<p>Please do not waste thread space citing examples of engineering students and engineers with great people skills, who do not fit the stereotypical nerd mold, etc. The purpose of this thread is <em>not</em> to claim that all or even most engineering students and engineers are antisocial nerdlingers who can do math but have no people skills. I am only saying that antisocial (or simply socially underdeveloped) nerdlingers with no people skills are definitely over-represented among engineers. I don’t think anybody would disagree with me on that, or that they are mainly clustered in electrical, computer, and software engineering (yeah, I’m lumping CS majors in here, just this once).</p>
<p>So, my question is, to what extent is this hurting engineers in general or hurting those engineers without people skills? Do employers put up with it, or does this make those engineers with great people/team skills that much more valuable (I mean does this drive up their price?). Is this people skill deficiency maybe even hurting the tech industry as a whole?</p>
<p>I don’t think “nerdlingers with no people skills” are over-represented among engineers; it may be that those “nerdlingers with no people skills” simply stick out since they are not the “norm.” After all, engineers are required, nay, forced, to work in teams, and “nerdlingers with no people skills” immediately become noticeable in team-oriented environments.</p>
<p>This is a very complex issue and I doubt a one or two factors affect engineers. One thing I have noticed is that engineers do not possess the same kind of power lawyers and medical doctors do, primarily because the latter were able to set their filtering system much further than engineers.</p>
<p>Another reason may be that managers and administrators see engineers as commodities with variable prices instead of assets that remain solidly valuable.</p>
<p>I have an interesting point, although I am a student. But to avoid confusion, what precisely is your definition of “bad people skill”? Antisocial will kill the point of this thread, because no one would hire anyone that is antisocial, especially in the technical industry.</p>
<p>I imagine he means an individual who can not communicate ideas properly, does not know the proper social codes for different situations, can not engage in small talk, quirky, somewhat “teenager-ish”, etc.</p>
<p>Also, I wonder if female engineers would fall under the same mold as male engineers. Additionally, do engineers more advanced in age continue to exhibit the same behavior or do they “normalize.”</p>
<p>In software engineering, documentation takes up at least 2/3 of the cycle from what I heard. The first 1/3 is writing the code, and people can finished the coding as early as the first 1/3 of the schedule.</p>
<p>Other engineers too, have to document technical details. So I imagine communication (which includes speaking, writing and speaking) is critical in the industry.</p>
<p>If you can’t communicate ideas properly, you probably would have a hard time to be promoted. I did a paper on communication in my writing for engineer class, and many companies today consider communication an essential skill for hiring and promotion. These surveyed companies said they provided workshops to better their employees’ communication ability. </p>
<p>When I review the cirruolum of each engineering discipline in our school, CS is the only science that mandate a speech course, probably because computer science students encounter computers more than people, and that computer science is not so communicable (the subject). </p>
<p>The interesting point I think worth to discuss is the role of communication in workplace. Antisocial (the real antisocial one, if they were ever employed) can be a potential “threat” to the workplace.</p>
<p>Heh, heh…that’s IF documentation is actually done. In most “waterfall” software development projects, most of the documentation is done almost at the end of the project and probably rushed.</p>
<p>Now with “agile” (scrum) software development, there is almost too little documentation.</p>
<p>Back to the communication topic…</p>
<p>I think the industry and even universities recognize the points of the thread’s first post. Some graduate engineering programs (mine included) REQUIRES a course in technical writing/communication. In order to lead projects, most engineering leaders need to take project management training or earn a PMP (project management professional) certification…which WILL INCLUDE training in team communication. The good thing about engineers having project management training is that…and pardon my stereotyping but “geeks understand geeks”.</p>
<p>And the nerdy kid glued to a computer screen, who can not talk to girls, probably wearing glasses, sometimes victimized by bullies, pale skin, bad acne, usually a brainiac who can hack US government computers with just a cellphone is the stereotype pushed by popular culture, and the one we are most likely thinking about. </p>
<p>In contrast, Tony Stark, an electrical engineer from MIT, is usually a suave, cool guy. That’s one example.</p>
<p>Normally, I tend to assign the “socially awkward” title to scientists, usually physicists.</p>
<p>I can more or less agree with the OP, although I would not say that it is limited to the fields he mentioned - I started off in Aerospace, and that group was not noticably more socially distinguished than Electrical. I have also had the opportunity to work in several different fields, and as a group engineers seem to run into an unusual level of difficulty in communicating and persuading outside their own group.</p>
<p>
Hardly at all. Most engineers interact mostly with other engineers, where they have no difficulty. Most engineers are as able to work on teams as anyone else, perhaps more so - provided that they speak “engineer”. I was in a training program at work that included both engineers and business/management types. Both subgroups were able to work just fine, the problem was communicating BETWEEN those subgroups, and interestingly enough, it seemed that upper management placed most of the expectation for that communication on the non-engineers. In other words, if your job title involves things like communications, management, or sales, they expected you to be the lead-off hitter in team dynamics.</p>
<p>
In my experience it has not effect on initial price, although it can down the road - there are several opportunities for those with both engineering expertise and more broadly applicable social skills, including management and technical sales. Since these fields often pay more handsomely than baseline engineering at the same career stages, those in these areas can make more than their engineering peers. BUT, those who HAVE the broader social skill set but remain in baseline engineering positions will not see a financial advantage.</p>
<p>
Not really. I don’t think people avoid the tech fields because of the nerds. I think they avoid the tech industry because it is hard, and because while engineering is lucrative, it also lacks “star potential” like some other fields. That is to say, while you can live quite comfortably as an engineer, you cannot get rich without essentially switching to another field. Even if you invent something incredible it is unlikely that you will receive a significant share of its value.</p>
<p>@ global
I know you have 20 years in the industry. Do you think the big company still tolerates poor documentation? Small business might not follow it because of the size of the company and needs. </p>
<p>
I immediately link it to the mathematicians. But it’s stereotyping. LOL But global might backfire me, I think he graduated with a math degree.</p>
<p>I think employers can tolerate writing problems than speaking and listening. You can have some grammar problems like I do (and I am working on it) but if you can’t convey ideas through speeches, it would be very hard to work, regardless of the role of the job. </p>
<p>The study I did said nothing about speech workshop, so I assumed employers evaluate speech ability more heavily than writing.</p>
<p>Yes…but it is really determined by who is actually running the project(s) and if the company has standard (and required) documentation policies. Some companies are what is called CMMI Level X Certification (where X = 1,2,3…) which REQUIRES a company to produce good documentation. In order to keep that certification (which can be used as a marketing tool to win contracts), employers must produce documentation. Some companies do not have that certification and may be more lax with the documentation.</p>
<p>LOL…hey, I probably was that stereotype when I first graduated. I have also done project management certification training and have been groomed (by former bosses) in how to communicate with engineers. Also, in college, the senior-level CS courses basically consisted of projects/assignments that were small-group efforts. I think the school was trying to prepare CS grads to function in a team environment.</p>
<p>I was at an info session for a tech company last year. The following is what I remember the recruiter said that relates to the original post.</p>
<p>We need people with good people skills and can work good in teams. </p>
<p>We have people that have 4.00’s, but awful people skills. We want to get rid of them, but we can’t. We need those types of people to solve all the tough mathematics for us. We need them and we have to put up with them. That shows you how flexible our company is. Then we all start laughing.</p>
<p>Yes. Bad people skills decidedly hold engineers back. Bad people skills cause engineers to lose work, they cause conflict with clients, they cause conflict within their teams, and they create hostile work environments that drive out the engineers who <em>do</em> have people skills.</p>
<p>I would argue those engineers with “bad people skills” are in the wrong profession. Those types of individuals should have been scientists.</p>
<p>I feel team environments stiffle creativity. One has to compromise with others, deal with politics and emotions, tolerate petty behaviors, etc. In the end, 1 or 2 people end up carrying the team and individual accomplishments take a backseat to team efforts.</p>