ENGI5003 · Professional Engineering Management
Leadership, Conflict, Ethics & Communication
This chapter covers the people side of engineering management: how to lead teams, handle conflict, act ethically, and communicate with stakeholders. You will learn to name the right model for a scenario — the leadership lens (trait, behavioural, contingency), the conflict type and Thomas–Kilmann mode, the four tenets of the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics, and Mendelow's power/interest grid. These are reliable Part-A / Part-B recognition marks on the closed-book final, so precise naming is what earns the points.
What this chapter covers
- 01Leadership theory: trait → behavioural → contingency (Fiedler)
- 02Behavioural styles: autocratic / democratic / laissez-faire; Ohio vs Michigan; Blake–Mouton grid
- 03Tuckman team stages: forming → storming → norming → performing → adjourning
- 04Three conflict types (task / process / relationship) + constructive vs destructive
- 05Thomas–Kilmann modes and the 5-step conflict resolution
- 06Engineers Australia Code of Ethics — the 4 tenets
- 07Research misconduct vs honest error; ACRCR 8 principles; case studies
- 08Stakeholder communication: Mendelow grid, 15/70/15 presentations, ABCD feedback
Name the model — leadership, conflict & ethics decoder
- +1(a) The disagreement is about what should be done technically (which beam to specify), and both engineers share the same goal — so it is a task conflict, which is usually constructive.
- +1(a) Because the decision is important and a win–win is possible, the Thomas–Kilmann response is collaborating (high assertiveness + high cooperativeness), not splitting the difference (compromising).
- +1(b) A team that is mid-project with high internal friction is in the storming stage of Tuckman's model; the leader steers it toward norming by clarifying roles and a common goal.
- +1(c) Proceeding despite a documented safety warning under schedule pressure breaches the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics — specifically Tenet 1, Demonstrate Integrity (and failing to put public safety first).
- +1(c) Name the principle that the engineer's duty to public safety overrides schedule and cost — the recurring lesson echoed by the Challenger case.
Key terms
- Fiedler Contingency Model
- A leadership theory holding that a leader's style is roughly fixed, so effectiveness comes from matching the leader to a favourable situation, judged on leader–member relations, task structure, and leader position power.
- Tuckman's stages of team development
- The five-phase sequence a team passes through — forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning — with conflict peaking at storming and productivity peaking at performing.
- Thomas–Kilmann conflict modes
- Five conflict-handling styles mapped on assertiveness × cooperativeness: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating.
- Constructive vs destructive conflict
- Constructive conflict (often task-based) sharpens the solution through critical analysis; destructive conflict (often relationship-based) lowers morale and delays the project.
- Engineers Australia Code of Ethics
- The professional conduct standard for Australian engineers, built on four tenets: demonstrate integrity, practise competently, exercise leadership, and promote sustainability.
- Mendelow's power/interest grid
- A stakeholder map plotting each party by power (vertical) against interest (horizontal), giving four engagement strategies: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, and monitor.
Leadership, Conflict, Ethics & Communication FAQ
What are the four tenets of the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics?
1) Demonstrate Integrity, 2) Practise Competently, 3) Exercise Leadership, and 4) Promote Sustainability. Memorise all four by name — exam answers should cite the specific tenet a scenario breaches.
What is the difference between collaborating and compromising in Thomas–Kilmann?
Collaborating is high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness — it invents a win–win that fully meets both parties' concerns (best for important task conflict) but costs time. Compromising is the moderate middle ground where each side gives something up. Do not mark a “split the difference” answer as collaboration.
What counts as research/academic misconduct, and what does not?
Misconduct requires intent to deceive: fabrication (inventing data), falsification (altering results), plagiarism (including merely reordering someone's words), and non-disclosure of conflicts of interest. Honest differences of opinion, genuine disagreements, and unintentional errors that you report and correct are NOT misconduct.
How do you choose a stakeholder engagement strategy?
Plot the stakeholder on Mendelow's grid. High power + high interest = manage closely; high power + low interest = keep satisfied; low power + high interest = keep informed; low power + low interest = monitor with minimal effort.
What is the difference between the Ohio and Michigan leadership models?
Ohio State is the two-dimensional model (Initiating Structure & Consideration, best when High–High). Michigan is the one-dimensional model (a single Employee- vs Production-oriented scale, employee-oriented usually better). Remember: Ohio = twO dimensions.
Exam move
Treat this chapter as a recognition drill, not an essay. Parts A and B reward naming the exact model fast, so build a one-page decoder: trait/behavioural/contingency for leadership, the conflict type (task/process/relationship) plus the Thomas–Kilmann mode, the EA Code's 4 tenets against ACRCR's 8 principles, and Mendelow's four engagement strategies. Drill the easy mix-ups (Ohio = two dimensions, collaborating ≠ compromising, honest error ≠ misconduct) and rehearse the two ethics case studies (Challenger, OceanGate) as ready examples of "public safety overrides schedule and cost." In the exam, write the named term first, then one line of justification — that is where the marks are.
