2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE)’s Engineer of 2020 call for educational reform emphasized the need for engineering schools to raise suitable leaders to respond to the rapid evolution of technology. Five years after the reforms were supposed to be implemented in 2020, we argue that leadership education is still not structurally scaffolded into engineering undergraduate curricula.
While the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Student Outcomes and many universities’ program educational outcomes highlight the development of the next generation of leaders, we do not have clear evidence that these leaders are being trained using validated leadership frameworks or that such training is equitably distributed across students. Validation of such frameworks implies the existence of an internationally or nationally recognized definition of a leader in engineering. In response to the lack of an official source of the definition of leadership in engineering, we analyzed articles to identify a consensus definition of engineering leadership. Lacking a shared conceptual framework, one existing paper identifies commonly cited leadership attributes in literature and retrospectively maps them onto existing theories. This post hoc approach focuses heavily on motifs of leadership instead of intentional formation in engineering education. As a result, it underemphasizes pedagogically scaffolded learning experiences and overlooks the formative dimensions of leadership education, particularly the cultivation of character and ethical development. Through our literature review, we mapped definitions and attributes commonly found in engineering leadership development programs.
Additionally, we performed a scoping review following the PRISMA-Sc framework, related to the current methods of teaching leadership and leadership ethics in engineering undergraduate curricula. We evaluated 125+ articles from the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) for this review. In the assessment of the methods, we found that most engineering leadership education is being offered optionally, or with significant time gaps between students receiving such education. Generally, a large portion of leadership training in engineering undergraduate studies occurs during senior capstone design projects, occasionally supported by first-year design introductions. Aspiring engineers were found to have 2–3-year gaps between receiving said leadership education. This also suggests that many institutions do not view character development as a necessary basis for effective teaching strategies, making the leadership framework more fragmented and increasingly subjective when applied to engineering practice.
The scattered views on leadership have contributed to a significant educational gap, as evidenced by the rise of leadership development opportunities occurring outside of undergraduate engineering curricula. These include standalone courses, scholarship programs, and industry-led initiatives. While these external programs attempt to fill the gaps left by formal education, they raise more questions: Are they supposed to fulfill the leadership development goals that ABET and university programs promise? And if industry-led initiatives begin to define what engineering leadership looks like, does this create a conflict of interest—where leadership is shaped more by corporate priorities?
We evaluated over 15 such programs based on their methodology, underlying leadership framework, accessibility, and intended target population. In our analysis, we identified additional concerns related to equity in leadership education. Some programs required payment, raising issues of economic accessibility, while others were specifically designed for underrepresented groups. This raises another question: Should leadership education adopt a variety of frameworks, or should it aim for a universal model that applies to engineers of all backgrounds?
We propose that leadership and leadership ethics should be taught within a broader character development framework—one that addresses the key traits essential to responsible innovation and effective engineering practice. Leadership and followership should be taught in tandem, viewed as part of the same spectrum rather than mutually exclusive abilities. This approach would better prepare engineers to contribute to adaptable, high-functioning teams immediately after graduation. To reduce reliance on external programs, the gaps between academic and industry expectations must be clearly identified and addressed within the undergraduate curriculum. Finally, to ensure equitable access to leadership education, we suggest developing a foundational definition of an engineering leader that is commonly applicable.