Introduction–the problemMost engineering schools have been reluctantto get involved in developing soft/leadershipskills in undergraduates, in spite of the factthat it is not possible to neatly and clinicallyseparate technical skills from leadership skills.

Graduates leave university with anabundance of solid technical knowledge, butwwith low leadership indicators (as shown onpsychometric assessments conducted at thebeginning of their final year of study) tosupport this knowledge. It is not possible tofunction optimally as an engineer with onlythe technical knowledge, no matter how hard-wwon and vitally important it is.

fAs an example of these shortcomings, theDepartment of Mining Engineering at theUniversity of Pretoria has assessed emotionalintelligence levels and other behaviouralattributes in final-year students over the pastfew years. The results show markeddeficiencies in certain important intrapersonaland interpersonal constructs. These constructsor skills are vitally necessary in comple-menting technical knowledge in view of howmuch time an engineer spends in associationwith people and in forging effective workingrelationships. This association with peopletakes place from day one. The new graduate isimmediately put to the test on ‘people’ issues,having received meagre instruction or practicein applying basic leadership skills.

Graduates go through a type of identitytransition when they enter the workplace,despite having worked during their vacationsat various companies. Those experiences areephemeral – entering the workplace as apermanent employee is different. Thistransition from student to employee can anddoes cause all sorts of anxieties, justified orotherwise. According to the psychometricassessments for final-year students in theDepartment of Mining Engineering for the lastthree years, many students are not wellequipped to cope with the exigencies of thereal world. In particular they are confrontedwith people/soft issues, either in themselves orin others, that require leadership skills toresolve.

Literature surveyGriesel and Parker (2009) highlight thedifferent positions taken by employers and therole of higher education in meeting the skills’

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy(Part of the Sasol Chair in Safety Health and Environment initiative in theDepartment of Mining Engineering, University of Pretoria)

by C. Knobbs*, E. Gerryts*, T. Kagogo*, and M. Neser*

SynopsisContrary to the way it is often portrayed, the average organization orcompany is far from being a cold, calculating machine. It is actually ahighly emotive place where interaction with people is a fundamental partof its ability to perform satisfactorily.

The company, through its employers, expects employees, including newgraduates, to have the ability to cope adequately with this emotiveenvironment. The graduate is frequently unable to meet this expectationbecause he/she has not been developed to do so. Technical knowledge ishis only asset. This deficiency manifests itself in leadership shortcomings,both intrapersonal and interpersonal. Further analysis reveals a deficiencyin three elements of leadership – self-awareness, oral communication, andan ability to work cooperatively in teams.

To address these three elements of leadership, Sasol Coal, a subsidiaryof the big petrochemical company in South Africa, sponsored a leadershipprogramme at the University of Pretoria for their final-year bursarystudents in the faculty of Engineering. This programme, the SasolEngineering and Leadership Academy (SELA), consisted of a number ofinterventions designed to address the three areas of self-awareness, oralcommunication, and cooperative behaviour in teams. These interventionsvaried from an intrapersonal nature to interpersonal aspects. Psychometricassessments were followed by experiential modules dealing with the threeconstructs.

SELA was evaluated at the end of the year. The results showed apositive shift in the main constructs of self-awareness, communications,and cooperation. This was measured quantitatively and qualitatively.Conclusions were drawn and recommendations for improving theprogramme were proposed.

Keywordsleadership, self-awareness, communication, group work.

* University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.© The Southern African Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, 2014. ISSN 2225-6253. This paperwas first presented at, A Southern African SilverAnniversary, 2014 SOMP Annual Meeting, 26–30June 2014, The Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Gauteng.

979The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 DECEMBER 2014 ▲

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

fneeds of graduates. Employers cite gaps between ‘what theyget’ and ‘what they expect’ in graduates. Communications(written and oral), openness and flexibility, self-motivationand initiative, leadership ability, ability to relate to people,and teamwork are among the attributes showing the largestgaps. In an empirical study of young graduates conducted bythe first author, the absence of soft (leadership) skills orpoorly developed soft skills were frequently mentioned assomething they would have wanted to learn at university(Knobbs, 2012).

Both employers and young engineering graduatesarriving at the workplace for the first time have identified‘gaps’ or ‘deficiencies’ in the graduates’ knowledge andskills. Scott and Yates (2002) asked engineers to rate thoseattributes most important for success and to what extentthese attributes were taught or developed at university.Principally, the gap is in ‘people’ skills and is a consequenceof poorly developed leadership attributes, of both an intrap-ersonal and interpersonal nature.

Male et al. (2010) refer to a ‘skills gap’ when comparingwwhat employees want from engineering graduates with whatgraduates bring to the work place They identify in theirsurvey that the soft skills missing in undergraduateeducation are communications, self-management, attitude,problem solving, and teamwork. Nair et al. (2009) confirmthis and showed that communications and interpersonalskills are the two most significant deficiencies in graduates.

Communications, responsibility, and self-confidence arethe three main challenges that graduate engineers face whenentering the workplace according to Baytiyeh and Naja(2012). The importance of people management skills and oralcommunication skills for success as an engineering manageris demonstrated by Saunders-Smits and De Graaff (2012).Their research shows that ‘technical’ comes last on the list of12 attributes. For engineering specialists the reverse was thecase, although communication skills featured prominently.

In their sample of early-stage chemical engineeringgraduates Martin et al. (2005) identify, through aquestionnaire and interviews, several gaps, not the least ofwwhich are practical knowledge, interpersonal skills, andmanagement/leadership. A survey of skills required foreffective project management singled out six skills, four ofwwhich were soft skills – interpersonal communications, peoplemanagement, team management, and problem solving;leadership skills followed close behind (Tong, 2003).

Martin et al. (2005) investigated non-technicalcompetencies such as communications, teamwork, life-longlearning, and attitude among chemical engineering graduates.The graduates stated that they had acquired good generalcommunications skills from their undergraduate education.Interpersonal skills were highlighted and seen as the vitallink between communications and teamwork. On the matterof teamwork they were divided as to whether the universityhad prepared them well. The graduates in the survey declaredthat the university had not prepared them adequately forleadership roles. In another report from the aerospaceindustry, communications and the ability to function in teamswwere highlighted as part of what the broad engineeringeducation should include (McMasters, 2003).

Sageev and Romanowski (2001) concentrated ontechnical communications among graduates who had

attended a course on this subject as undergraduates. Theyrecommended that communications should be made anintegral part of the engineering degree. The graduates saidthat communication skills had helped to advance theircareers. Oral presentations, group discussions, andpersuasive language were all stressed as important elementsin their technical communications programme. Theprogramme was roundly endorsed by the workplace, whichgave its input into promoting, advancing, and improving thecourse.

Oral communications are recognized as a major attributefor practicing engineers, who spend much time in discussionand conversation (Darling and Dannels, 2003). This study ofpractising engineers reported on the types of communicationand the audiences that engineers have to deal with. Theenvironment was succinctly described as an ‘oral culture’. Aprogramme to teach communication, leadership, andteamwork was instituted at the University of Tennessee inresponse to calls from industry employers and engineeringeducators. Assessment of the efficacy is done by means of apeer evaluation survey, with plans to introduce a longitudinalstudy measuring behavioural changes (Seat et al., 2001).This is another example of where teaching skills (as opposedto inculcating knowledge) and improving self-awareness is aprecursor to developing or influencing leadership capabilities.

A major survey conducted by the National Academy ofEngineers (2005) refers to a number of attributes thatengineers should display to be truly successful. Theseattributes are accredited by the Engineering Council of SouthAfrica and are listed as follows:

1. Strong analytical skills2. Practical ingenuity3. Creativity4. Communication5. Business and management principles6. Leadership7. High ethical standards and a strong sense of profes-

sionalism8. Dynamism, agility, resilience, and flexibility9. Life-long learners.

MotivationThe workplace can be a harsh environment whenrequirements for assimilation and success, as seen byemployers, are not fully met by the knowledge and skills thatyoung graduates bring to the company straight fromuniversity. Apart from a dearth of practical engineeringexperience, students lack soft skills/leadership acumen andthe ability to deal with the people issues that arise in theworkplace. This can lead to unhappiness and frustrationaffecting their incorporation into the culture of the companyand their ability to make meaningful contributions and toadvance their careers. It is postulated that this lack ofleadership skills, principally self-awareness, communications,and cooperation (working in groups) is a gap in their toolboxand its significance is recognized by employers and graduatesalike.

These identified deficiencies or gaps hamper thegraduates’ ability to assimilate and to adapt to life in the ‘realworld’. Furthermore, they can cause anxiety and frustration,and even thwart their career advancement. The ability to

▲

980 DECEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

f ffadapt successfully affects retention and motivation, and canbe a serious problem in some sectors of the industry.Sometimes, traumatic entry into the workplace causes younggraduates to seek their fortune elsewhere. And if they arefortunate enough to be appointed or considered for anappointment as a supervisor early in their careers, they areoften ill-equipped to take the position. Early intervention todevelop leadership skills is needed.

In the opinion of the first author it seems reasonable, ifnot essential, to equip these young engineers with thenecessary fundamentals of leadership to make their entryinto the workplace less traumatic and equip them to performadequately. It is postulated that these fundamentals ofleadership, be they intrapersonal or interpersonal skills, canbe developed by concentrating on the three leadershipconstructs of self-awareness, oral communication skills, andgroup co-operation skills.

According to Yorke and Knight (2006) employability isinfluenced by four interrelated components, namely: skills(communications, management of time and self, problem-solving, and life-long learning); a field of knowledge; identityand self-worth; and meta-cognition (self-awareness andreflection).

ObjectivesSELA’s main objective is to instil enhanced leadership skillsinto a group of final-year engineering undergraduates. Self-awareness, oral communications, and working co-operativelyin groups were selected as the main ‘drivers’ of thisleadership development programme. Changes in these threeelements were measured qualitatively and quantitatively.

The model in Figure 1 illustrates the structure of theleadership problem and how SELA addressed this:

MethodologyData was collected at the beginning of the programme inFebruary by means of three psychometric instruments –SShadowmatch (habits and behaviour), EQi (emotionalintelligence), and HBDI (thinking styles). SELA consisted of32 students, mostly final-year undergraduates with SASOLbursaries. They came from a number of different departmentsin the Engineering (EBIT) faculty, with the largest groupfrom chemical and mining engineering. This multidisciplinarycomposition of the participants proved to be one of the realboons of the course.

To measure the possible change in self-awareness,communications, and working cooperatively within smallgroups, a mixed method approach was employed. TheSShadowmatch assessment measuring the behavioural habitsof the group was administered at the beginning of theprogramme and again after the programme to map possiblechanges in the behaviour of the students. A qualitative-quantitative questionnaire was used after the course to detectthe changes in perception from the students aboutthemselves. The other two instruments, EQi and HBDI, wereIInot repeated due to cost constraints.

InterventionThe philosophy adopted for the interventions in theleadership programme was driven by the Harvard model

f ff fderived from the US Army officers’ course of knowing-doing-being (see Figure 2). The knowing part emphasizes thecognitive domain or knowledge about leadership (leastaddressed in SELA). The doing part emphasizes behaviouralaspects and essential skills leaders need – it is about learningby experience. The being part concentrates on the identity,character, and values of leaders. It is essentially about whothey are (self-awareness).

The course was presented in eight contact modules withinthe full group and held on Saturdays (this was the onlyarrangement that could cater for the multidisciplinary

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

981The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 DECEMBER 2014 ▲

Figure 1—Bridging the gap

Figure 2—The Harvard Model (Snook et al., 2012)

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

fcomposition of the group). Appendix 1 shows the programmeof modules with the various interventions. Between modules,wwhich were approximately one month apart, case studieswwere examined. Smaller groups of four students were formed.These groups discussed the cases among themselves andthen met with the first two authors in a coaching session.Oral communications and group collaboration wereemphasized.

At these sessions, the group presented its findings andthrough discussion and debate students were prompted tofurther tease out hidden issues in the case studies that mayhave been overlooked. Not only were students exposed toreal-life situations of human behaviour, which wasinstructive in itself, they were interacting as a group andexperiencing all the issues associated with group performancelike conflict and communications. An hour was allocated forthe small group discussion and an hour for the coachingsessions.

Groups were changed after every two modules to giveeveryone an opportunity to interact with as many of theirfellow students as possible. This practice mimics the situationin real life, where an individual will probably be a member ofmore than one group and may find himself moved from oneteam to another frequently.

Module 1 concentrated on the completion of threeassessments, which were done in a computer laboratory oncampus. The assessments used were the Herrmann BrainDominance Instrument (HBDI) (Herrmann, 1996),IISShadowmatch™(2009), and the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1996). Theseassessments were selected to assess and develop the mainthree constructs of focus in the leadership programme,namely self-awareness, communications, and co-operation(teamwork). HBDI measures individual thinking styles andlends itself to illustrating all three constructs in a useful way.SShadowmatch measures behavioural habits and calculatesthe similarity or differences in habits of people in a certainenvironment. Shadowmatch also has a team assessmentfunctionality, which enriches teamwork in the smallergroups. Shadowmatch has the ability to generate individualperformance programmes, which some students embracedwwith the help of a mentor. EQi was used mainly for detectingemotional self-awareness and to enhance the appreciation ofemotional concepts, which students are not used to dealingwwith in an engineering curriculum.

Modules 2, 3, and 4 dwelt on the results of theseassessments. The results were discussed with the partic-ipants, who not only learned about themselves (self-awareness) but also about their fellow students with whomthey were interacting on a regular basis, and particularlywwhen sitting in the same small groups together. By the end ofmodule 4, students had an overview of the intrapersonalmatters that made up the foundation of the self-awarenesspart of leadership.

The second four modules concentrated on theinterpersonal aspects of leadership, starting with presentationskills, where two members of the Department of Speech andDrama were brought in as facilitators. Module 5 was spentmainly on communications and watching a case study wherea jury needs to decide on the outcome of a murder case. Thelast module was a simulation exercise covering the contro-

fversial ‘fracking’ process. The small groups representeddifferent stakeholders negotiating fracking in the SouthAfrican context.

ReflectionWriting reflections is an integral part of leadershipdevelopment, and commentary on the facets of self-awareness, oral communication, and cooperation in theprogramme was encouraged. The connection betweenleadership and personal reflection is intended ’to maximiseindividual potential by allowing students to evaluate thesignificance of their experiences from a leadershipperspective’ (Densten and Gray, 2001). Students wereencouraged to reflect on how they felt about the programmeafter each module and to critically explore their feelings andthoughts in a confidential written document of no more thanone page. The facilitators made comments and suggestionsbefore returning the reflection paper to each student.

Some students wrote reflection papers regularly,expressing discovery or anxieties aroused by the programme.Some students wrote sporadically, a few never wrote at all.The multidisciplinary composition of the participants provedto be one of the real virtues of the course according to partic-ipants.

ResultsSELA’s objectives of improving, understanding, anddeveloping skills in the main three tenets of leadership weremeasured qualitatively and quantitatively through aquestionnaire. The questionnaire was used to evaluate thestudents’ perceptions of the changes in self-awareness,communication skills, and their skill in working in smallgroups. Participants completed a comprehensivequestionnaire and the Shadowmatch assessment wasrepeated at the end of SELA.

Qualitative: unstructured questions in questionnaire

Students rated the enjoyment and efficacy of eachintervention. Clearly some interventions were not as highlyregarded as others. The case studies proved to be difficult formany of the participants, who as engineering students wereseeking more structure and solid solutions to the problemsunveiled in the case. There seemed to be a measure ofdiscomfort in examining ‘messy’ human behaviour issues.This probably accounts for the low rating given to casestudies as an intervention.

The unstructured questions solicited many comments, toonumerous to mention in total. The following comments aresamples of some of the questions and statements made bythe participants:

Question 2. What aspects of the course did you enjoy?Students answered this question in favour of group work,being able to learn about and practice presentations, and theopportunity to meet and interact with people they did notknow. Quoted samples of some of the reactions were:

‘Being forced to work in groups and presenting part of acase study’‘Meeting and learning about new people’.

▲

982 DECEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Question 3. What aspects of the course did you notenjoy?In some cases, students found it challenging to balance timefor studies with the contact time to attend monthly meeting,especially at the end of the year as final-year projects had tobe handed in. Quoted examples of their feedback regardingthis question were:

‘Occasional inability to contact and meet with groupmembers’‘Time-consuming in relation to studies and projects thatneed to be done for the University’.

Question 4. What topics should be added to the course?Students mentioned that they wanted more theory on thesubject of leadership. Several students also mentionedaspirations to reach out into the community to apply whatthey had learnt on the programme. Some examples of theirfeedback were:

‘More role-play to practise handling conflict andworkplace meetings’‘Community group work to learn how to interact withengineers in a public environment and not only oncampus’.

Question 5. What topics should be removed (or modified)from the course?No strong trend could be detected, except for a request tochange the selection of case studies. Some of the feedbackfrom students was:

‘The selection of case studies’‘Have more debates than presentations’‘Reduce reading material’.

Question 6. What else can be done to improve thecourse?Several comments were received from individuals on thisquestion, but the only repeated suggestion for improving thecourse was to involve more people from other engineeringdisciplines.

‘Encourage more people to attend the course who are notnecessarily Sasol bursars’.

Question 14. What else do you want to tell us about thecourse or yourself?Students indicated that they enjoyed the programme, thatthey found it helpful personally, and that they wouldrecommend the programme to other students. Somecommented on the fact that the course was recommendableespecially to engineering students because of the skills andvviews presented. It was also mentioned that the courseinfluenced the way they interacted with others.

‘Extremely useful and many engineering students wouldbenefit from the skills and perspectives presented’‘I found out things about my personality which I did notpreviously know’.

Quantitative: Structured questions in questionnaireAppendix 2 shows the responses to the structured part of thequestionnaire that the students completed after the course.From those responses it is clear that students’ perceptions

and skills were changed by their involvement in SELA.Communications, self-awareness, and group work were theconstructs in focus and the course was designed to improveknowledge and skills in these constructs.

➤ Communications—Questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 dealt withsscommunications. Students indicated that theirconfidence to communicate in small and larger groupschanged a lot. They perceived that their ability toeffectively communicate by sharing ideas had changedsignificantly. Students collectively agreed that theirpresentation skills were enhanced through the SELAprogramme

➤ Self-awareness—Questions 3, 7, and 10 dealt with self-ssawareness. Students indicated that their self-awarenesschanged a lot and that the assessments done in theSELA programme helped them to understandthemselves better. Students also indicated that theirpersonal sense of self was enhanced through theinteraction with fellow students and the facilitators inSELA

➤ Group work—Questions 6, 8, and 9 dealt with groupsand teamwork. Students specified that their perceptionsof interpersonal skills were enhanced through theintervention. The assessments proved to be helpful tostudents in understanding other people and fellowstudents. Most students indicated that even asengineering students they enjoyed working in smallgroups.

Shadowmatch resultsAs mentioned previously, students completed theShadowmatch worksheet before the SELA interventionsstarted in February 2013 and again after the interventions inOctober 2013. The average of the full group on each habitwas calculated on both occasions and compared in order tocalculate the biggest differences on each habit (see Appendix3). Shadowmatch measures 25 different habits. The groupshowed significant changes in the following habits (seeFigure 3).

Responsiveness is the individual's reaction speed, in otherwords the habit of acting immediately if and when necessary(De Villiers, 2009). The average profile of students showed a10% increase in responsiveness. To simplify is the habit ofbreaking complex scenarios down to linear challenges thatcan easily be resolved (De Villiers, 2009). Students showedan 11% increase in the habit of simplification.

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 DECEMBER 2014 983 ▲

Figure 3—Most significant changes in habits according toShadowmatch

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

f f fThe most significant shift in the habits of SELA studentswwere on propensity to change and innovation. Shadowmatch(De Villiers, 2009) defines propensity to change as the habitof being comfortable with change and the ease with which anindividual adapts to new and different things andenvironments. Students showed a 22% improvement in beingcomfortable with change after the interventions of SELA.IInnovation is defined as the habit of finding new ways andidentifying better processes and methods to improve oncurrent methods of working (De Villiers, 2009). An 18%improvement in attitude towards innovation was seen in theaverage profiles between February and October 2013.

How do these relate to the primary objective of improvingthe leadership elements of self-awareness, oral communi-cation, and cooperative group work? Shadowmatchconstructs correlate well with some of the National Academyof Engineers (2005) attributes, as mentioned earlier, but theconnection with the three elements of leadership under studyis tenuous.

Conclusion

For the graduate, a smooth entry into the workplace andconfidence to perform built on fundamental leadership skillsand capabilities is invaluable; for the employer the graduateis likely to make a more meaningful contribution toimproving the company’s performance. Employers will reapthe profits and individuals will boost their standing in thecompany. In brief:

➤ The responses to the questionnaire showed the strongextent to which skills associated with the three targetedfacets had been enhanced by the SELA interventions

➤ The positive changes in the Shadowmatch profiles onaverage, particularly in respect of certain habitsassociated with leadership, are encouraging. The factthat so many individuals showed marked positivechanges in habits/behaviour on the Shadowmatchresults is gratifying

➤ Some interventions, like case studies, need to berevisited. Cases with more technical bias mightengender more interest and involvement, bearing inmind that the main idea of the case is to stimulate aprocess of vigorous interaction in the group more thanaddress the knowledge or content aspect of the case

➤ The speech and drama intervention to help with self-confidence and making presentations was highlyapplauded, but probably consumed too much time thatcould have been allocated to other interventions

➤ The fracking simulation was a rip-roaring success andmore time needs to be found to do the intervention fulljustice

➤ Too few reflection papers were submitted and moreeffort needs to be put into persuading participants ofthe enormous value that can be gleaned from thispractice.

SELA, as a pilot study, achieved the objective of showinga measurable change in the three main elements of leadershipchosen for the programme. Undoubtedly, these changes canbe amplified by giving careful consideration to thecomposition of the interventions. Shortcomings have beenidentified in certain interventions that could result in modifi-

cations or, indeed, replacement. Spreading SELA’s wings toaccommodate more students must be considered. It isabundantly apparent from surveys that there is a healthydemand from students to participate in SELA, although itscontinuation and expansion is dependent on time, availabilityof funds, and the capacity of the facilitators.

ReferencesBAR-ON, R. Not dated. EQ-I Technical Manual, BarOn Technical Manual edition.

High Performing Systems, Inc., Watkinsville, GA.

BAYTIYEH, H. and NAJA, M. 2012. Identifying the challenging factors in thetransition from college of engineering to employment. fEuropean Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 37, no. 1, March. pp. 3–14.

DARLING, A.L. and DANNELS, D.P. 2003. Practising Engineer Talk.Communication Education, vol. 52, no. 1. pp. 1–16.

DE VILLIERSVV , P. 2009. Shadowmatch: The Full Story. DBA, Bryanston, SouthAfrica.

ECSA. 2004. Whole Qualification Standard for Bachelor of Science inEngineering (BSc(Eng))/ Bachelors of Engineering (BEng): NQF Level 7,Document : PE-61, Rev-2, Registered on the National QualificationsFramework: NLRD no. 48694.

GRIESEL, H. and PARKER, B. 2009. A Baseline Study on South African Graduatesfrom the Perspective of Employers. South African Qualifications Authority,Pretoria.

KNOBBSKK , C.G. 2012. A Study of Graduates’ Perception of their Deficiencies in theWork Place. Unpublished survey. Department of Mining Engineering.University of Pretoria.

MALE, S.A., BUSH, M.B., and CHAPMAN, E.S. 2010. Perceptions of competencydeficiencies in engineering graduates. Australasian Journal of EngineeringEducation. vol. 16, no. 1. pp. 55–67.

MARTIN, R., MAYTHAM, B., JENNIFER, C., and FRASER, D. 2005. Engineeringgraduates' perception of how well they were prepared for work in industry.European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 30, no. 2, May. pp. 167–180.

MCMASTERS, J. 2003. Influencing Engineering Education. Mudd DesignWorkshop, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA..

NAIR, C.S., PATIL, A., and MERTOVA, P. 2009 Re-engineering graduate skills - acase study. European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 2,May. pp. 131–139.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING. 2005. Educating the Engineer of 2020.Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. The NationalAcademies Press, Washington, DC.

ROMANOWSKI, C.J. and SAGEEV, P. 2001. A message from recent engineeringgraduates in the workplace. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 4. pp. 685–693.

SAUNDERS-SMITS, G., and DE GRAAFF, E. 2012. Assessment of curriculum qualitythrough alumni research. European Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 37, no. 2, May. pp. 133–142.

SEAT, E., PARSONS, J.R., and POPPEN, W.A. 2001. Enabling EngineeringPerformance Skills. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 1.pp. 7–12

SNOOK, S., NOHRIA, N., and KHURANAKK , R. 2012. The Handbook for TeachingLeadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

STEIN, S.J. AND BOOK, H.E. 2006. The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and YourSuccess. Jossey-Bass, Mississauga, Ontario.

TONG, L.F. 2003. Identifying Essential Learning Skills in Student'sEngineering Education. Higher Education Research and DevelopmentSociety of Australasia, Christchurch, New Zealand.

YORKE, M. and KNIGHTKK , P.T. 2006. Embedding Employability into theCurriculum. The Higher Education Academy, Heslington, York, UK. ◆

▲

984 DECEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 DECEMBER 2014 985 ▲

Appendix 1Programme of modules and interventions

The Sasol Engineering Leadership Academy

▲

986 DECEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Appendix 3Shadowmatch results

Appendix 2Responses to structures questions