Structural Forum

The High Cost of Poor Leadership By Rebecca Zucker

As an executive coach, I am often brought into organizations to help leaders develop critical leadership and management skills – notably “soft skills” that may have been lacking in the past but were not necessarily a derailer. Often, these leaders have strong technical expertise (i.e., engineering, fi nance, sales, law, etc.) and are promoted based on their technical capability and performance, not their leadership ability or potential. A recent study showed that the costs of such ineffi cient promotion decisions are often high (https://bit.ly/3iAKnOZ). Most leaders, when promoted, are elevated to a position that requires a diff erent skill set than what has made them successful in the past. ese increasingly important required skillsets are typically more peoplefocused – motivating, inspiring, developing, and empowering others, creating conditions for others to succeed, and managing performance. Unfortunately, either unsure of what the job really requires or fearful that they will not be good at new job responsibilities and requisite skills, these leaders often end up doubling down on what they know and do best – which is getting the work done. My colleagues and I refer to this pattern as a “doom loop” that only gets them into trouble with their team members and superiors. Task-focus is what these leaders know best and made them successful in the past and made them feel productive. It is tangible progress they can show to themselves and others. However, as explained in my Harvard Business Review article, Why Highly Effi cient Leaders Fail, many overly task-focused leaders feel that having greater people-focus, like taking time to connect with team members and inspiring and developing others, slows them down. On the contrary, research shows that more people-focused leadership styles, such as a coaching leadership style, results in tangible improvements to bottom-line fi nancial results (https://bit.ly/3s5M0ra). So “soft” skills have a “hard” or tangible benefi t to all involved. Likewise, overly task-focused leadership styles, like the pace-setting leadership style, have been shown to negatively impact organizational climate and bottom-line results. If you are concerned that showing a greater focus on people slows you down, think of the elite, high-performing U.S. Navy Seals unit, whose maxim is “Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.” Taking the time to focus on your people – coaching and giving feedback, and ensuring team members are aligned and have the resources and support they need – gets you further faster. Since a leader’s job is to get results through people by creating the conditions for their team to be successful, and their people ultimately perform the tasks, it pays to focus equally on the people side of the equation, not only the task at hand. Below are some ways that you can do this.

Listen for emotions and show empa-

thy: Most task-driven leaders listen for facts and information. While useful, this ignores other critical information about team members and the team as a whole. Are they tired, bored, frustrated, angry, ambivalent, annoyed, defeated – or excited and optimistic? Much of this is conveyed by their voice tone, word choice, what is being said, and what is not being said. Practice refl ecting the emotion you believe you are hearing from them. If you are incorrect, it allows them to correct you and share what they are feeling. For example, suppose they sound angry but deny feeling angry. In that case, you can also challenge them appropriately and probe further about what is going on for them to clarify and surface their underlying feelings. Understanding the emotions that others are experiencing ultimately allows you to both express empathy and build deeper connections with your team members.

Take an interest in others’ career devel-

opment: Know your team members’ goals and aspirations. is knowledge should inform the work you delegate to them and can result in greater motivation, engagement, and retention. Incorporate these goals into your regular one-on-ones to go beyond discussing work status. Taking an interest in their career development also involves giving ongoing, real-time coaching and feedback, especially when it includes delivering a tough message. ese situations create genuine learning opportunities

Taking the time to focus on your people…gets you further faster.

if communicated openly and focused on mutual goals and the individual’s behaviors (versus the person). You are doing no one a favor – the individual, the team, or yourself – by shying away from diffi cult conversations. You can frame your motivation in giving them the feedback as wanting them to grow and be successful, which shows the feedback is coming from a caring place and that you want them to succeed.

Notice your own impatience and manage

it: Self-observation and self-management are two related, critical skills for leaders to develop, especially those trying to balance people-focus with task-focus. First, notice what triggers your impatience. en, ask yourself some good refl ective questions, like “What is my concern about slowing down?” “Where am I driving too hard or fast unnecessarily?” Pausing to notice and refl ect also allows you the opportunity to try a diff erent approach. For example, you might try to teach a team member struggling with a new skill or a new way of doing something, explain how their task fi ts into the larger vision for the project, or even acknowledge their contribution. Balancing task- and people-focus is not a “one and done” item to check off your list. Instead, it is an ongoing eff ort that requires intention, regular practice, and continuous rebalancing. e above-mentioned strategies can help you achieve and maintain this balance.■

Rebecca Zucker is an Executive Coach and Partner at Next Step Partners. She is a regular contributor to Harvard Business Review and Forbes. Follow her at @rszucker.

Building Design Collaborator or Implementing Technician?

By Julie Mark Cohen, Ph.D., P.E., SECB

On April 29, 2021, I attended a virtual meeting of SEAoNY’s President’s Breakfast Roundtable: Engineering PostPandemic. In my assigned break-out room, I listened to the attendees talk about the push for “sustainability” and, to achieve this goal, “optimization” of structural framing. This article discusses the evolution of engineering over the past decades and notes the consequences of misunderstanding “optimization.” It reiterates my observation that a lack of 3-D structural framing systems resulted in damage to many structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These structures were pulled apart in the same manner as they were designed – that is, as a collection of two-dimensional vertical and horizontal planes of framing. The 1960s brought us: • The first civil engineering papers were published on the optimization of the physical infrastructure for electric power transmission. • The widespread introduction of master’s degree programs in structural engineering. • The continuation of the post-war construction boom. • External pressures on structural engineers from tight budgets and short schedules were unprecedented. • Changes in structural safety criteria in codes from allowable stress design to ultimate strength design for concrete and load and resistance factor design for steel. • The disproportionate progressive collapse of London’s 22-story Ronan Point residential building in May 1968. • Education of university structural engineering students was conducted under the umbrella of ASCE (1950-1982), which required general education courses in place of practice-relevant courses in related engineering fields. • In most cases, structural engineers collaborated with architects during schematic design and, often, conceptual design. During the 1970s: • Bay sizes of office buildings of all heights were increased, up to 30 feet by 40 feet, to provide building owners with the flexibility of larger open spaces for tenants. • Often, the floor framing spanned large distances from the center core to the exterior walls.

• Architecturally, individual offices were replaced with cubicles to take advantage of open floor plans. The expectation was that each tenant could change the layout of their cubicles as needed. In reality, cubicle partitions were rarely moved, showing that the arguments about needing large open spaces did not necessarily hold true at the expense of more columns and fullheight walls, which could have been constructed without interfering with office activities and communications. By the 1980s, the following occurred: • Textbooks continued to emphasize the design and analysis of 2-D planes of structural framing, with little emphasis on 3-D framing. As such, the notion of 3-D structural framing design and optimization never penetrated structural engineering education, research, or practice. • Master’s degree programs geared for practitioners were commonplace. • Recessions came and went as in previous decades, but external financial pressures that shaped the design decision-making of structural engineers were omnipresent. • Structural failures were increasing and recurring, more and more without recognizing and using well-established knowledge published in various documents in structural engineering and related engineering fields. For example, knowledge on fatigue and fracture dates back to at least the late 1800s, but little, if anything, appears in structural steel design textbooks. Also, the following failures due to fatigue and fracture at geometric discontinuities in steel structures have rarely, if ever, been mentioned in structural steel design textbooks: 1943 Liberty Ships, 1954 Comet De Havilland airplanes, 1967 nonredundant Silver Bridge, 1979 Kemper Arena, 1980 Alexander

L. Kielland semi-submersible offshore drilling platform, etc. • The standards for structural engineering education (in the same format as prior decades) were transferred in 1983 to the oversight of ABET (an engineering accreditation entity) with

Structural engineers have been failing to understand the difference between structural optimization and minimization.

ASCE’s guidance. However, no successful attempts were made to establish structural engineering as a separate undergraduate degree program.

Undergraduate students interested in structural engineering were therefore unable to take many relevant courses but instead were required to take many non-engineering courses that subtracted from the engineering education. • The collaboration of structural engineers with architects was waning due to architects’ perceptions (often relayed to them in undergraduate university education) questioning the need for participation early on by structural engineers compounded with budgetary constraints of owners. The 1994 Northridge earthquake brought dozens of examples of structural engineers having minimized locations of lateral load resistance. However, many of them referred to this design decision as having “optimized” the sizes. This is not correct. Optimization requires a 3-D structural framing system. Optimization includes simultaneous assessment of (1) structural efficiency, which includes, in its simplest form, uniformity and regularity of horizontal and vertical framing (i.e., stress and deformation) with minimal use of abrupt stress-flow physically-adjacent lateral load-resisting and gravity-supporting framing, (2) 3-D system reliability which includes but is not limited to structural redundancy and alternate load paths, and (3) cost of materials and labor. Instead of 3-D structural framing systems, the result was a lesser number of momentresisting frames with very large columns and beams and the cost savings of fewer un-tested welded beam-to-column connections. Again,

this is minimization, not optimization. “Size eff ects” and risk-laden extrapolation to larger sizes, as well as evaluation of test results, are essential parts of the overall failure story, as noted in the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) FEMA 355E, Th e State of Art Report on Past Performance of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings in Earthquakes. at is, structural engineers have been failing to understand the diff erence between structural optimization and minimization. Lateral load-resisting framing members became relatively large while gravity loadcarrying framing was smaller, resulting in an ineffi cient distribution of structural resistance and abrupt changes in resistance (often not tested). Minimization was shown to aff ect structural performance adversely. By the early 2000s, structural engineers rarely, if ever, participated in the conceptual design and even the schematic design of buildings. In 2018, Angie Sommer, S.E., summed this up as follows: “We [structural engineers] come on usually after a building is somewhat formed and we are working with the architect and the owner to fi gure out how we can fi t [structural framing] into the allotted spaces.” is lack of early-on participation in the design process has also been observed in university education. “Design” courses either do not include architecture students or, if they do, they mimic practice with little, if any, early-on collaboration between structural engineering and architecture students. At the SEAoNY meeting, the New York City structural engineers in attendance presented an argument that optimizing structural framing by providing larger open spaces for building owners, an architectural requirement, promotes sustainability by increasing longevity. ey claimed that this would provide alternatives for the buildings’ future use. If this was optimizing, why did it take until 2021 to do this? Why has no one questioned the viability of the “open space” concept? is sustainability, however, minimizes the locations of lateral load resistance and also minimizes locations of gravity load-carrying framing. As a result, the possibilities are lessened for structural redundancy and alternate load paths unless something costly is introduced, such as using multiple, deep transfer trusses or deep beams, thus increasing the heights of the buildings. In addition, risk is introduced by using larger connections and other sub-assemblages that likely have not been tested. (Analyses without experimental data do not validate anticipated performance.) Clearly, over time, the role of most structural engineers has shifted from building design collaborators to becoming implementing technicians. However, structural failures have increased in the same time period, at least 40 percent of which have been caused by recurring shortcomings in engineering design decision-making (i.e., cognitive errors). Are these failures not as important as “sustainability”? e trajectory is undeniable. Is it acceptable?■

References are included in the online PDF version of the article at STRUCTUREmag.org.

Julie Mark Cohen is a Consulting Structural and Forensic Engineer and a Science and Technology Studies Scholar specializing in the History of Engineering Design. Her research is entitled “Cognitive Errors in Recurring Failures of Engineered Artifacts.” Her eventual book is entitled “Unintentional Engineering Failures by Design.” (jmcohen@jmcohenpe.com)

Maximize Value and Performance with SHRINKAGE-COMPENSATING CONCRETE & GROUT SOLUTIONS

For over 60 years, Type K shrinkage-compensating cement has been used in all types of concrete and grout applications to achieve long-term dimensional stability and unmatched performance. Extended joint slabs are only the beginning…  From extended joint floor slabs to containment tanks  From bridge decks and pavement to post-tensioned designs and mat slab foundations

Komponent ® delivers in design, construction, and in-service with quality, efficiency, and cost savings that makes a difference!

ADVANTAGES

 Improves structural performance  Maximizes design versatility  Maximizes joint spacing  Speeds time to completion  Reduces mobilization & formwork  Reduces project costs  Up to 60% greater abrasion resistance  Increases dimensional stability and durability  Enhances compressive and flexural strengths  Minimizes creep and moment  Increases density and lowers permeability  Prevents curling and drying shrinkage cracking

by CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.

Contact us for more information and project support at 800.929.3030. CTScement.com

NCSEA News NCSEA

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations NCSEA's Grant Program Can Support Your SEA's Next Initiative

e NCSEA Grant Program, supported by the NCSEA Foundation, awards SEAs funding for projects that grow and promote their SEA and the structural engineering profession in accordance with the NCSEA Mission Statement. e goal of the Foundation and the Grant Program is to advance the profession through technical development, education, and outreach.

SEAs have been previously awarded grants to:

• Create a cohesive library of STEM videos and funding to enhance the association's remote site visits. • Enhance their Mola Model Initiative and Student Outreach. • Support the EERI San Diego-Tijuana Regional Earthquake Scenario Study and a

Special Wind Region Study. • Launch a diversity and inclusion initiative. • Establish an Engineers Alliance for the Arts and Student Impact Project at a local high school. • Strengthen their Young Member Group's student outreach programs. Applications are due November 9, 2021. Application requests must be reviewed and approved by the Member Organization before being submitted to NCSEA for consideration.

In Need of High-Quality, Expert-Led, A ordable Education?

NCSEA's Webinar Subscription Plan is an cost-eff ective option for members and nonmembers seeking high-quality continuing education. By subscribing to NCSEA webinars, you are subscribing to webinars developed by leading experts at an incredible value (as low as $30/ hour). With at least 30 live webinars per year and a recorded library of over 170 webinars, NCSEA's Webinar Subscription is designed for the individual engineer as well as the fi rm; no matter the size, this subscription plan can work for you! Webinars are available whenever, wherever you need them. Multiple users at the same offi ce, together or remote, can take advantage! Subscribe now by visiting www.ncsea.com and don't miss another webinar in 2021!

Are You Prepared for the Next NCEES PE Structural Exam?

e next NCEES PE Structural Exam is October 21 and 22; start preparing with NCSEA’s on-demand course. e SE Refresher & Exam Review Course is the most economical PE Structural Exam Preparation Course available with 30 hours of instruction, preparation tips and problem-solving skills to pass the exam. All lectures are up-to-date on the most current codes with handouts and quizzes available. is NCEES PE Structural Exam Preparation Course allows you to study at your pace but with instant access to the material and instructors through the exclusive virtual classroom. Several registration options are available; visit www.ncsea.com to learn more.

ESCN Virtual Career Fair

NCSEA is a partner in the Engineering & Science Career Network (ESCN), an alliance of associations built exclusively for professionals working within engineering and science industries. Annually, the ESCN hosts a Virtual Career fair that is targeted specifi cally to those looking for a career in the engineering fi eld. Register to learn about the companies recruiting through informational booths, live chat interactions, and other features. e Career Fair will take place September 23, 2021. For more information visit: https://bit.ly/3kjmmfh. Are you an employer looking to engage with and meet a high number of skilled engineering candidates? is virtual career fair is the solution for you! Visit the link above to learn more.

follow @NCSEA on social media for the latest news & events!

NCSEA is Excited to See You Next Month in New York

In today’s world, you need dynamic solutions that can adapt to their environment. Th e 2021 Structural Engineering Summit is a solution designed for you. Th is year's event is an immersive in-person and virtual event perfect for reconnecting with other structural engineering professionals. Join us in-person in New York City at the Hilton Midtown on October 12-15, or virtually from September 27 to October 21. Attendees of both events will have access to engaging educational sessions led by experts in the fi eld, riveting networking opportunities, and access to our industry leading Trade Show. We understand that things are changing and evolving on a daily basis. To ease any worries, not only is Summit registration worry-free guaranteed, but if attendees purchase a Virtual registration now, they will have the opportunity to upgrade to All Access later (locking in the current rate). Additionally, we are in weekly contact with our host hotel to stay on top of any procedures that will be in place in New York City, as well as the hotel. At NCSEA, we will be abiding by the CDC recommendations/rules, as well as the city/state of New York. As the situation evolves, so will our approach to keeping attendees safe. Register before fees increase on September 18th to save $100 on your All Access registration. If joining us in New York, don't forget to reserve your stay at the Hilton Midtown. Learn more and secure your spot on www.ncsea.com.

Call for NCSEA Committee Volunteers

Are you interested in volunteering with NCSEA? Th e Council depends on its members to get involved to help advance our mission and further develop our partnership. Our volunteers help educate on codes and standards, develop publications, create courses, advocate for safe structures and post-disaster recovery, and so much more. If you are a new volunteer interested in serving on an NCSEA committee, please visit www.ncsea.com to complete the Committee Volunteer Application. Most committees admit new members on a rolling basis while others add members only once per year. More information about NCSEA committees can be found by visiting www.ncsea.com/committees.

NCSEA Webinars Register on www.ncsea.com

September 16, 2021 Timber Engineering for Structural Engineers

Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI Th is informative and entertaining presentation will describe some of the challenges of timber engineering and how to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes.

September 30, 2021 Allowable Stress Design vs. Strength Design: A Masonry Cage Fight

Richard Bennett, Ph.D., P.E. Th is presentation compares the diff erences, advantages, and disadvantages of each design between allowable stress design (ASD) and strength design (SD) methods, with the comparison being made through examples.

October 26, 2021 Design of Insulating Concrete Form Walls for High Winds

Lionel A. Lemay, P.E., S.E., and Scott Campbell, Ph.D., P.E. Th e presentation will discuss preliminary wall sizing and placement along with structural design considerations including design details and construction inspections. Design for tornadoes and hurricanes and seismic forces, including storm shelters, will also be discussed.

Courses award 1.5 hours of Diamond Review-approved continuing education after the completion a quiz.

SEI Update

Advancing the Profession Access Progressive Collapse and Structural Health Monitoring Collection

In response to the collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, the ASCE Library has assembled papers highlighting the importance of condition assessment of existing buildings. Available for free through September 15 at https://ascelibrary.org/SHMcollection.

Share knowledge to help create a safer built environment. Share or browse structural safety info or contribute a safety issue. Sign up for email and newsletter updates.

www.cross-safety.org/us

Membership 2021-2022 SEI Board of Governors

The SEI Board is composed of two representatives from each of the five SEI Divisions (Business & Professional, Codes & Standards, Global, Local, and Technical Activities), one young professional appointee recently added through SEI Bylaws amendment, one appointee from ASCE, the SEI President, SEI Past President, and the SEI Director as a nonvoting member. The following includes recently elected SEI Board officers. Welcome to Governors starting terms October 1 – shown in italic:

Victor E. Van Santen, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, SEI President

Randall P. Bernhardt, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, SEI Treasurer

Laura E. Champion, P.E., F.ASCE, SEI Secretary

John Cleary, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE

Aimee Corn, P.E., M.ASCE

Joseph G. DiPompeo, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, SEI Past President

Jerome F. Hajjar, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE

Edwin Huston, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Takahiko Kimura, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Chad Schrand, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Donald Scott, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, SEI President-elect Stephanie Slocum, P.E., M.ASCE J. Greg Soules, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng, S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE Elaina Sutley, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE James Wacker, P.E., M.ASCE Thank you for your service and leadership! Finishing terms September 30:

Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., CP, F.SEI, Dist.M.ASCE, SEI Past-President Satyendra K. Ghosh, Ph.D., F.SEI, F.ASCE Robert E. Nickerson, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE

www.asce.org/mgam

Join us this year in celebrating 25 years of SEI – advancing and serving structural engineering!

Refer a New Member and Earn Rewards

ASCE encourages members, like you, to earn rewards for each newly earn rewards for each newly joining professional member you refer to ASCE membership. Invite your peers to become part of the largest civil engineering network. Start earning rewards and refer colleagues today! www.asce.org/mgam

SEI News Read the latest at www.asce.org/SEINews SEI Standards Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to view ASCE 7 development cycle

Learning / Networking Join Us at SEI Events

www.asce.org/SEI

• SEI Standards Series – Interact with ASCE/SEI Standard developers on state-of-the-market updates.

Participants will learn about technical revisions, review a design example, and are invited to participate in Live Q&A. Each session is LIVE and only available 1:00 – 2:30 pm US ET.

Thursday, September 16 – ASCE/SEI 59 Blast Protection of Buildings

Join the standard committee chair Donald Dusenberry, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE. ASCE/SEI 59 Blast Protection of Buildings provides minimum requirements for planning, design, construction, and assessment of new and existing buildings subject to the effects of accidental or malicious explosions. The Standard includes principles for establishing appropriate threat parameters, levels of protection, loadings, analysis methodologies, materials, detailing, and test procedures. It provides a comprehensive presentation of current practice in the analysis and design of structures for blast resistance. Commentaries on the requirements are also included. The Standard supplements existing building codes, standards, and laws but is not intended to replace them.

Session sponsor: Redguard

Individual session: Member $49, Nonmember $99. Student member: Free registration.

REGISTER by September 14 at https://cutt.ly/9hQDTEo. • #SEILive Conversations with Leaders

ICYMI – View Code Development on SEI YouTube

Next on Licensure – Wednesday, October 13, 12:30 pm ET • ETS (Electrical Transmission Structures): Powering Past the Pandemic – Wednesday, November 3, 1:00 pm ET

Join moderator Ken Sharpless, P.E. F.SEI, F.ASCE, for a big-picture panel discussion on the state of the electrical transmission structures industry as it emerges from pandemic mode. How well did essential businesses adjust to the challenges of COVID, and where does this experience take the industry going forward? Listen to perspectives focusing on essential employees from utilities, contractors, manufacturing, supply chain, engineering, and design. Panelists: Sarah Beckman, ULTEIG; Archie Pugh, American Electric Power;

Alex Richards, Aquawolf, LLC; Bill Sales, Sabre Industries, Inc.

Register for the live program (1.5 PDHs) or the post-event recording (no PDHs). • Save the Date

Structures Congress – April 20-23, 2022 in Atlanta

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference – October 2-6, 2022, in Orlando

Students and Young Professionals: Apply for SEI Futures Fund Scholarships to participate.

REGISTER TODAY!

V I R T U A L • O C T 6 - 8

ASCE’ s 2021 Convention is going virtual Oct. 6-8

Registration includes access to the virtual OPAL Awards ceremony and the ASCE Tech Talks series.

E n g i n e e r i n g > I n n o v a t i n g > L e a d i n g

asceconvention.org #ASCE21

ASCE Convention Registration Includes ASCE Tech Talks

Tuesdays, October 12 – November 16.

Check out SEI Sessions on October 19: ASCE 7-22 Wind & Tornado Load Provisions, Designing with Data