Replace "engineers" here with occupation x, and this statement will be true from the viewpoint of every x in the world.

I have been in companies where engineers with questionable managerial/leadership skills were elevated to top positions. The results weren't pretty.

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate on those results? What sort of things went wrong?

I think I agree with your sentiment, but the mindset can be dangerous.

Engineering - if viewed most generally - is simply a pragmatic way of looking at the world, with an eye for improvement. If you use this broad definition, I think there are people who are try to create actionable change, and others who simply are greedy or uninterested.

Its dangerous though to put yourself on a pedestal (I assume you are an engineer)... I have I heard the same comment said about entrepreneurs, and my stomach turns a little from hubris...

There is a sort of government like that, it's called technocracy, "scientific government". That is where bureacracy comes from, you know, nowadays it's a term of contempt but once, it was the pinnacle of scientific management and government. The EU is a good example of a technocracy, while there is an elected component, all the real power is in the hands of appointed officials. China is another technocracy. Judge for yourself how well that works.

if technocracy was the same as bureaucracy there wouldn't be separate names for it.

Bureaucracy is the mechanism. Technocracy is belief in government by the bureaucratic class.

I disagree, you can have a technocratic democracy, a technocratic oligarchy, technocratic monarchy etc. technocracy is just a form of meritocracy where the the definition of merit has been more strictly defined.

I think it fails to work when the metric by which technical expertise is defined is easily manipulated. Since power is involved everyone is going to constantly be looking for ways in.

It's not myself I'm putting on a pedestal, rather engineers in general. I think that a single engineer in charge can of course be disastrous. But a general policy of engineers as decision makers seems pretty win-win.

A smart country?

It is better to think smaller here: put yourself (and possibly other engineers) in charge and reap the windfall of profits.

I am. Well, still working on that "windfall of profits" part. ;)

I think the group is larger than just engineers. There are technical people and non-technical people. I would say an economist is a lot closer to an engineer than a lawyer.

Both are necessary, but right now it seems that the elected officials are non-technical. A balance would be a lot better.

Interestingly, the only country I can think of off the top of my head with an engineer "in charge" is Iran. I don't think Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great example of how a country should be run.

Huh. In "The World is Flat", Friedman laments the fact that leaders in the US are usually lawyers, whereas in Europe and Asia, they often have engineering and science backgrounds. I don't have a copy on hand... and I don't think he gets into any detail about specific leaders and countries.

There are always counter examples anyway. Much of it comes down to what people think of as "general education" - ie., when people say "you can do anything with a degree in X".

In the US, people tend to say this about humanities followed by law. So, you can do anything after studying Emily Dickenson's poetry followed by three years of learning about non-compete agreements, determining jurisdiction, learning about court procedures, and determining who owns intellectual property. Whereas in Asia, they'd probably figure you can do anything after studying ordinary differential equations and optimization science.

I actually think that the more general educational approach of the US system combined with a substantial background in science and engineering would be an incredible background for a leader, but in general, we get lawyers who have not studied science.

Which isn't necessarily a problem... wo much of it comes down to the individual anyway...

It's funny you should mention it...but Iran is one of the few countries in the world right now that seems to have a clear picture of exactly how international politics works. Iran recognizes that what we call sovereignty in this day and age is a joke. True sovereignty (the ability to actually govern your own affairs) is conferred by nuclear power. I'm sure you don't think Russia is a good example of how a country should be run either, but no one is talking about invading Russia... Pakistan is an interesting case. It looks as though the U.S. saw the political upheaval there as an opportunity to take away their sovereignty by going in and taking their nukes. Never really saw a follow up story on that.

Angela Merkel, the chancellor in Germany is a physicist.

More of a quantum chemist, though I realize this is a distinction most people who aren't theoretical solid-state physicists are unlikely to care about.

Margaret Thatcher also had a chemistry background (though only a Bachelors, unlike Merkel's PhD).

Don't forget the Chinese premiers for the past 20 years or so.

One should keep in mind that engineers also produce some of the world's most dramatic failures.

Yes, and engineers learn from those mistakes, rather than repeating them every 10 years.

You would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_disasters

and how many of those were due to circumstance beyond the engineers control?

my thoughts exactly.

i'm looking through... boat collision, boat collision, construction failure, no inspection, fire, bombs, etc. etc.

i see tacoma narrows in 1940: "Since that time all new bridges have been modeled in wind tunnels."

edit: here, have some engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_bridge

Where do the scientists fit in?

> a smart country would put the engineers in charge

This approach has a horrible track record. Failed "five year plans" all 'round.

I think engineers have a pretty bad track record as policy makers and leaders. Engineers see controllable processes and solvable problems. In a complex system like an economy or society these visions are usually mirages.

Cue obligatory reference to the famous Simpsons episode where mensa takes control of Springfield:

Comic Book Guy: Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.

Most five year plans had little to do with real engineering and where focused on "helping X" at the cost of Y.