Guru is the Senior Director of Programs at the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. As an expert in systems analysis and leadership, he focuses on driving innovations in engineering, balancing cost-efficiency, and addressing global challenges. He advocates for civic responsibility and interdisciplinary collaboration in engineering leadership.

With a focus on systems analysis, adaptability, and failure analysis, Guru advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to solving complex engineering challenges. He emphasizes the balance between technical proficiency and big-picture thinking, helping engineers navigate the demands of global competition, innovation, and cost-efficiency. Through his leadership, Guru promotes civic responsibility, encouraging engineers to reflect on the broader societal impact of their work and to adopt diverse perspectives for better decision-making and sustainable growth. Here is our interview with him.

What key leadership qualities do you believe are essential for driving innovation in engineering?
Ans- First, technical fundamentals with adaptability: Leaders need deep engineering knowledge to navigate both “clock-like” systems with predictable outcomes and “cloud-like” systems presenting unique challenges. This allows them to balance focus with flexibility.
Second, proficiency in failure analysis: This skill, grounded in humility and responsibility, is crucial for both pioneering advances and addressing the overlooked “grind challenges” like maintenance and quality control, enabling continuous improvement that often sparks innovation.
Third, a sensibility for systems analysis: we must see the big picture, understanding how components interact within larger systems and across disciplines—a key ability to address “wicked problems” spanning technical, social, and value-based domains.

What role does global competition play in shaping the leadership decisions you make in engineering programs?
In Wicked Problems, I discuss six concepts that we could apply to make sense of the effects of global competition in engineering:
Efficiency: Global competition heightens the demand for technical and organizational efficiency, pushing us to balance local practices with global standards.

Engineers design and deliver under constraints, so they are painfully familiar with balancing innovation with cost constraints

Vagueness: International markets bring ambiguity in communication, expectations, and problem definitions, requiring clear communication across cultures and disciplines.

Vulnerability: Global supply chains and distributed teams introduce new failure modes, making it essential to consider geopolitical, cultural, and economic risks, not just technical ones.
Safety: Varying standards and cultural attitudes towards safety pose complex challenges, requiring adaptability in understanding and responding to them.
Maintenance: Global operations demand a solid commitment to maintaining knowledge, technologies, and relationships across diverse environments.
Resilience: Unpredictable disruptions—whether economic, geopolitical, or natural—necessitate flexible systems and diverse, decentralized teams.
These concepts often interact. For example, increasing efficiency can create new vulnerabilities, while prioritizing safety may affect short-term efficiency. The challenge for engineering leaders is finding the right balance.

In a competitive global market, how do you prioritize between innovation and cost- efficiency in engineering projects?
Engineers design and deliver under constraints, so they are painfully familiar with balancing innovation with cost constraints. The central example from my book illustrates this balance: Ed Link’s development of the flight trainer in the late 1920s.
At that time, flight training was costly, dangerous, and wasteful. Trainee pilots had to learn in actual aircraft, risking lives and valuable equipment. Drawing on his background in player pianos and theater organs, Link engineered a ground-based learning system that revolutionized pilot training.
Link’s approach wasn’t about creating the most technologically advanced or realistic simulation. Instead, he focused on providing the essential flight experience without the high costs and risks of actual flying. So, call it a “sixty-percent solution,” it extracted maximal value from a design that wasn’t fully complete but was good enough to transform the industry.
Initially met with skepticism, the Link Trainer proved its worth during World War II. It drastically reduced training costs while improving pilot proficiency, demonstrating that innovation and cost-efficiency can be mutually reinforcing.
So, what can we learn here?
Focus on innovations even if they aren’t the most technologically advanced.
Use simulation and modeling to reduce costly physical processes where possible.
Embrace stepwise, iterative development.
Remain competitive by delivering value that goes beyond mere cost reduction.

What’s your approach to managing diverse teams with different priorities?
Invest in understanding and growing others. Embrace ambiguity to spark creativity. Foster openness to empower the team. And, importantly, earn trust by being authentic.

What advice would you give to engineers who aspire to leadership positions?
Be wary of monocausotaxophilia—the addiction to narrow explanations or the love of single causes that claim to explain everything.
Practice civic awareness—it’s the keystone for leadership, as engineers (should) understand that every line of code, steel beam, and chemical process ripples through society, prompting questions like, “Should we build it?” and “Who will it affect?” Rigorous reflection and incorporating different and difficult perspectives can make us and our work better.