Developing Engineering Leaders: An Organized Innovation Approach to Engineering Education

In search of a definition and frameworks for engineering leadership development

“…Educators can teach leadership in various ways, such as in stand‐alone leadership programs, as is common in the United States, or as integrated into other coursework, as is more common in Canada and Europe (Graham et al., 2009). Numerous researchers highlight the importance of integrating leadership education into the engineering curriculum (Knight & Novoselich, 2017; Perry et al., 2017; Rottmann et al., 2015) to help students and faculty view engineering as a leadership profession (Rottmann et al., 2015). Courses with substantial design projects like capstone (Abdulwahed & Hasna, 2017; Komarek et al., 2018; Novoselich et al., 2016) and other teamwork‐based courses (Kendall et al., 2018; Zafft et al., 2009) build leadership skills in the core curriculum because they provide the opportunity to practice interpersonal skills and have authentic, contextual experiences collaborating with industry (Abdulwahed & Hasna, 2017).…”

“…In their organized innovation model, Perry et al. (2017) provide a detailed guide to the systemic integration of leadership into the technical engineering curriculum by focusing on curiosity, collaboration, and commercialization. Specific recommendations to promote and focus curiosity include involving students in research projects, requiring strategic planning in projects, encouraging systems thinking by focusing on the platform (e.g., an operating system) over a singular product (e.g., device), and planning specific opportunities for interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledge.…”

“…The organized innovation model for education provides guidance for engineering educators on embedding leadership into existing engineering education systems (Perry et al., 2017). This model highlights methods to build activities into the curriculum that foster curiosity and interdisciplinary collaboration through strategy, persuasion, and trust.…”

Tension between Leadership Archetypes: Systematic Review to Inform Construction Research and Practice

“…In the current paper researcher influence has been minimized through clearly defined search parameters, journal quality controls and the independent comparison of abstracts with exclusion criteria by each author (Randhawa et al 2016). Second, while there is evidence to suggest that the results of this review hold relevance beyond the construction industry (Lines and Reddy Vardireddy 2017;Perry et al 2017), the sampling process implemented ensures the results presented and the associated research agenda refer explicitly to the construction industry. Given that similar leadership concerns have been identified throughout the broader body of research in engineering management, it is important that future studies conduct similar systematic reviews across other engineering industries to establish parallels and differences in professional practice and needs more acutely.…”

“…requiring stronger leadership(Lines and Reddy Vardireddy 2017). Likewise,Perry et al (2017) highlight the incompatibility of existing frames of thought around engineering leadership given the increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of projects, leading to the suggestion that 'a revised leadership development model is needed'. Given the evidence that engineering faces a similar set of leadership concerns to those identified in the context of construction, it is likely the findings of this review, which recommend balanced leadership as a promisingapproach that enables the integration of vertical and horizontal leadership practices, are relevant to the development of leadership research agendas across a broad range of engineering professions (Hartmann et al 2017; Kameo 2017; Knight and Novoselich 2017; Lines and Reddy Vardireddy 2017; Perry et al 2017; Rosch and Imoukhuede 2016; Stephens and Rosch 2015).…”