Finding the right Career Path/Job Prospects in EE

[lolozguz]

I've recently graduated from EE and was looking for jobs on the market. While I'm looking for any good opportunity that comes my way, I wanted to plan out my career path and how to achieve it in the long-term. That way, when I run into roadblocks and issues on the job, I'll be able to think ahead and say, "I want to achieve this position/this type of job, so I need to keep going or I need to switch to a different company". This helped me a lot during undergrad, and I'd like to apply this here too.

The problem here is I'm naive about what's out there, so I wanted to ask some questions to more informed/experienced people here. Generally, any job that allows me to mentor, supervise, instruct, and assist co-workers at the company would be ideal for me. This can be at any level, from new recruits to senior managers, but that's were I noticed my strengths lied from co-ops, volunteer work, and other odd jobs. With that being the case;

Is consulting my only option, or what other positions should I look for?
What would I need to do to reach that type of position?
What types of positions would I be looking for in my job search?
Would I need seniority at only one company?
Can I switch companies and still have that type of position?

I appreciate any and all comments.

 

[berkeman]

Can you say more about what experience you have so far, and what areas of EE interest you the most? What kinds of opportunities have you been finding so far in your job searching?

You really only become a consultant after you have quite a bit of experience, and usually you consult in your specialty because the people who hire you need that expertise.

Same thing with Mentoring -- you usually need to be very experienced in something before you can do a good job of Mentoring. It's great that you enjoy doing that, but you won't be doing much Mentoring as a new EE fresh out of school. Rather, hopefully you link up with a good Mentor at your first couple of workplaces.

 

[lolozguz]

Can you say more about what experience you have so far, and what areas of EE interest you the most? What kinds of opportunities have you been finding so far in your job searching?

You really only become a consultant after you have quite a bit of experience, and usually you consult in your specialty because the people who hire you need that expertise.

Same thing with Mentoring -- you usually need to be very experienced in something before you can do a good job of Mentoring. It's great that you enjoy doing that, but you won't be doing much Mentoring as a new EE fresh out of school. Rather, hopefully you link up with a good Mentor at your first couple of workplaces.

Areas of interest are power distribution and controls engineering. I've worked in them during my co-ops and enjoyed them for the most part. I've also been getting consistent job offers from companies looking for distribution/controls engineers.

My worry is that I'll be stuck in a spot where I can't grow into this supervising/mentorship role, or I won't get the skills to be a proper supervisor or project engineer by working these roles at these companies. I understand no one wants advice from someone who has no hard skills or experience to back it up, but no one also wants someone to be a supervisor when he doesn't know the first thing about leading a team or managing people.

It just feels in my head that you are either one or the other; a very strong technical engineer with no leadership skills, or someone with strong leadership skills but doesn't know the technicalities of the project. Personally, I'd rather be in the second group than the first.

 

[berkeman]

Areas of interest are power distribution and controls engineering. I've worked in them during my co-ops and enjoyed them for the most part. I've also been getting consistent job offers from companies looking for distribution/controls engineers.

Paging @anorlunda

It just feels in my head that you are either one or the other; a very strong technical engineer with no leadership skills, or someone with strong leadership skills but doesn't know the technicalities of the project. Personally, I'd rather be in the second group than the first.

Not true in my experience (decades in R&D in Silicon Valley). In the companies I've worked for, the engineering managers were promoted from the engineering ranks because 1) they were very competent in their engineering skills, 2) they had very good people skills, even in difficult situations with very bright people and tight schedules, and 3) they did not see a better alternative than transitioning to a management role to help the company/project succeed.

And in my experience, there are times that you could still do productive engineering work in parallel with your management duties. This is rare, both with the situations and the folks who were put in those positions, but I have seen it a couple of times in a few decades of R&D engineering work.

I have been asked to promote to management several times in my career, but most of those times I've said that I preferred to stay at the intense engineering "tip of the spear" instead of transitioning to management. I have helped to manage a number of projects, but mostly in the hand-on engineering role.

My worry is that I'll be stuck in a spot where I can't grow into this supervising/mentorship role, or I won't get the skills to be a proper supervisor or project engineer by working these roles at these companies.

If you think that the management role makes sense for you in your future goals, then I would recommend that you look into earning your MBA on the side in parallel with your engineering work. Depending on which company you work for, you may need to fund this on your own and do it all off-hours (nights and weekends) in a way that does not impact your engineering work. If you work for a company that supports continuing education, you may be able to get funding and time from your company to complete your MBA. I know several engineers who have earned their MBAs with company support, and have transitioned into higher-level management roles as a result.

 

[anorlunda]

There is a nationwide shortage of power engineers, so they are eagerly sought.

However, many utilities have stripped in-house engineering and rely on consultants to do their engineering for them. Those consultants are always hungry for engineers. Asking a few questions, should reveal the situation where you live.

Another approach is to work for one of the major suppliers, such as ABB, or GE. Man of them have some industry-oriented engineers, as opposed to product-oriented engineers. That's how I got started at the Electric Utility Engineering Operation of GE. They consulted to both utilities and to GE's manufacturing departments as to how to design and operate power systems, and which products were needed to support that.

Which interests you more.? Designing/constructing a new substation. Determining how tomorrow's substations will accommodate distributed generation?

 

[lolozguz]

There is a nationwide shortage of power engineers, so they are eagerly sought.

However, many utilities have stripped in-house engineering and rely on consultants to do their engineering for them. Those consultants are always hungry for engineers. Asking a few questions, should reveal the situation where you live.

Another approach is to work for one of the major suppliers, such as ABB, or GE. Man of them have some industry-oriented engineers, as opposed to product-oriented engineers. That's how I got started at the Electric Utility Engineering Operation of GE. They consulted to both utilities and to GE's manufacturing departments as to how to design and operate power systems, and which products were needed to support that.

Which interests you more.? Designing/constructing a new substation. Determining how tomorrow's substations will accommodate distributed generation?

Could you elaborate on why there is a shortage of power engineers?

Why did utilities strip in-house engineers and rely on consultants more? Would my growth at a consultant firm be greater than working at the utility company as an in-house engineer?

When I worked at utilities before, it seemed like the industry-oriented engineers and the product engineers were similar, since they were all in-house. What's the real difference between the two, and what are there career paths in the long run?

Personally, I'm more interested in designing and constructing substations, but if I aiming to be a consultant, then I would have to choose the second option about how to accommodate distribution generation.

To me, I'd rather be designing the substation and being involved in the step-by-step process of building it, working with the field engineers, seeing the maintenance projects, etc. But that doesn't sound like a good career options long-term, unless I am missing something.

 

[gleem]

To me, I'd rather be designing the substation and being involved in the step-by-step process of building it, working with the field engineers, seeing the maintenance projects, etc. But that doesn't sound like a good career options long-term, unless I am missing something.

Why doesn't it sound like a good option? If you like it and are good at it (aren't You?) why try to put yourself in a position not really knowing what the future will be like? Good leadership skills if you have them and develop them will be recognized. I concur with @berkeman, if you are a sound and respected engineer and member of the team you are likely to be approached eventually even if you need to change companies. You will not always be working for a company that will have an opening for a supervisor and sometimes you have to move on. And yes it is possible you will never get that position.

One final point, if you do get that position which will come with many encumbering responsibilities what makes you think you will not want to return to a strict engineering role?

 

[anorlunda]

First, I agree with @gleem and @berkeman .

Could you elaborate on why there is a shortage of power engineers?

Because of the appeal of computer science and environmental sciences, that compete with EE.

Why did utilities strip in-house engineers and rely on consultants more? Would my growth at a consultant firm be greater than working at the utility company as an in-house engineer?

The same reason why any company moves from employees to contractors. It's cheaper for them.

What's the real difference between the two, and what are there career paths in the long run?

Personally, I'm more interested in designing and constructing substations, but if I aiming to be a consultant, then I would have to choose the second option about how to accommodate distribution generation.

I think you have ideas about what consultants do or not do that are too narrow. Think of a consultant as an engineer-for-hire. They might be hired for high-level strategic advice, or they might be hired to work in construction. In some respects, consultants can be compared to temp contractors. But prestige and wealth are greater for consultants that create their own firms rather than working for a temp agency.

Consultants also recruit and train new graduates on their own. You can work your way up from newbie to senior all while working for a consulting firm. It is not so different than working for any kind of company.

Also, utilities prefer to work with a small number of consultants. They don't want different consultants for distribution/transmission/generation/operation. The consultancy itself needs to offer a spectrum of services.

To me, I'd rather be designing the substation and being involved in the step-by-step process of building it, working with the field engineers, seeing the maintenance projects, etc. But that doesn't sound like a good career options long-term, unless I am missing something.

Why not? There will always be projects to be done in the field, and always the need for people to work on the projects. Broaden your thinking. A substation project might be followed by a transmission project then followed by a solar farm project. Your skills could be applied to all of those.

 

[lolozguz]

Why doesn't it sound like a good option? If you like it and are good at it (aren't You?) why try to put yourself in a position not really knowing what the future will be like? Good leadership skills if you have them and develop them will be recognized. I concur with @berkeman, if you are a sound and respected engineer and member of the team you are likely to be approached eventually even if you need to change companies. You will not always be working for a company that will have an opening for a supervisor and sometimes you have to move on. And yes it is possible you will never get that position.

One final point, if you do get that position which will come with many encumbering responsibilities what makes you think you will not want to return to a strict engineering role?

Could you clarify your last question? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[gleem]

Could you clarify your last question? I really don't understand what you were trying to say.

One final point, if you do get that position which will come with many encumbering responsibilities what makes you think you will not want to return to a strict engineering role

A supervisory/administrative position carries with it a number of additional activities that are not directly related to your technical responsibilities. Conflict resolution, budgeting, scheduling, safety problems, defending your judgments, committee assignments, unrecognized accomplishments, failure to achieve goals/objectives, requirements that may infringe on your personal life, etc. Any of these can be stressful or worse. Middle management is between a rock and a hard place, surviving it depends on your, flexibility and resilience. Does middle management get treated unfairly, oh yes! You may look back at your job as a substation designer with fond memories.

 

[gmax137]

It just feels in my head that you are either one or the other; a very strong technical engineer with no leadership skills, or someone with strong leadership skills but doesn't know the technicalities of the project. Personally, I'd rather be in the second group than the first.

I, too, disagree with this.

These two groups are equally hated by the engineers who work under them. If I had to pick the worst, or most annoying situation, it would be a too-young manager who means well but honestly does not know jack about the actual work being done.

But take heart, there are other possibilities: Group 3, who are "pretty good" both technically and as managers. And Group 4, who have very strong technical competence, and also are great managers. Strive to be in Group 4.

 

[lolozguz]

Why not? There will always be projects to be done in the field, and always the need for people to work on the projects. Broaden your thinking. A substation project might be followed by a transmission project then followed by a solar farm project. Your skills could be applied to all of those.

It seemed from the previous comment and the jobs I continue to see on websites such as Linkedin that most of the tasks involve substation design and maintenance. In my mind, having the technical skills to be hired on would be the most ideal. Afterwards, I can scale it into a consulting business on my own.

A supervisory/administrative position carries with it a number of additional activities that are not directly related to your technical responsibilities. Conflict resolution, budgeting, scheduling, safety problems, defending your judgments, committee assignments, unrecognized accomplishments, failure to achieve goals/objectives, requirements that may infringe on your personal life, etc. Any of these can be stressful or worse. Middle management is between a rock and a hard place, surviving it depends on your, flexibility and resilience. Does middle management get treated unfairly, oh yes! You may look back at your job as a substation designer with fond memories.

I've heard of those situations happen to those management groups. However, when aiming for higher management, would this still apply?

 

[gleem]

However, when aiming for higher management, would this still apply?

How high? The higher you go the more you distance yourself from what you used to do.

 

[anorlunda]

You may be overthinking it. It's impossible to say with great detail what your future may hold, how long you remain doing the same thing, what interests you most, and what opportunities may arise. In my opinion, trying to optimize the rest of your life is overdoing it.

 

[lolozguz]

You may be overthinking it. It's impossible to say with great detail what your future may hold, how long you remain doing the same thing, what interests you most, and what opportunities may arise. In my opinion, trying to optimize the rest of your life is overdoing it.

I believe the phrase is, "Fail to plan, plan to fail." I was thinking that if I don't find the right path soon, I would lose the opportunity forever.

 

[gmax137]

I've heard of those situations happen to those management groups. However, when aiming for higher management, would this still apply?

It's not realistic to imagine getting into upper management without first going thru line management and then middle management. I suppose you could start your own company and name yourself CEO but it isn't a likely path.

 

[lolozguz]

It's not realistic to imagine getting into upper management without first going thru line management and then middle management. I suppose you could start your own company and name yourself CEO but it isn't a likely path.

That's fair I suppose, but then that goes to the first point; How high should I aim? Again, it's better to have a clear goal in your mind so you can focus on what to do at work.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I believe the phrase is, "Fail to plan, plan to fail."

"Planning is important. Plans, however, are worthless". Dwight D. Einsenhower
I like Ike.

 

[gmax137]

That's fair I suppose, but then that goes to the first point; How high should I aim? Again, it's better to have a clear goal in your mind so you can focus on what to do at work.

Well there's nothing wrong with setting a high goal. Maybe I misread, but some of your posts gave me the impression that your "plan" was to reach those heights in very short order.

 

[gleem]

How high should I aim?

You set the goal as high as you feel that you can attain. Typically one should set some short-term goals and then evaluate your progress periodically, If satisfactory and nothing that you feel about your goal has changed or there have not been any unforeseen situations you should consider then continue to the next goal in that plan otherwise modify it to continue to advance your career.

 

[lolozguz]

Well there's nothing wrong with setting a high goal. Maybe I misread, but some of your posts gave me the impression that your "plan" was to reach those heights in very short order.

No I was thinking the next 20-25 years to reach a position of that caliber. It's just that it feels like there isn't much growth to begin with, since all of these positions are short-term contracts and not long-term positions where you build yourself within an isolated company. It feels like with any contract work, it's less about what you do and more about who you know.

I know that's always been the case, but it's very discouraging.

 

[gleem]

I just received this email from Linkedin about their new learning blog article (Linkedin Learning for Professionals

Creating a Flexible Career Path When You’re Not Sure What’s Next Very few of us know exactly what we’re going to do with our careers. And not only is that okay, it’s actually for the best! If you’re too locked into one career path, you can miss out on all kinds of opportunities that might fit you even better.

Have you ever looked into any of these articles?

 

[lolozguz]

I just received this email from Linkedin about their new learning blog article (Linkedin Learning for Professionals

​

Creating a Flexible Career Path When You’re Not Sure What’s Next​ Very few of us know exactly what we’re going to do with our careers. And not only is that okay, it’s actually for the best! If you’re too locked into one career path, you can miss out on all kinds of opportunities that might fit you even better.

Have you ever looked into any of these articles?

I seen these articles before; my main issue with this sentiment is it pretty much says "Hey don't have a plan for your life/career, instead follow your whims and passions" which is as unreliable as you can get.

There's a difference between changing course and wandering aimlessly. The first implies a goal, and when you have a goal you can adjust accordingly, whether it be locations, jobs, people you keep around you, etc. The second implies no goal, which means that you set sail on to the ocean with a limited supply of time and resources but you have no idea what you want or where you are going.

I'm ok with the first, I'm not with the second; that's why I wanted to know what others here thought.

 

[Joshy]

Taking things 1-2 steps at a time towards a broad goal is very different from being aimless.

 

[lolozguz]

Taking things 1-2 steps at a time towards a broad goal is very different from being aimless.

That's true, so I guess I should be a bit more clear;

Again, to focus on a job and get through the difficult tasks, you need an end goal or sorts; an achievement or money or status or skill or whatever.

I understand doing what you want and what you're good at, the issue is I always hear that you should switch companies/jobs every 2 years. That way, you don't get stuck in one position, and it's easier to negotiate with a new employer than an old one. Maybe this isn't the case with every job (ex: power systems or automotive companies) where they prefer someone who has been there for a while to rise in leadership, but I don't know if automotive or power distribution/systems works that way.

If my main career plan is "switch to the next thing once you get experience" then the main goal of a job should be getting skills that apply to the next position 2-3 years from now. If that's the case, some problems arise, mainly the one of "transferrable skills" in that, if you are in a very niche job, then the ability to switch to a different position at a different company is much harder. An example would be you can't be a project manager in power systems just because you have 5+ years of project management in automotive, they are very different fields with different fundamentals.

In that sense, if I choose power systems and realize it's not for me or I don't get much company growth internally or externally, I'm just stuck there.

If that is the case, then I had some follow up questions:

1. Is it always better to switch jobs once you've gotten some experience at a current one?
2. If yes, what skills are important for power system engineers, skills that everyone needs but not enough people do? That way, once I do my 2-3 years in power systems, I can switch to another company that needs the skills I got from the last company and do very well there.
3. If no, should I stick with a company that values my expertise in their systems, processes, and internal contacts?
4. If the answer isn't clear whether one should stay or leave, what are some signs/tells that you should switch instead of climbing internally? To stay instead of chasing another job?

 

[berkeman]

I always hear that you should switch companies/jobs every 2 years.

That is not good advice, IMO. Where did you "hear" that?

When I look over resumes of candidates for positions in R&D or Operations, if I see that they've been changing jobs that often, it's a bit of a red flag for me. Switching every 5 years or so is okay, but changing jobs every 2 years (even here in high-tech Silicon Valley) indicates to me that they are not doing a very good job at those positions.

If you get a promotion to a new position within the company, it's okay to list that as 2 jobs with their respective durations, just be sure to make it clear that it's for the same company.

 

[anorlunda]

"Best" is always a personal value. Many people are motivated by what they contribute to the world rather than what they take out if it in wealth. So we can't debate "best" with you.

I also think your thinking is too linear. Any company with big factories or facilities needs some power engineers on the staff, regardless of which industry they belong to. Google and SpaceX have power engineers.

 

[lolozguz]

"Best" is always a personal value. Many people are motivated by what they contribute to the world rather than what they take out if it in wealth. So we can't debate "best" with you.

I also think your thinking is too linear. Any company with big factories or facilities needs some power engineers on the staff, regardless of which industry they belong to. Google has power engineers.

That's true; I guess all I want are skills that are highly sought after in the automotive and/or power distribution sectors. It's just you never get a clear picture of that from reading online.

 

[lolozguz]

That is not good advice, IMO. Where did you "hear" that?

When I look over resumes of candidates for positions in R&D or Operations, if I see that they've been changing jobs that often, it's a bit of a red flag for me. Switching every 5 years or so is okay, but changing jobs every 2 years (even here in high-tech Silicon Valley) indicates to me that they are not doing a very good job at those positions.

If you get a promotion to a new position within the company, it's okay to list that as 2 jobs with their respective durations, just be sure to make it clear that it's for the same company.

Wouldn't that only apply in those fields? In finance and accounting for example, that is the case to switch every 2-3 years. I don't see how it would be any different for power systems or automotive.

 

[gmax137]

Once you have been working for a while you will come to see 2 or 3 years as a blink of an eye.

And once you're in a position to train/mentor younger employees, you may have a different perspective on those that flit from job to job.

Of course, I have seen people who get "stuck" working for a manager/supervisor who holds their people back. In that case sure, moving on might be a really good idea. But I wouldn't make that my plan until it happens.

 

[lolozguz]

Once you have been working for a while you will come to see 2 or 3 years as a blink of an eye.

And once you're in a position to train/mentor younger employees, you may have a different perspective on those that flit from job to job.

Of course, I have seen people who get "stuck" working for a manager/supervisor who holds their people back. In that case sure, moving on might be a really good idea. But I wouldn't make that my plan until it happens.

I guess I won't know until I try then, is what you are saying, and basically everyone else here.

 

[Joshy]

That is not good advice, IMO. Where did you "hear" that?

When I look over resumes of candidates for positions in R&D or Operations, if I see that they've been changing jobs that often, it's a bit of a red flag for me. Switching every 5 years or so is okay, but changing jobs every 2 years (even here in high-tech Silicon Valley) indicates to me that they are not doing a very good job at those positions.

If you get a promotion to a new position within the company, it's okay to list that as 2 jobs with their respective durations, just be sure to make it clear that it's for the same company.

I've also heard the 2 years advice. It looks like a very common recommendation among my peers at least in my inner circle. I too "hear" it often. Whether or not it's a good recommendation, or what it is limited by... that is hard for me to comment on that. I wont claim it's a reliable news article and I just randomly googled this one, but I've seen something along the lines of this article in my feeds a few times: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-bein...r-wont-pay-off-for-you-or-them-050047011.html

 

[f95toli]

The 2 year "recommendation" is something you hear quite a lot about here in London. However, as far as I am aware this is only applies to careers where there any many potential employers operating in very similar fields in a given location. My wife works for a high-street bank, and her employer is one of many competing banks with very similar business models with offices London. Moreover, they all also have to follow the same regulatory framework. Hence, if someone changes switches jobs from one bank to another their new job is often essentially identical to the previous job (even the titles tend to stay the same) and it possible to be fully up and running in a very short amount time. It is not at all unusual for people to change jobs every 2-3 years and then after say 10 years and up back at the original bank, but now in a more senior position. This applies not only to managers but also to IT, Comms etc.

Engineering- or science type jobs tend to be different. If a new member joins my team I typically expect that it will take at least one year for that person to learn all the new skills they need to be "100% productive".
That said, turnover is still quite high even in my sector in London, but often that is not because of career plans. Factors such as cost-of-living, childcare costs means that people often have to move and change jobs for reasons not directly related to any career plans.

 

[lolozguz]

The 2 year "recommendation" is something you hear quite a lot about here in London. However, as far as I am aware this is only applies to careers where there any many potential employers operating in very similar fields in a given location. My wife works for a high-street bank, and her employer is one of many competing banks with very similar business models with offices London. Moreover, they all also have to follow the same regulatory framework. Hence, if someone changes switches jobs from one bank to another their new job is often essentially identical to the previous job (even the titles tend to stay the same) and it possible to be fully up and running in a very short amount time. It is not at all unusual for people to change jobs every 2-3 years and then after say 10 years and up back at the original bank, but now in a more senior position. This applies not only to managers but also to IT, Comms etc.

Engineering- or science type jobs tend to be different. If a new member joins my team I typically expect that it will take at least one year for that person to learn all the new skills they need to be "100% productive".
That said, turnover is still quite high even in my sector in London, but often that is not because of career plans. Factors such as cost-of-living, childcare costs means that people often have to move and change jobs for reasons not directly related to any career plans.

Thank you for clarifying the matter. However, I still believe this would apply for Engineering, mostly because by following this logic, an Engineer at one distribution company can work a different one after 2-3 years with a bump in salary.

This would also apply in automotive as well, with some limitations of course. A controls engineer at car company A would need to learn the specifics of company B, but the general job would be identical.

 

[f95toli]

Thank you for clarifying the matter. However, I still believe this would apply for Engineering, mostly because by following this logic, an Engineer at one distribution company can work a different one after 2-3 years with a bump in salary.

Sure, for certain roles that might work. However, if you join to e.g., work on an ongoing multi-year project with lots of proprietary IP it might be take more time to get up to speed.
Another factor is of course location, there are lots of banks in London but I don't think there are very many distribution companies and I assume this is true in most places. This means that changing jobs in many cases also means moving. Doing so every 2-3 years is fine when you don't have a family and are renting, but it is not always so easy later in life.
Don't make the mistake of planning your career by assuming that you will always be able to easily move. For the vast majority of people this is not the case, your private life will always be a factor.