).
Figure 11.1 Engineers need to have strong personal traits to succeed.
Curiosity
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470–399 BC) was known for his skillful use of asking questions to get his listeners to think more deeply about their own assumptions and ideas. This is now known as the Socratic Method of teaching and learning. In a similar way, today’s engineers should have a good amount of personal inquisitiveness about all sorts of things, which often shows up in the questions they pose to themselves and others. How does that gadget work? Can I take it apart and see how it functions? Is there a way to fix this device so it works much more efficiently? What gaps exist in the academic literature of my field that need to be filled? Has anybody comprehensively studied this topic before? Is there a brand new way of thinking about this situation? Maybe I can invent a device that solves that problem? What is the state-of-the-art technology for measuring this and manufacturing that? How can I learn to do this too? Is there a fundamental assumption we’re making that needs to be rethought? etc. It’s this kind of genuine interest that drives many engineers to research unexplored topics, develop new products for clients and customers, and gain new knowledge and skill so they can be more effective. An apathetic engineer will be uninterested in these things and, eventually, it will manifest itself in shoddy workmanship. And mediocre engineering work can be especially dangerous for public health and safety.
Creativity
An engineer should have an active imagination, since many engineering problems require new ways of thinking that lead to innovative solutions. Obviously, every individual is unique, so some engineers will naturally be more creative than others. But, why is that? There may be internal and external factors that can help or hinder an engineer’s creativity. For example, internal factors involve the engineer’s personal mindset, such as embracing or fearing failure, willingness or unwillingness to try new things, ability or inability to mentally visualize images, and so on. Similarly, external factors involve the engineer’s immediate surroundings, such as a boss or workplace that is freeing or controlling, a particular specialty of engineering that is innovative or decaying, a culture that has few or many expectations, and so forth. For engineers who are willing and able, there are techniques that can help develop one’s mental capacity for creativity and openness to new ideas. For instance, these well-established techniques include group brainstorming, playing psychologically designed right brain games, changing mental focus to allow the subconscious mind to keep working on the problem, learning new lessons and making accidental discoveries from apparent errors or mistakes, reading and watching science fiction to get inspired by unusual futuristic ideas and technologies, etc. In contrast, an engineer who is only willing to consider one possible type of solution or only one technique to arrive at a solution may actually be compromising their work and, hence, the products and services they eventually provide to their clients, their customers, and society at large.
Skepticism
The Royal Society was officially founded in Britain in 1662 and is the oldest surviving scientific organization in the world. Its official motto is “Nullius In Verba,” which is a Latin phrase that means “Take nobody’s word for it.” It expresses the idea that it’s important to find out scientific truth based on actual evidence. For many prior centuries in the western world, the views of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC), among others, were authoritative. Yet, his methods of inquiry—although he did promote theorizing plus experimentation as a path to discovery—were not always in-line with what we would consider good science today. Even today, unfortunately, we can tend to unthinkingly accept a prevailing paradigm or word of an expert without looking into things for ourselves. I’m not suggesting that all paradigms or experts are bad or wrong, but I am recommending we do our best to always ask, “What’s the evidence for that?” If we do, our engineering work will surely improve.
Objectivity
Physicist Richard Feynman’s book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out tells the story of the 1986 midflight explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger caused by faulty O-rings (i.e., gaskets). Despite the warnings of engineers about the potential of project failure, NASA managers decided to go ahead with the launch, in part, because of timeline and funding pressures. Similarly, an engineer can also be faced with various pressures, like customer requests, project budgets, delivery deadlines, employer expectations, production quotas, and so forth. It’s extremely tempting, then, to take shortcuts that could compromise the quality of our work to accommodate all these other factors. So, for instance, we might use a cheaper, but weaker, material in order to satisfy the budget. Or, we might do fewer laboratory experiments that are meant to ensure the product’s quality so we can meet a delivery deadline. Or, perhaps, we might ignore certain data points on the graph since they don’t agree with the original hypothesis we or others were expecting. The problem, obviously, is that we’re letting these other issues negatively influence our ability to make impartial and unbiased decisions based purely on scientific facts and technical reasons. And so, for us to really do high-quality engineering work, it’s vital that we maintain our evidence-based objectivity.
Orderliness
When I did my engineering studies, I had a professor who could reach back with one hand to his bookshelf without even looking at it, grab the exact book he needed, and then open it up quickly to the page he wanted to look at. He knew where everything was in his office. I remember seeing this firsthand. There’s no doubt that this approach served him well, although perhaps few engineers are like that. Even though this kind of personal organization is one aspect of the orderliness I’m talking about, there’s another equally important part. And that’s a systematic approach to our engineering tasks. It means thoroughly reviewing the existing patents or the latest academic literature to ensure our product or project will be unique. It means systematically changing the input parameters in our research study to see the effects on the output variables. It means precisely following the step-by-step instructions of a technical manual for a new piece of equipment we’ve purchased for our laboratory or machine shop. Whatever the exact applications or circumstances, we engineers should attempt to bring to our work an orderly mind and an orderly approach.
Focus
One day, the famous ancient Greek engineer Archimedes (287–212 BC) was reportedly absorbed in thought over some mathematical diagrams he’d drawn in the sand on the floor of his study. A soldier from an invading Roman army burst into the study and accidentally stepped on the diagrams. Archimedes replied, “Fellow, do not disturb my circles!” and begged the soldier to let him finish his calculations. But the soldier—insulted and enraged at being told what to do—swiftly slew Archimedes. Although this tragic tale shouldn’t be promoted as prudent behavior for engineers, it does hint at the kind of focus that is required. I think the lesson for us is that an engineer should be able to concentrate for long periods of time on a single problem without getting distracted by other tasks or people. Only in this way can we understand the complete nature of a problem in all its aspects and, then, hopefully, arrive at an appropriate solution. Of course, sometimes it’s not just about having or developing a capacity for focus, but it may also require us to deliberately create an environment free of external distractions.
Persistence
Engineers can benefit from being a little bit stubborn. It means we don’t give up when faced with a problem. It means we find ways to go around unexpected obstacles. It means we plod on to find a solution when others move on to something else. It means we work hard when others are bored or tired or distracted. In my own modest way, I’ve tried to do this, although not perfectly. One example is my master’s thesis in mechanical engineering. My supervising professor and I published a research article in a peer-reviewed academic journal based on the core results of my thesis only a few years after I completed the degree. But, I always felt there was another potential article based on some of my other unused data; this bothered me for years afterward. And so, when I had some extra time and energy about 13 years later, I looked through my master’s thesis carefully and decided to write another journal article and submit it to a journal. The paper was rejected outright by the journal with major criticisms from the reviewers, but I didn’t give up. I obtained permission from the journal editor to rewrite the paper thoroughly based on the comments of the reviewers. The paper this time wasn’t rejected outright, although it still received more heavy criticisms, but I still didn’t give up. I then made another thorough revision of the paper and resubmitted it to the same journal. This time it was accepted outright with very encouraging comments from one of the reviewers and then published soon afterward. This was a full 15 years after the publication of the first paper from my master’s thesis.
Hands-on Practicality
It’s wonderful when engineers use computer programs and mathematical formulas to solve problems. But, if this is all they do, then they are divorced from the practical realities of the real-world problems they’re trying to solve. And so, it’s essential for engineers to be interested and skilled in using their own two hands to use tools, instruments, and machines to make things, fix things, measure things, etc. For example, early in my career when I was a junior engineer in charge of a biomedical engineering lab, I learned how to find, purchase, install, use, and/or repair a variety of machine shop equipment and research instruments. Then, later when I was a senior engineer and professor hiring and recruiting engineering staff and students, I looked for people who also had hands-on skills because I knew it would help them in their duties.
The scientist Robert Hooke (1635–1703) is also a relevant example. He was a key figure in founding the Royal Society, which I mentioned earlier, but he was also its first Curator of Experiments. In this role, Hooke fabricated all sorts of new scientific instruments and then demonstrated how they worked to Royal Society members at their weekly meetings. Hooke invented or substantially improved the air pump for creating a vacuum, anemometer, balance spring for watches, the compound microscope, the dial barometer, hygrometer, iris diaphragm later used for cameras, and reflecting telescope. But, of course, he is mainly familiar to engineers because of Hooke’s Law of elasticity, whereby he discovered by experiment that a spring will stretch by an amount that is linearly proportional to the amount of weight hanging from its end. This law is expressed today in a generic form applicable to an object of any shape or material, as σ = Eε, where σ is the stress (i.e., force per unit area), E is the modulus of elasticity (i.e., constant of proportionality), and ε is the strain (i.e., change in length per original length).
Self-Motivation
A good engineer will be a self-starter who doesn’t need to be micromanaged or pressurized to do their work accurately, precisely, thoroughly, and so on. They want to do it because they have an internal drive to do it, and they see its value to their clients, customers, and society at large. But, an engineer who doesn’t have this personal quality may eventually start to complain, dislike their work, fall behind in their progress, and produce low-quality products or results. I realize there can be other reasons why an engineer displays negativity and lack of performance, such as a bad boss or personal problems. Although these issues need to be resolved, they’re not the focus of this letter. Instead, I’m talking about the basic internal motivation an engineer does or doesn’t have.
In this regard, the Renaissance genius Leonardo Da Vinci (1452–1519) is an example for us. He was not just a master artist who created the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and the Vitruvian Man, but he was also a civil, mechanical, and military engineer whose ideas were often ahead of their time. He filled his notebooks with original drawings and blueprints for axles, bridges, canal diggers, catapults, city layout plans, crossbows, fortresses, gears, hand grenades, hoists, human-powered flying machines, levers, machine-type guns, mirror grinders, missiles, mortars, needle grinders, odometers, pulleys, ratchets, screw jacks, siphons, springs, steam-powered cannons, submarines, tanks, water wheels, etc. Sadly, he never published or even built many of his ideas, in part, due to his other responsibilities, the lack of a financial backer at times, and the technological limitations of his era. But, his self-motivation for engineering is self-evident.
Collegiality
Some engineers in centuries past—like Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci—often toiled away by themselves to invent many of the devices, machines, and systems that built their societies. But in today’s world and the foreseeable future, engineers need to partner with others in order to achieve common goals. Many engineering marvels in the modern era are so complex—like airplanes, high-speed trains, nuclear power plants, and the International Space Station—that their design, construction, and maintenance require the efforts of teams of engineers, often from multiple disciplines. And for those teams to function optimally, it’s best if there is an atmosphere of mutual respect, open communication, and resource sharing. It requires a certain amount of openness to others and some social IQ on everyone’s part. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone will be fond of everyone else or that they will become close personal friends after the project is completed, but it does mean that a degree of civility must prevail on the team.
As a mechanical/biomedical engineer, I’ve had my fair share of working with many teams of electrical engineers, machinists, materials engineers, mechanical engineers, orthopedic surgeons, prosthetists, statisticians, and/or technicians to design and fabricate various medical implants and other devices. Some of these collaborators were at the same institution and/or department where I worked, while others were at entirely different institutions. Everybody brought their own particular expertise to the table without which the project would not be possible. And we all learned something new—whether it’s new information or a new skill—that we could then employ later in our own work. It seems, after all, that there really is a nugget of truth to the old saying that, “Many hands make light work.” Just as importantly, working with others on collaborative projects was also a beneficial move for me, since it built my professional network which I could later call upon if I needed something or, of course, vice versa. So, another lesson here is that your professional network can provide you with all sorts of assistance, opportunities, and resources in the future.
Shrewdness
Engineers need to know more than just the scientific or technological side of their profession. They need to know how to cleverly and skillfully engage with people and systems. So, for instance, it’s useful to understand the human psychology of why other people make or don’t make certain decisions. It’s beneficial to get to personally know the right people in positions of power and influence. And it’s helpful to be aware of all the ins and outs of how a workplace functions and how a certain profession as a whole operates. My point is that engineers should understand how to diplomatically, ethically, and legally leverage the various opportunities and even obstacles that come their way to their own advantage. This can help them to be more satisfied and productive in their engineering work which, in turn, will also benefit their team, employer, profession, and society at large.
As a case in point, I know about a number of engineering professors who worked at various universities. However, they were somewhat unsatisfied with their salary, benefits, resources, lab space, and so on. So, they applied for jobs to work at other universities or industries, which could better meet their career goals. Some of these professors were genuinely willing to switch to another university or industry, but only if they were offered a new job with a better deal than they currently had. However, some of these professors had no intention of leaving their current job; they only wanted to use a new job offer as a negotiating tactic to get a better deal from their current workplace. There is nothing improper about these actions since they are within the rules and they happen all the time. Even so, you don’t want to do this sort of thing too often in your career, since you might get a bad reputation as a “job jumper” or as someone who plays “mind games.”
Joyfulness
An engineer does not have to be a cheerful, optimistic, or pleasant person who’s always smiling, chuckling, or shaking hands. Of course, there are some engineers, just like other people, who have this kind of natural emotional disposition. Rather, what I mean by joyfulness is the sheer pleasure we get from engaging in all manner of engineering tasks, as well as the deep satisfaction of knowing that we are contributing something worthwhile to humanity. The tasks may be small and seem insignificant, or they may be grand and seem crucial. In either case, the joyful engineer greatly delights in all of it.
The distinguished electro-mechanical engineer Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) wrote the following in his book My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla (Hart Brothers, 1919/1982):
[An inventor] finds ample compensation in the pleasing exercises of his powers and in the knowledge of being one of that exceptionally privileged class without whom the race would have long ago perished in the bitter struggle against pitiless elements. Speaking for myself, I have already had more than my full measure of this exquisite enjoyment, so much that for many years my life was little short of continuous rapture. (p. 27)
In contrast, if an engineer really isn’t passionate about science and technology—perhaps they studied engineering to please their families or just to make money or to satisfy their ego—then it’s not likely that they’re going to advance upwards in their careers, perform extremely well at their jobs, or even stay in this career for a long time. And so, engineers of the world, I implore you, take pleasure in the work of your mind and hands!
So, What’s the “Take Home” Message of This Letter?
My point here is simply that a productive and fulfilling career as an engineer does require certain personal characteristics. Not every single engineer is going to have all of the ones I discussed in exactly the same measure, or express them in exactly the same way. Yet, I’m convinced that most engineers have many of these personal traits in common with each other. And if you feel you’re lacking in a few attributes that might be important for your particular career plans, then I’d encourage you to develop them as much as possible. I’d recommend looking into books, videos, websites, mentors, seminars, and other similar resources on personal development and empowerment that have been created by true experts in this area.
Peace and prosperity,
R.Z.