Engineering Leadership:

A Conceptual Framework in the Quest for

Sustainable Development
- Idris Adeleye; Olutosin Ogunmola
Delivered at the NIEEE Abeokuta Chapter’s 2nd Waliu Olayemi Mufutau Memorial Lecture,
Saturday 12th November 2022.

Protocol

Introduction
The most exigent issue on the global agenda today is Sustainable Development. That is,
“to secure people’s well-being within the means of nature, not eroding humanity’s long-
term resilience”; in other words, maintaining human growth and preserving the environment
at once.

There’s no doubt about the fact that Sustainable Development is a question of Leadership.
It is why as we speak, the 27th United Nations Climate Change conference more commonly
referred to as Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), or COP27, within which a World Leaders Summit is held, is
underway in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. As in every field of human endeavour, lofty ideas,
initiatives, and programs of action are only as successful as the quality of leadership in
driving their implementation.

According to its website (https://www.footprintnetwork.org), every year Global Footprint

Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day
campaign, which attracts media attention around the world. Earth Overshoot Day marks
the date we (all of humanity) have used more from nature than our planet can regenerate
in the entire year. In the report, Earth Overshoot Day has moved from late September 2000
to July 28 in 2022, which underscores why “we must begin to make ecological limits central
to our decision-making and use human ingenuity to find new ways to live well, within the
Earth’s bounds; that means investing in technology and infrastructure that will allow us to
operate in a resource-constrained world”.

This is where Engineering comes in.

Engineering encompasses the study and practice of problem-solving. Through innovation

and the creation of new technologies, engineers have been instrumental in changing the
world and significantly influencing both economic growth and the quality of life. With the
development of humanity over thousands of years, engineering has changed as a
profession and a subject of study. Engineering has aided in addressing our daily
challenges and production requirements by leveraging scientific knowledge, technological
methodologies, design, and management concepts. Through a number of sub-disciplines,
engineering has in fact made a significant contribution to humankind's survival on Earth as
well as the improvement of our quality of life. It has enhanced our capacity to invent and
produce new products and services, as well as our resistance to natural disasters and
public health issues, as well as our capacity to acquire food and water, communicate, and
move around.

Engineering solutions are needed anywhere there are problems and this applies in the
exigencies of Sustainable Development in many respects as have been enunciated in
different programs toward the realization of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals. However, beyond technical contributions, Engineering being the soul of
development needs to be channelled for greater impacts in the overarching need for
sustainable development.

Therefore expanding the frontiers, this paper aims at deriving a conceptual framework of
Engineering Leadership as a defining aggregation of Leadership and Engineering for an
overriding influence in the exigent quest for Sustainable Development. In the light of the
critical role of Engineering, and by extension the Engineers, in development, the paper
explores the adaptation of Leadership precepts in Engineering and the Engineers with
proposals for the application of the conceptual framework in the study, practice, and
governance of Engineering.

Keywords: Conceptual Framework, Concept, Engineering, Leadership, Development,

Sustainable Development, Engineer, Leader.

Fig. 1- A representation of Sustainable Development

The Underlying Philosophy in Constructing a Conceptual
Framework
In putting context to the final outcome of this paper presentation, there’s the need to
understand the conceptual framework, defined by Yosef Jabareen in the article of
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Building a Conceptual Framework:
Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure (2009) that’s squarely relied upon for this section,
as a network or a “plane” of linked concepts that together provide a comprehensive
understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena that are linked to multidisciplinary bodies
of knowledge.

The essential cognizance derives from the features of conceptual frameworks and
procedures of conceptual framework analysis, which both rests on the term concept with
some of its aspects important as the basis for this paper presentation highlighted as
follows:

1. Every concept usually contains “bits” or components originating from other

concepts;
2. Every concept is “considered as the point of coincidence, condensation, or
accumulation of its own components”;
3. Every concept must be understood “relative to its own components, to other
concepts, to the plane on which it is defined, and to the problem it is supposed to
resolve”.

In this context, Engineering Leadership is considered relative to its components

originating from the concepts of Leadership and Engineering as a crucial and potentially
defining derivative in the global urgent efforts at addressing the imperatives of sustainable
development, the pertinent problem to resolve.

The main features of conceptual frameworks are as paraphrased below:

1. A conceptual framework is not merely a collection of concepts but, rather, a
construct in which each concept plays an integral role;
2. A conceptual framework provides not a causal/analytical setting but, rather, an
interpretative approach to social reality;
3. Rather than offering a theoretical explanation, as do quantitative models,
conceptual frameworks provide understanding;
4. A conceptual framework provides not knowledge of “hard facts” but, rather, “soft
interpretation of intentions”;
5. Conceptual frameworks are indeterminist in nature and therefore do not enable us
to predict an outcome;
6. Conceptual frameworks can be developed and constructed through a process of
qualitative analysis;
 7. The sources of data consist of many discipline-oriented theories that become the
empirical data of the conceptual framework analysis.

This paper by a practitioner only posits the conceptual framework of Engineering

Leadership as potentially defining and throws it up as a challenge to researchers for the
conceptual framework analysis in the collective and collaborative efforts towards
accelerated effectiveness in sustainable development. In this respect, therefore, the
pieces of literature for this paper are limited and mostly single sources for each concept.
At the same time, it is expected that the follow-up works of analysis would be expanded to
cover wider literature and methodologies.

Fig. 2- Concepts in the Conceptual Framework of Engineering Leadership for Sustainable Development

The Exigencies of Sustainable Development

According to Richard R. SHAKER in the research article of Geographica Timisiensis, vol. 19,
nr. 1, (pp. 163-171), INDICATORS AND THE QUEST FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS…ANYONE? (2010), Sustainable Development (SD),
conceptually rooted to the era of early ‘European Enlightenment’ in the 16th century (Grober
2007), was popularized during the 1987 World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED). The coined definition found within the Brundtland Commission’s
report, Our Common Future stated “Sustainable development is the development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs”.

The exigencies of Sustainable Development derive from the current evolving realities of
the planet that have resulted from the conflicting requirements of human development and
the ecosystem sustenance regeneration highlighted in ecological footprints and
biocapacity respectively.

The birth of the concept of sustainable development is linked to the industrial revolution.
In the latter half of the 19th century, Western cultures started to acknowledge that their
economic and industrial activities had a significant impact on the environment and social
harmony. Around the world, a number of ecological and social catastrophes occurred,
increasing awareness that a more sustainable paradigm was needed.

Here are some examples of the worldwide economic and social crises (the pressure of
human development) that shook the 20th century:

● The American financial crisis of 1907

● The American hyperinflationary crisis of 1923
● 1929: The 1930s financial crisis (aka Great Depression) begins.
● 1968: international demonstrations against bureaucratic elites
● Oil shocks in 1973 and 1979
● The debt shock of emerging nations in 1982

Here are some examples of ecological disasters (the pressure of biocapacity):

● Rongelap nuclear fallout in 1954

● Minamata Mercury Crisis, 1956
● Torrey Canyon oil leak in 1957;
● Seveso accident in 1976;
● Bhopal tragedy in 1986;
● Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986,
● Exxon Valdez oil spill, 1989,
● Erika catastrophe in 1999,
● Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010
● There's also global warming, air pollution, the ozone layer, and biodiversity loss.
 Fig. 3- A representation of ecological footprint versus biocapacity

Has this stopped? No! More recently, inflation and instability continue to exacerbate the
pressure of human development and beyond the corresponding pressure on biocapacity
reflecting in varying degrees of disturbances.

The cost-of-living problem, tighter financial conditions in most regions, Russia's invasion
of Ukraine, and the persisting COVID-19 epidemic all loom large in the forecast. Global
growth will fall from 6.0 percent in 2021 to 3.2 percent in 2022 and 2.7 percent in 2023,
according to forecasts.

In Nigeria, we have had a fair share of socio-economic cum ecological crises. From
economic depression to Insecurity, and currently, flood crisis. If nothing is done, Lagos has
been forecasted to sink by the year 2050.

Indeed, the world is now in a state of ecological debt or biocapacity debt in which case
humanity’s footprint has exceeded global biocapacity, a phenomenon that first occurred in
the early 1970s and has been so every year since (https://www.footprintnetwork.org).
By 2019, this annual overshoot had accrued into an ecological debt that exceeded 17 years
of the earth’s total productivity. And it has been projected that humanity will require a
biocapacity equal to two planet earths by the 2030s (WWF 2008).

As human development continues to be imperative, Sustainable Development is therefore

derived to secure people’s well-being within the means of nature without eroding
humanity’s long-term resilience. It is the establishment of long-term balances between
human development and the planet’s environmental limits (Kates et al. 2001; Parris and
Kates 2003).

Fig. 4- Global Sustainable Development Quadrant

Three crucial factors must be balanced in order to achieve sustainable development:

economic expansion, social inclusion, and environmental protection (reference to Fig. 1).

It is in light of the imperatives that the UN expanded the Millenium Development Goals
(MDG) at their expiration into the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDG):
1. Zero Poverty is committed to ending poverty;
2. Zero Hunger was created to prevent and eliminate famine, provide food security,
and promote sustainable agriculture;
3. Health and well-being are focused on providing a healthy life and encouraging
population well-being;
4. Quality education is an excellent assurance in providing opportunities for everyone
to learn throughout their lives and long-term educational standards;
5. Gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls are presupposed in
gender equality;
6. Sanitation and clean water are essential for a healthy lifestyle;
7. Affordable and clean energy for all;
8. Availability of secured employment and economic growth;
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure seek to enhance rural connectivity, increase
research and development investment, and manufacture high-tech products that
will help stabilize infrastructure;
10. Inequality reduction within and among countries;
11. Sustainable development of cities and human settlements;
12. Responsible consumption and production can guarantee the most environmentally
friendly patterns of consumption and output;
13. Climate action is the prompt action taken to combat climate change and its effects;
14. Life below water - the sustainability of ocean preservation and utilization is vital to
aquatic life;
15. Life on Land is committed to safeguarding, restoring, and advancing the sustainable
use of terrestrial ecosystems;
16. Establish Institutions that are effective, just, and at peace;
17. Partnerships to achieve goals.
The Required Pivot of Leadership

The inevitable global sustainable development imperative requires the pivot of leadership
for the realization.

What’s Leadership? It is perhaps the most discussed and yet most divergent concept in
modern literature. There are several dimensions and scopes to leadership but for the
purpose of this discourse, the fundamental universal concepts of leadership come handy.

These concepts that are effectively definitive of the best of leadership in all contexts are
as follows:

★ Leadership as service, that is the understanding of applying oneself squarely to the

essence of the call;
★ Leadership is transformative, that it is all about change. Leadership results in
transformative change; it is a process of adaptation and evolution, and it is
“deviation from convention” (Paul et al, 2018);
★ Leadership without title as being intrinsic for genuine leadership;
★ Leadership is a process. When defined as a process, leadership is no longer simply
about the person in charge; rather, it is a dynamic collective of individual wills and
individual needs (Paul et al, 2018);
★ Leadership entails problem-solving - defining a problem; determining the cause of
the problem; identifying, prioritizing, and selecting alternatives for a solution; and
implementing a solution;
★ Leadership fosters collaboration. When emphasizing that leadership requires
collaboration, this highlights the fact that leadership is not power. When power is
applied, this only meets the goals of the leader, whereas leadership is about
motivating and engaging followers towards a common goal. Leadership is about
fostering trust through a mutual partnership, not a hierarchical relationship (Paul et
al, 2018).
★ Leadership as responsibility, “making sustainable business decisions which take
into account the interests of all stakeholders”.

And why leadership in this regard? It is in the understanding of Sustainable Development

as being multi-disciplinary and with strongly conflicting dynamics cum stakeholders’
interests.

It is in such circumstances as the imperatives of Sustainable Development are situated

that bold leadership has always been needed to move beyond rhetoric into decisive actions
in the direction of overriding collective interest.

So, who or what is more suited and/or would competently provide this required level of
leadership?
Development is in terms of Engineering
In the words of Isaac Asimov, American writer & professor of biochemistry, “Science can
amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world”.

Engineering is explicitly aimed at "the acquisition, development, and application of

scientific, technical, and mathematical knowledge about the understanding, design,
development, invention, innovation, and use of materials, machines, structures, systems,
and processes for specific purposes".

In short, Engineering holds the lever for change and development.

The world is today categorized on the basis of development status and economic
indicators into first-world (developed/industrialized), second-world and third-world
countries whereas the defining basis of development is in terms of Engineering -
Communication, Transportation, Mechanization, amongst others. This is further stressed
with the concept of the World Engineering Index.

The underlying premise of the World Engineering Index is that engineering is a critical
component of promoting good development, which is defined as economic and social
success that is accessible to the entire population.

The World Engineering Index (WEI) rates nations based on four characteristics of
engineering capability: engineering expertise, engineering potential, engineering status,
and engineering sustainability. See Figure 5 below

● Engineering Expertise assesses the quality of a country's engineering and research

output.
● The number of skilled engineers and a gauge of the engineering possibilities
accessible to a population is both included in Engineering Potential.
● Engineering Status indicates a country's perception of engineering's relevance,
particularly in terms of government policy, in comparison to other academic fields.
● Engineering Sustainability is determined by how forward-thinking, adaptable, and
ecologically responsible a country's engineering industry is.
● All of these four characteristics must thrive in an enabling environment. Thus, the
Enabling Environment metric measures the infrastructure and business enablers
required to support engineering.
 Fig. 5- World Engineering Index for selected countries

A report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) highlighted that the
Engineering Index is a composite index that combines components from numerous
engineering-related disciplines to provide a single, directly comparable index value for each
country. This single index number then allows us to rank nations based on their engineering
strength.

The reports also looked at the relationship between the Engineering Index and two key
indicators of economic development: GDP per capita and investment per capita.
The analysis revealed that there exists a strong, positive relationship between engineering
strength and both of these indicators of economic development.

Life expectancy, trade openness, human capital investment, and inventory variations
become more positive as nations become more robust in engineering.

In the same vein, nations that are currently underperforming economically are likely to
witness economic development potential when they intensify their engineering capacities
and sustainably.

Fig. 6- Plot of Engineering Index and GDP per Capita (Source: The World bank, Cebr Analysis)

In the graph, Japan, Switzerland, and Sweden have some of the highest Engineering Index
ratings and are among the world's wealthiest countries. Luxembourg is one notable
anomaly; despite having the greatest GDP per capita of more than $80,000, the country
ranks 18th in the Engineering Index rankings.
The Concepts of Engineering Leadership

Engineering leadership development programs have become increasingly popular as there

is a recognized demand for engineers who are more well-rounded and possess leadership
attributes because as societies rapidly advance, and populations grow to unprecedented
levels, engineers are faced with solving increasingly complex problems of a magnitude not
previously seen. Solving these problems will require more than just the technical and
analytical abilities that have traditionally been taught in engineering undergraduate
programs. Rather, engineers of the future will be required to possess key non-technical
attributes which enable them to also understand and navigate social, political, economic,
cultural, environmental, and ethical aspects of the technical projects on which they are
working (Paul et al, 2018).

Following their extensive research work, they arrived at the following proposed definition:
“Engineering leadership is an approach that influences others to effectively collaborate and
solve problems. Engineering leadership requires technical expertise, authenticity, personal
effectiveness, and the ability to synthesize diverse expertise and skill sets. Through
engineering leadership, individuals and groups implement transformative change and
innovation to positively influence technologies, organizations, communities, society, and
the world at large”.

Fig. 7- Summary of the themes and categories which emerged from the engineering leadership definitions

The instructiveness of this proposed definition in that it “provides a foundation for a clear
understanding of the what, the how, the who and the why of engineering leadership”, gives
the premise for this paper and deriving from that foundation, Engineering Leadership is
now conceptualized as graduation from leading Engineering (as in Engineering
Management) into Leading with Engineering. This is clear in the third sentence of the
proposed definition.
Engineering Leadership for Sustainable Development (ELfSD):
The Conceptual Framework
Now with the clarity of the critical role of Engineering in development and with the
exigencies of Sustainable Development for which success critically lies with leadership,
Engineering Leadership for Sustainable Development becomes apt.

Engineering stakeholders must realize this huge responsibility for the planet and embrace
the need to develop workable frameworks that solidify the position of ELfSD in the three
focal categories of Engineering Study, Engineering Practice and Engineering Governance.

In reliance on the definition for Engineering Leadership as espoused in the preceding

section, ELfSD frameworks must be developed in these identified categories as an
integration of the what, the how, the who and the why so as to build up the required sense
of responsibility and capability of execution. The frameworks must be effective in making
the shift from leading Engineering (as in Engineering Management) into Leading with
Engineering with respect to Sustainable Development.

While ‘the what’ and ‘the why’ are clearly embedded in the earlier discussions on the
required pivot of leadership and the exigencies of sustainable development, ‘the who’ also
unambiguously rests on Engineering stakeholders, namely the academics, the
practitioners and the administrators but ‘the’ how needs to be accentuated across the
varying themes in the Sustainable Development ecosystem, with this being at the heart of
the frameworks to be developed. And for context, this will briefly touch on the following
three themes amongst so many:

● Energy;
● Materials;
● Infrastructure.

Energy remains the biggest contributor to human ecological footprint and the responsibility
in ELfSD for Energy is that of energy efficiency as well as that of energy transition to
renewables. This must be championed by the engineers for projects within the framework
of ELfSD.

It is also validated that sustainable development is a question of materials and within the
framework of ELfSD, Engineers must champion the transition to carbon-negative, eco-
friendly and green materials. Green materials offer a unique characteristic and properties
including being abundant in nature, less toxic, economically affordable and versatility in
terms of physical and chemical properties (Purwasasmita, 2016).

This flows into the responsibility in ELfSD for infrastructure. Engineers have a duty to drive
investment in nature-based infrastructure to derive value relative to traditional grey
infrastructure.
As an attempt to initiate the important work required in building this conceptual framework
into a “force for good”, below are highlights of the components of the framework in each
of the three focal categories:

❖ Engineering Study: According to Henry Petroski, American engineer and author

specializing in failure analysis, “as engineers, we were going to be in a position to
change the world - not just study it”. This is the ultimate goal of the ELfSD framework
for the academics in raising Engineering graduates who must have studied through the
prism of ELfSD with curricula to build Leadership in Engineering Practitioners.

A great case study is that of Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA where there is, in the
College of Engineering, a Department of Engineering Leadership and Society that
seeks to educate a new generation of engineers who are prepared to address the
complex challenges of the 21st century with analytical minds and community-focused
hearts. In the context of ELfSD, that is raising future engineers with sustainable-
development focused hearts.

❖ Engineering Practice: As enunciated on the three themes of energy, material and

infrastructure, the ELfSD focus in practice is for engineers to take the responsibility of
abiding by the engineering practices that yield sustainable growth.

And this is also an issue at the front-end design of sustainability into development
projects and operations as being sacrosanct for the engineers.

❖ Engineering Governance: This is on one hand in respect of deriving Engineering

legislations and policies that enables ELfSD in both study, practice and monitoring of
Engineering and on the other hand in respect of having Engineering practitioners in the
leadership of development endeavours at all levels of governance across the countries
of the world.

Indeed, Engineering with its intrinsic orientation along with its critical role in
development is best suited ahead of conflicting economic and political interests in
various jurisdictions to lead on sustainable development, the engineers must see the
light in this to engender detailed research works to concretize the ELfSD conceptual
framework.
Recommendation

In the light of the foregoing, the following are recommended:

1. Engineering academics must deepen the study of Engineering with sustainable-

development responsive curricula that guarantees for engineering students that, “as
engineers, we were going to be in a position to change the world - not just study it”.
In the light of the exigencies of sustainable development, Engineering Leadership
must now be the soul of Engineering study;

2. Researchers must expand the frontiers of Engineering Leadership for Sustainable

Development (ELfSD) for the urgent need of traction in recouping the current dire
state of ecological and/or biocapacity debt;

3. Professional bodies of Engineering must articulate and advocate for ELfSD in

capacity building for it in practice as well as in deriving mechanisms for
implementation and monitoring while also advancing its precepts for policy and
legislation;

4. Stakeholders in Sustainable Development must recalibrate advocacy and

implementation approaches around Engineering in the light of the capacity of ELfSD
to accelerate the realization of the goals of Sustainable Development.

Conclusion

The exigencies of Sustainable Development in the light of the current state of biocapacity
debt of the earth calls for leadership in the attainment of the right balance of securing
people’s well-being without eroding humanity’s long-term resilience.

Engineering by its intrinsic nature of problem-solving and its natural critical role in human
development is poised to assume the leadership for sustainable development in its
practice.

To this end, the conceptual framework of Engineering Leadership for Sustainable

Development (ELfSD) must be developed and built into the study, practice and governance
of Engineering.
Sources

Youmatter: https://youmatter.world/en/definition/definitions-sustainable-
development-sustainability/

The Sustainable Development Agenda by United Nations

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

Condeianu, O., Nicolae, I., & Iorgovan, D. (2021). The implication of the Sustainable
Development Exigencies on the Renewable Energies Sector Development in
Romania: A Review. International Journal of Sustainable Economies Management
(IJSEM), 10(4), 54-63. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSEM.2021100104

Engineering and economic growth: a global view

A report by Cebr for the Royal Academy of Engineering September 2016.
https://raeng.org.uk/media/mp2odj00/final-cebr-report-12-09.pdf

World Engineering Index

https://worldengineeringing.wixsite.com/home

Global Footprint Network https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-

footprint/