Forum
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 1
The unappreciated humanist: A defense of F. W. Taylor and scientific management
I recently reread a republication of Frederick Winslow Taylor’s 1911 book The Principles of Scientific Management. My earlier experience as a reader was as an engineering and MBA student, and the book left me with a feeling that Taylor mistreated workers. My perspective on reading Taylor’s work again, now that I am a clinical psychologist, is quite different—I learned that my previous negative reaction to him was political and wrong.
Surprisingly, there is an underlying humanism in Taylor’s work that is contrary to what I was taught. Now, as a result, I am not sure if I actually read his writings in the past. It seems that I may have solely relied on secondary sources of literature and teachers as the basis of my knowledge. However, this recent (re)reading of Taylor’s original work has left me with an appreciation of his humanity.
My earlier understanding of Taylor was from other writers who felt that he considered workers to be cogs in the wheels of industry. Now, I realize that a basic humanness underlies his work—intentionally or unintentionally. Why, then, was he so unpopular?
Taylor’s presentation may have offended the sensibilities of academics during the human relations reign in American business. Dissatisfaction was compounded when politically correct language became necessary. How one presents ideas and intentions often trump underlying benefits of concepts. Scientific management is an example of this contradiction.
It would be useful to consider the outcome of social efforts and not just the emotional evaluations put forth by advocates and adversaries. Results, not good intentions, might be a better measure of one’s work.
Having recently read Taylor in his original words reminded me of a caution advanced by psychoanalysts: Beware of countertransference when reading someone writing about the ideas of someone else. Countertransference is our past emotion provoking experience or the feeling of others that influences how we interpret—or more likely misinterpret—present happenings or information. Our personal history influences how we perceive current events. Also, countertransference explains that our resonance with emotional states in the environment shade how we feel.
We interpret what we read, see, and hear into our belief structure by using our preconceived notions. We also tend to associate with people who share our worldview. Selected associations reinforce our convictions. This inhibits us from seeing another point of view. Worse, it limits our effectiveness because we generally preach to the choir. In light of this, I reconsidered F. W. Taylor’s work based upon what he said, not how he said it.
F. W. Taylor and His Work
The parochial focus of writers about Taylor was on his time and motion studies, directive supervision and management, standardization and procedures, and other structured and impersonal elements of his mechanism. The humanistic, person-centered results underlying his methods were largely ignored by human relations proponents that emerged later in the twentieth century. Then, Taylor’s use of language did not endear him to the language police.
Writing in 1911, Taylor did not use politically correct language. Pig iron workers were described as “stupid,” “phlegmatic,” and likened to “oxen.” Certainly not terms that would endear him to those sensitive to the negative feelings engendered by unflattering personal descriptors.
In his defense, however, Taylor probably did not expect the subjects could read his work or would attend his lectures—and times were different. One might expect these men of brawn were illiterate and not interested in hearing about social science issues. Nevertheless, purists might argue that his even thinking, much less writing, with such unflattering descriptors is reason for disdain.
Taylor reported his work largely to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a group for which I was once a local chapter chairman. The organization’s Mechanical Engineering magazine is not the type of professional journal that appeals to many lay readers.
Now psychology has been added to my professional résumé and the approaches to problems and writing in its publications are different. Also, more laypeople read social science than engineering articles as they encompass political correctness and human sensitivity. Psychology’s movements are also motivated by advocacy, social issues, and political causes, rather than pure empiricism. This was not always the way it was.
The Zeitgeist
Almost a century has passed since Taylor’s original writings and times have changed in both engineering and psychology. Academics would say the Zeitgeist has changed. Dictionaries define a Zeitgeist as “the spirit of the time.” It is the collective view of mainstream people in a particular era and place. Taylor was in sync with his times and consistent with psychology in America.
In 1919–1920, a behavioral psychologist, John B. Watson, joined his student and lover, Rosalie Rainier, in conditioning an eleventh-month-old boy, called Little Albert, to be afraid of a gentle white rat. The child’s fears were then generalized to other furry things. It is obvious that manipulation of persons during the first part of the last century was not limited to engineers and managers. Watson wrote: “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specific world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, merchant-chief and, yes, beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of ancestors.” We can see that a psychologist and an engineer had a similar worldview about the manipulation of other human beings.
Criticism Versus the Results
Taylor was aware that he was criticized because his work increased pig iron workers’ productivity 3.6 times and their wages only increased by 60 percent. He believed that advanced companies had a right to a fair increase in profit and that society overall would gain from more productive industry. Ultimately consumers assumed the cost of workers and profit. Therefore, he did not consider the charges against him fair.
Taylor also did not consider it helpful to give workers too large a wage increase at one time. He put forth a psychological theory of pay incentives. A range of 30–100 percent was determined as optimal. A 60 percent increase induced thriftiness, savings, work steadiness, and better living. Greater incentives caused work irregularity, shiftlessness, extravagance, and dissipation. Taylor said: “Our experiments showed, in other words, that it does not do for most men to get rich too fast.”
In addition, scientifically determined better ways of doing things reduced the burden on employees. Methods and procedures were changed in ways that often made the work easier. Shorter hours and break periods were built in. True, many of these innovations were not primarily initiated for humanistic reasons. Nevertheless, studies had shown that rested workers were more productive and had a greater sense of accomplishment and additional personal time. It was a physiological thing that provided residual benefits. Unintended consequences of a movement can be good or bad depending upon the outcome.
Scientific analyses reduced bricklayer movements from eighteen to five. Adjustable tables on scaffolds were provided so the bricks and mortar were at the best relationship to the man and wall. Bricks were oriented on their pile to avoid turning before placement. The mortar was tempered to facilitate the setting of the brick without tapping with the trowel.
Ball bearing inspectors’ work hours were reduced from ten hours to eight hours, and ten-minute breaks were provided every hour and a quarter. Ironically, when the inspectors were initially asked to vote on a shorter workday “to be tactful in implementing change,” the workers did not want any innovations. After a few months hours were reduced in half-hour steps, over time. Pay remained the same and output increased. This example shows that people resist change, even when it appears on the surface to be and is actually to their benefit.
Employee–Management Relations
Before the advent of scientific management, workers and their foremen and superintendents had a distant relationship. Taylor changed this. He said: “This close, intimate, personal cooperation between the management and the men is the essence of modern scientific or task management.” He claimed that there has never been a strike among employees working under his system; and the average worker and machine output each doubled. He saw cooperation, not hostility, between employees and managers. This human relations orientation is not usually reported in the articles attacking Taylor and his methods.
Taylor called the existing form of management “initiative and incentive,” where workers gave their best initiatives in return for some special incentive. Promotion, pay, shorter hours, better working conditions, and friendly relationships were traditional incentives. Task or scientific management not only provided incentives but analyzed the jobs in detail and instructed employees how to do the work.
Prior to scientific management, an industrial establishment had twenty or thirty trades and several hundred workers did jobs in ways handed down from older tradespeople. It was a word-of-mouth process, and while following a tradition, it was not necessarily efficient. Foremen and supervisors, excellent tradespeople in their own right, realized they could not do everyone’s work. Therefore, they let employees decide how to do their work. Today, we might laud this as empowerment and avoidance of micromanagement. Rule-of-thumb methods, however, were often inefficient and resulted in less than optimum output.
Labor, Attitudes, and Results
There was a belief among workers that increased productivity meant fewer jobs. The concept of lower prices increasing jobs was not understood. Production slowdowns were common. The term used for suboptimal output on the part of employees was “soldiering.”
Scientific management focused on each individual worker and what had to be done. Personnel were selected for their ability to do the specific job. Pig iron and bearing inspectors required vastly different personal characteristics. Good workers in the wrong trade were reassigned or let go. Today, this might be considered reengineering. The individual was measured on his physical and mental aptitudes and not his Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality profile.
Under scientific management output per individual employee was measured and evaluated. Work needing to be done was assigned on a specific basis. Work gangs of several people were eliminated because the workers often stood around waiting for work. Tools, such as shovels, were designed for what they had to lift—feathers or clay. Everything was scientifically studied and specified. Contrary to many scholars, I argue that this does not preclude humanism.
Management movements have many consequences that extend beyond or are contrary to the original intent of the words used to describe them. After Taylor’s time, it became customary to present management ideas as having beneficial effects on employees. We have become a world that hypes methods rather than lets results determine the worth of new ideas.
—Carl V. Rabstejnek, psychologist-doctorate, is principal consultant and executive coach at Human & Organizational Understanding & Development in Essex Junction, Vermont, and New York City. He can be contacted via e-mail at [email protected]
Discussion from the BOK2 committee: Engineers as leaders or technicians?
This article is taken from an e-mail discussion from ASCE Body of Knowledge 2 (BOK2) committee members Merlin Kirschenman, Gar Hoplamazian, and Peter Hoadley. The topic: How can and should civil engineers be educated to be leaders and not just technicians? The discussion provides a nice synopsis of many of the challenging topics that the committee is current debating.
***
A few comments relating to your upcoming BOK2 meeting in Reston where the committee is to decide what is included and excluded from the BOK.
It appears to me that there is still not a coherent outcome defined as to what the future civil engineers are to be and what functions they will be able to do. Perhaps I have missed something in the ongoing conversations, but it appears that way to me. It would be very helpful for us to have a clearly defined outcome or vision of where we need to go and what we need to end up with. We need to come to grips with the necessary balance of technical and nontechnical engineering skills and knowledge that are required to prepare an engineer to function as a professional engineer and leader.
Again quoting from the NAE 2020 report, on pages 4 and 18 of the report it says, in part, “Reinventing engineering education requires the interaction of engineers in industry and academe.” “Reengineering involves asking the questions: How can we make our processes more effective, more quality conscious, more flexible, simpler, and less expensive? It begins by identifying the desired outcome, product, or service, and then designing backward, using as design criteria what the outcome is supposed to look like and the nature of the processes used to produce it.”
What we are trying to do is somewhat similar to taking a journey or building a project. Without a clearly defined “outcome” we will never know if what we are doing meets the needs or not!
***
Excellent point! I have been wrestling with the technical/professional balance you mention specifically with regard to Outcome 12. Perhaps the issue permeates all outcomes. Right now there seems to be a tension between the two rather than a symbiotic relationship where one supports the other. I like the idea of developing a clearly defined vision that might help clarify the technical/professional issue and help guide our development of specific outcomes.
***
Allow me to interject my thoughts into this e-mail stream. Theory and design are very interesting and challenging. Those of us in practice can enjoy a stimulating career in this field, but for what purpose?
To underscore [the above] example, there is no design (at least not one that is commissioned) that does not intend to eventually result in construction. As such, the two are inseparable. It is not a debatable issue—those that are unable to grasp the point are lost. Further to the point, a design that is not constructible is equivalent to the absence of any design at all.
Therefore, the most competent designers, by definition, are sympathetic to the realities of construction, and the most competent constructors, by definition, are sympathetic to the realities of design. The success of each is enhanced by this symbiosis.
***
Thanks for your comments. You raise an interesting and important issue relating to the technical/professional balance that should be addressed. You said, “Right now there seems to be a tension between the two rather than a symbiotic relationship where one supports the other.”
This tension between technical and professional is similar to the other “we versus them” issues, and when one considers the basis for the tensions it is hard to develop a strong argument that supports it.
I will try to explain with an example. Consider the issue of design versus construction: [they] are inseparable and are two sides of the same project. A designer is a more competent designer if they understand the construction process involved, and a constructor is a more competent constructor if they understand the design process involved. One supports the other. Similar arguments could be made to support the concept that most of these “we versus them” issues, such as teaching versus research, theory versus practice, and technical versus nontechnical, are in reality two sides of the same thing and actually support each other, [rather than remain] in competition with each other. This is something I have thought about for a long time and my opinion is that these tensions do not have much of a basis in logic, reality, or common sense. They are more similar to myths and are perpetuated for reasons other than the development of the engineering profession.
Over the years, I have met very good researchers who also understood the practical side of engineering and how their research would benefit the profession—they could relate to their students how the research would support the profession. The best designers I have met understood the construction processes involved in building their designs, etc. All of these supposed opposites are in reality supporting each other.
It helps to understand this concept if we think in terms of systems. Consider that the engineering profession is a part of a much larger societal system in which we all live. The education of engineers is a subpart of the engineering system. All of our education efforts are a part of this subsystem—it doesn’t matter if we are senior or junior faculty, high up in the administration or a lab tech, have a strong interest in research or teaching, are specializing in technical or nontechnical aspects, or interested in theoretical or practical aspects—all contribute and support the education system. Any effort that is diverted away from supporting this education subsystem to create, support, and perpetuate the frictions and tensions between these education components is counterproductive.
***
I agreed with many of the points made [in a letter to Civil Engineering magazine, 2003].
Where I am on the fence on this issue is that I don’t think a “one size fits all” approach is necessarily the best way to go (yes, I am oversimplifying the BOK approach when I say “one size fits all”).
For discussion purposes, allow me to divide up the practice world into three broad categories—high-level, mid-level, and low-level design. Firms that design skyscrapers, long span bridges, offshore oil rigs, and other “push the envelope” type structures would be in the high-level category. Our practice would probably be characterized as a mid-level practice. We design most any range of size of structure, from as small as you can imagine, up to facilities that can include one to two million square feet of space or more. These projects have many challenges, but the actual structural engineering challenge is not particularly cutting edge. Then there are the low-level practices—small residential, strip malls, etc.
I would argue that for high-level design firms, at least for key positions, a Ph.D. may be the minimum level of qualification required for entry. In our (so-called mid-level) practice, we prefer to hire [those with] master’s degrees, but will look at strong candidates with bachelor’s degrees, particularly if they plan to obtain a master’s degree. In the low-level practice, a bachelor’s is probably all that is required.
Add to this the fact that there are all the other subdisciplines within civil engineering (geotechnical, heavy civil, environmental, sanitary, transportation, etc.) that have their own unique set of circumstances and practice requirements. Further, all civil engineering graduates do not go into practice. Some work for construction companies in various engineering or management roles. Others may work directly for a client. Still others may get an MBA, JD, etc.
In any case . . . my personal take is that, although we prefer to hire candidates with master’s degrees, I would feel my options were being closed out if I were not allowed to hire [someone with] a bachelor’s degree when a good one came along. In other practices, a master’s degree (or BOK) may actually be overqualified, creating compensation issues.
I realize that I am not telling you anything you particularly want to hear, but this is my honest appraisal of the situation. The profession does need some image boosting, and some leadership enhancements, which is easy to say, and hard to do. But as far as technical improvements, my opinion is, let the market decide. Firms will only hire staff that can perform the work at hand. They should be responsible to find the right level of technical talent, and leadership talent, when procuring staff.
By the way, just to let you know where I am coming from, I have a master’s in civil (structural), an MBA, as well as two other degrees. So, I am pro education, as you can see. I am also in favor of minimizing regulation, maximizing options, and relying on the free-market system to take care of itself.
***
Thanks for the interesting comments. I appreciate listening to your viewpoints and agree with a lot you said. Unfortunately there is still no consensus in the committee as to what the additional knowledge should be in the BOK2. Many on the committee and on the BOK1 committee think the master’s should be similar to a current MSCE. In fact in my opinion BOK1 is essentially that and is probably the main reason that BOK2 was formulated.
If we consider that the BSCE has lost approximately one semester of technical courses over the past fifty years due to the addition of more general education courses and to the reduction of total credits in the degree, we need to close some of the gap that has been lost. Also we need to add fundamental technical knowledge in several areas not currently covered in the BS program. Also required is some basic knowledge in business, leadership, team building, engineering history, and other professional areas. All told most of the knowledge in the revised BS, plus the additional thirty credits or MS, should be knowledge that all civil engineers need regardless of the path they will eventually take. If the committee would accept this concept then one size would fit all. In my opinion the advanced technical degrees should be built on this broader base I just described. What we end up with in the BOK2 should not resemble a current technical master’s; if it does then we have failed the profession. We currently have thousands of civil engineers with technical master’s degrees and we do not have the reputation of being society’s leaders that civil engineers had one hundred years ago.
We have a significant amount of work to do to get the job done right, which is why we need more input from the practitioner side. Many in the academic side are only familiar their own narrow specialty areas and [do not consider] the nontechnical areas to be engineering!
***
I agree with you that if BOK2 is nothing more than merely the current technical MSCE, then little, if anything, will have been gained by the profession.
But I also fear that the goal of restoring civil engineers to the role of society’s leaders is a daunting task, and will require much more than educational enhancement, though that is a critical component.
Society, right or wrong, does not currently view engineers as leaders, like they once did. They view politicians (mostly lawyers) and business people (some of which are engineers) as leaders. Sadly, they also view celebrities as leaders. They view engineers as followers, and as doers, but not as leaders. Also, the reality is, current leaders cultivate future leaders from their own ranks, and are not looking to engineers to fill these roles. Further, society’s impression of leaders is formed mainly in the media, and engineers are not on the media’s radar screen, while politicians, business people, and celebrities are.
So, how do engineers step up to the leadership challenge, when they are generally uninvited? Certainly, in your position, you are to be considered a leader in the engineering profession. But beyond your students, your fellow faculty, and this and other committees you may serve on (all of which add up to a huge time commitment for you), what opportunities are there for you to truly lead the profession? The BOK1 and BOK2 committees have been around for some time now, and aside from the considerable progress that has been made within the committees, they have had virtually no impact upon the profession. This is despite the best intentions of many qualified, intelligent, and successful people that staff these committees!
Leadership could (and should) come from our technical societies, but generally speaking, it is not. The AMA and the ABA are household acronyms amongst most laypeople. However, who outside the profession has heard of NSPE, ASCE, ASME, and the whole host of other engineering societies whose sole purpose is to serve the profession? I realize that your committee is an official ASCE committee, but if we are truly going to enhance the stature of the engineering profession (as opposed to the civil engineering profession), shouldn’t this be a task led by NSPE rather than ASCE?
Incidentally, I am not a negative person by nature, despite the tone this e-mail may convey. I carry a positive attitude, and am always optimistic about outcomes. However, I also try to be pragmatic, and attempt to avoid involvement in tasks or issues that do not seem to have a clear (not necessarily easy, but clear) path to successful conclusion.
In any case, I applaud your efforts, and those of the committee, despite the misgivings I outlined. If this issue were easy to solve, it would already have been done.
Best wishes—our profession is counting on your success.
—Compiled by Brian Brenner, Associate Editor, LME
Civil Engineers Making a Difference in Their Communities
In December 2000, ASCE and Rebuilding Together signed a memorandum of understanding linking the two organizations in a partnership of public service. The two organizations agreed that cooperative public service projects are a perfect way to showcase civil engineers at work in and for their communities.
Rebuilding Together strives toward their mission: “[P]reserve and revitalize houses and communities, assuring that low-income homeowners, particularly those who are elderly and disabled, and families with children, live in warmth, safety and independence. Our goal is to make a sustainable impact in partnership with communities.” This mission statement is very much in keeping with ASCE’s vision of engineers as global leaders who are dedicated to building a better quality of life.
This partnership is one way of achieving one of ASCE’s strategic goals, which is to enhance recognition of civil engineering as a highly respected profession and a desirable and rewarding career. ASCE believes that it is its members’ professional duty and obligation to engage in public service as an essential means of practicing civic leadership outside of our employment toward the goal of improving our image.
Following the agreement, it became apparent that the ASCE Committee on Voluntary Community Service (CVCS) of the Committee on Professional Practice was the logical focal point for ASCE’s efforts. The CVCS provides leadership in promoting volunteer efforts by ASCE members. The committee promotes recognition for doing volunteer service; provides a leadership role in promoting community activities; prepares publications to foster and facilitate public involvement; communicates and interacts with sections, branches, institutes, and other organized components to develop and implement programs; and provides guidance and support in the area of volunteer service.
All members are encouraged to go out into their community to contribute their skills and knowledge. These efforts will illustrate to our fellow professionals and the general public the dedication of civil engineers to building a better world.
To date the CVCS has managed three Rebuilding Together projects, each held in conjunction with the ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conference. Brief summaries of these projects follow for you to gauge the effectiveness and benefits derived by the communities and by the members who volunteered.
Nashville 2003: Donelson Senior Center
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, during the last day of the ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conference in Nashville, the Nashville branch of the Tennessee section of ASCE and Rebuilding Together were hard at work to fulfill a year-long dream—the rehabilitation of the Donelson Senior Center, once an elementary school, that provides almost one thousand seniors a place to enjoy health and fitness programs, educational classes, social services, and the arts. The center also has outreach programs such as Meals on Wheels.
In order to increase the visibility of civil engineers and to promote volunteer efforts, the members embarked on an aggressive building plan that included building a wheelchair ramp at the rear entrance of the building, painting the auditorium, and extending the stage out into the auditorium. At the end of the drizzly cool day, the Donelson Senior Center was transformed from a battle ship gray hall to a handicap-accessible theater with an expanded stage, theater lights, and a vibrant blue hue covering its walls.
During a brief ceremony, Jim Colantonio, chair of CVCS, introduced Nashville dignitaries, among which were Representative Ben West and Vice Mayor Howard Gentry, Jr., who thanked ASCE and Rebuilding Together for their efforts. ASCE President Pat Galloway, in turn, thanked the participants and reminded the audience of the importance of civil engineers’ contribution to society, hoping that this project would serve as a constant reminder of civil engineers’ willingness to volunteer their services to the public.
“As civil engineers, we have a moral obligation to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare, and I believe we have certainly accomplished that today for the Donelson Senior Center,” said Ms. Galloway. “As America’s population ages, it becomes more vital for organizations to respond to a variety of needs for seniors and make communities as accessible and functional as possible.”
A plaque was presented to senior center director Jane Schnelle, executive director of the Donelson Senior Center, to commemorate the efforts and improvements of the day. “We are delighted that these volunteers have taken their time and talent to give back to those in Nashville who will greatly benefit. Our center services a large number of seniors, and the improvements made here today will make it possible for even more seniors to enjoy our programs,” said Ms. Schnelle.
At the conclusion of the ceremony, members returned to their tasks and helped finish the project on schedule. Local TV station cameras were at hand to document and broadcast the event that evening.
The CVCS would like to thank the Nashville branch members, in particular local volunteer champion Jeff Hooper, P.E., and Donelson Senior Center staff for their invaluable contribution. Special thanks go to Rebuilding Together for their partnership. Thanks also to the Administration on Aging for their support of this project. AoA emphasizes the importance of accessing each environment, whether home or institutional, and making changes to allow for the most effective use and the greatest safety.
Baltimore 2004: COIL Southwest Senior Center
Volunteers from ASCE and Rebuilding Together assembled on Sunday, October 23, 2004, at the COIL (Community Organized to Improve Lives) Southwest Senior Center for a day of hands-on work to improve the center’s accessibility, safety, and plumbing, and to assemble a new computer laboratory. ASCE and Rebuilding Together partnered in this civic project to give back to the city that hosted ASCE’s 2004 Annual Civil Engineering Conference. The project had the financial support of the Administration on Aging (AoA).
COIL Southwest Senior Center is dedicated to providing services that enhance self-esteem and improve the quality of life for seniors in the Baltimore community. A nonprofit organization that has operated in the basement of a local church for twenty-three years, the center is open for activities five days a week. Lunch is provided to seniors through the Eating Together Program in Baltimore City program. Door-to-door transportation is made available to seniors for a small fee. The center schedules a multitude of educational and entertainment classes and hosts bimonthly multigenerational activities.
“Civil engineers are dedicated to improving the quality of life in their communities and around the world,” said William P. Henry, ASCE president. “We accomplish this not only through our professional work, but in our volunteer service as well.”
According to Patricia Riley Johnson, president and CEO of Rebuilding Together, “Recognizing different ambulatory needs is an important part of falls prevention, whether at home, at work, or in the community. We know that each year more than eleven million seniors fall—that’s one out of every three people over the age of sixty-five. Our accessibility modifications at the COIL Southwest Senior Center will increase safety and community participation. That’s real quality of life.”
Through its support of the project and others throughout the country, the AoA has recognized Rebuilding Together as the nation’s leading provider of volunteer-delivered home modification services. The computer terminals were a donation by the HNI Charitable Foundation.
“The repairs that are being done by the volunteers from ASCE and Rebuilding Together will help make our place more inviting and safer. Our people are especially excited about the individual stations for the computers,” said Calvin Vaughn, president of the COIL Southwest Senior Center.
Los Angeles 2005: Bradley Multipurpose Senior Center
For the third consecutive year, ASCE members attending the society’s annual conference lent their services to an all-day community service project. The 2005 event was held in Los Angeles on Sunday, October 30, 2005 at the Bradley Multipurpose Senior Center, where ASCE partnered with Rebuilding Together. A total of more than one hundred volunteers from the two groups worked together on a variety of tasks, among them installing a wheelchair ramp and handrails; repairing outdoor benches, tables, and bridge railings; improving water drainage; rehabilitating water-damaged ceilings; and patching pavements.
Operated by the Watts Labor Community Action Committee—a community-based organization that seeks to improve the quality of life for residents in southern Los Angeles—the center offers seniors hot meals, counseling services, educational and recreational activities, and field trips.
“At the end of the day the Bradley Multipurpose Senior Center will be better equipped to meet the demands placed on it by its users,” ASCE President Dennis R. Martenson remarked during the event. “Our profession will be better because we chose to get involved, and all of us who volunteered our time and skills will be better because we made a difference. What you see here is a result of our intent to serve, exemplary teamwork, and a great desire for volunteerism.” After his speech, Martenson presented Tim Watkins, the president of the Watts Labor Community Action Committee, with a plaque commemorating the volunteer work that had been completed.
“This year we did a lot of exterior renovations,” reports Diego Cadena, a member of CVCS who has helped organize the volunteer event at the ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conference for the past three years. “We did a lot of painting and landscaping outdoors and we installed an electric door that makes it easier for the senior citizens to get in and out of the center.” Cadena marveled at how efficiently everyone worked together to complete the renovations and repairs. “This was the best year yet,” he adds. “Everyone was so motivated to get the work done. We finished everything we set out to do in record time.” Asked what effect this project was likely to have, Cadena replied as follows: “Now that we’ve made these improvements, I think the senior citizens will be able to enjoy the center much more than before, especially because the weather here allows them to spend a lot of time outdoors.”
Cynthia Ruiz, president of the Board of Public Works for the City of Los Angeles, spoke on behalf of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa. “The City of Los Angeles is grateful to ASCE for their work in the community and was proud to host its…annual conference,” she said. Ruiz commended ASCE and Rebuilding Together for volunteering their time and resources to improve the center. “Our community will only improve through partnerships like this,” she added. “Your efforts will help make Los Angeles a better place.”
The 2005 community service event was organized by ASCE’s CVCS, the Metropolitan Los Angeles Branch’s Younger Member Forum, and Rebuilding Together. The AoA also contributed to this project.
***
All of us should recognize that volunteering improves the lives of the participants and the beneficiaries. Try it, you’ll love it: it’s fun, worthwhile, and rewarding.
CVCS is working on Rebuilding Together projects at the ASCE Annual Civil Engineering Conferences in Chicago in October 2006 and in Orlando in October 2007. Members who are interested in joining us in these endeavors are urged to contact CVCS as soon as possible (you can e-mail or call Jalal Vahabnezhad at [email protected] or 626.458.1762)
—Submitted by the ASCE Committee on Voluntary Community Service: Kent B. Anderson, P.E., M.ASCE, chair; Jalal Vahabnezhad, P.E., M.ASCE, vice chair; John C. Cavanaro, P.E., M.ASCE, secretary; Amy C. Smith, P.E., M.ASCE, past chair; David W. Krech, P.E., M.ASCE, CPP contact. Corresponding Members: Carl L. Blum, P.E., F.ASCE; Diego Cadena, P.E., M.ASCE; Caroline F. Clement, A.M.ASCE; James J. Colantonio, P.E., M.ASCE; Thomas L. Ferguson, P.E., M.ASCE; James L. Guthrie, P.E., M.ASCE; Robert Harris, P.E. F.ASCE; R. Mark Hoefer, P.E., M.ASCE; Paul A. Parisi, P.E., F.ASCE; Colleen M. Richwall, P.E., M.ASCE; and Daniel H. Zitomer, P.E., M.ASCE.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • January 2007
Pages: 3 - 10
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 2007
Published in print: Jan 2007
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.