Arkan Kayihan
Arkan received his ChE degrees from the University of Washington (BS, 1996) and Purdue University (MS, 1998). Upon graduation he worked for six years in process improvement & business development capacities at Aspen Technology. He then went on to get his MBA from the University of Washington (2006) where he has since focused on management and marketing strategy.
He is also a co-author of the advanced process control chapter of Lyle Albright's Chemical Engineering Handbook (CRC Press). Currently, Arkan is an internal management consultant at the nationally ranked University of Washington Medical Center where he is improving patient outcomes and the hospital's bottom line. In his spare time, he is the board president of the Seattle area sustainability non-profit: Network for Business Innovation & Sustainability (www.nbis.org).
Being part of the College of Engineering is like being part of the armed services; we all had clever stereotypes for each other:
Civil & Mechanical Eng: Frat boys of engineering (from the frequent departmental keggers--the rest of us were just jealous)
Electrical Eng: gEEks (taken verbatim from a departmental t-shirt)
Industrial Eng: Imaginary Engineers (for taking more econ than thermo)
Aeronautical Eng: Astronaut hopefuls (from being called "rocket scientist" too many times)
Chemical & Bio Eng: Know-it-all walking dead (from our hubris & lack of sleep)
Despite the departmental ribbing, we all had one thing in common: a desire to understand how the natural world worked. This desire to understand cause and effect is what makes the first deficiency in our background so interesting. The one type of cause and effect that is not mandatory in our curricula affects us everyday in our professional setting and, I would argue, plays more of a role in our ability to effect change: the cause and effect of human behavior.
Why people behave the way they do affects our daily lives. Human behavior and motivations drive the reasoning behind why some projects are funded and supported and why others, despite sound scientific basis, are not. There is certainly some randomness behind our behavior, but stochastic processes and dealing with the gray are nothing new to engineering. Given that human behavior can mean the difference between project success and failure, it is important to ask why the study of motivation is not part of our core training. Perhaps it's in how it's sold.
My MS thesis had to do with applied math and cognition. The psychology grad students used to joke, "Psychology is about the study of rats & dreams." Good luck getting a practical application-minded engineer to get too excited about that! But any self-aware engineer will quickly discover upon graduation that a one-size-fits-all to professional engagement doesn't yield good results. It wasn't until being exposed to technical communication and consumer behavior that I felt I had the tools to address this.
Persuasion & Motivation
The most useful course I took in all of undergrad was Technical Communication I & II, where I learned two mantras:- "Know & speak to your audience"
- "Managers have 6th grade reading levels & 3rd grade attention spans - communicate accordingly"
Consumer Behavior
Rats and dreams were my first exposures to traditional psychology, and given the nature of our exposure to introductory undergrad courses, it's not too far off. It's not until you get to grad level social science courses that you really get exposed to the applied. If we could summarize some key social science courses:- Psychology = I drive my behavior
- Sociology = Culture drives behavior
- Econ = Only incentives drive behavior
- Ecology = Only survival drives behavior
- Social Work = Doing the right thing should drive behavior
- who we are
- our background, and
- our access to resources.
Without our basic needs being met, like food and shelter, it's hard to focus on self-actualization. A basic question engineers tend to ask when exposed to new concepts is: "How do I use this?" This is why consumer (and corporate) behavior (marketing research & strategy) resonated with me personally. The corporate equivalent of using Maslow's Hierarchy is: "If I'm worried about getting fired, why should I care about doing the right thing for our customers?"
Consumer behavior marries many of these concepts by acknowledging that many things drive us, and it is up to the marketer to use (ideally) the scientific method to determine what tactics to use to drive behavior:
- Marketing = acquiring and retaining profitable customers
- I need these customers to buy my products & services, but how?
- Slash prices
- Figure out the needs of the consumer and address them in a relevant way
- How do I keep customers coming back? -> Solicit feedback
- Awareness: before I buy a product I need to be made aware of it
- Interest: now that I know about a product, why should I care?
- Desire: how do I go about getting this product?
- Action: purchase
When have you seen corporate survival (vs. analysis) drive behavior in your workplace?
Photo: Robert J.Pennington, www.rhizomeimages.com (C)2011 Arkan Kayihan, used with permission
Comments
- Log in to post comments