Veteran engineers are retiring in large numbers, and with them goes far more than staffing capacity. They take decades of judgment, a deep understanding of ideas and concepts, and the kind of intuition that cannot be learned from textbooks or software. Research on the “Great Retirement” suggests that roughly one-quarter of today’s engineering workforce is expected to retire within the next five years, with broader industry estimates indicating that between 25% and 33% of senior engineers will exit practice by the mid-2030s as Baby Boomers leave the workforce at scale.1,2 

This retirement wave poses a direct risk to institutional and tacit knowledge — insights developed through years of problem solving in real buildings and real projects — which many firms still struggle to systematically capture or transfer.1

At the same time, the pipeline behind these departing veterans is thinner and less experienced than demand requires. Industry analyses regularly show that nearly one in three engineering roles remains unfilled each year, a condition driven not only by retirements but by skills mismatches and insufficient experiential readiness among newer entrants.2,3 

While graduates arrive with strong academic foundations, research consistently highlights gaps in real world preparation: limited exposure to construction environments, contractor coordination, and the downstream impacts of design decisions.3 They are capable, motivated and intelligent, but engineering is fundamentally experiential. 

It is not enough for an engineer to know a standard or perform a calculation; they must understand how uncertainty, constraints and tradeoffs are navigated in practice. That understanding is developed through exposure, mentorship and watching experienced professionals work through imperfect information — not through coursework alone.1,3

Mentorship helps narrow the experience gap. Without mentorship, new engineers struggle to connect theory to real-world constraints. Even experienced hires joining a new firm can feel disoriented by unfamiliar expectations. In the worst cases, the absence of mentorship leads to burnout, imposter syndrome or talented people leaving the field entirely.

There is no universal approach to mentorship — and there shouldn’t be. Just like any good teacher adds their own flair to instruction, every good engineering mentor will let their unique background and experience guide how they work with a junior colleague. What matters most is that mentoring must be intentional to be effective.

Lessons from the Marine Corps

The Marine Corps shaped how I lead and how I teach, even before I became an engineer. Two experiences formed the foundation of my mentorship philosophy, and they remain relevant every single day I show up for the teams I work with.

My first foundational lesson occurred during the Crucible, the final test of Marine Corps boot camp. It’s a grueling 54-hour event that tests, among other things, how well recruits can work as a team. 

At one point during the test, my team dropped me in the dirt while maneuvering an obstacle. Exhausted and frustrated, I muttered something under my breath, and a drill instructor immediately descended. 

At that moment, I learned three things that guide how I mentor today:

1. Failure isn’t the problem.

2. Reaction is the lesson.

3. Growth is the goal.

When a young engineer misinterprets a code section or misses a detail, the mistake itself is rarely catastrophic. What matters more is how that engineer responds — and how their mentor helps them course-correct and move forward. No one will ever completely eliminate failure, but a good mentor teaches how to respond to mistakes with humility, perspective and resilience.

One effective strategy I’ve seen is creating intentional space for engineers to share their mistakes openly. Often, simply talking through what happened is enough for real learning to occur. 

These conversations don’t always need to turn into formal problem-solving sessions or exhaustive discussions about “how do we make sure this never happens again.” Sometimes the value is in normalizing mistakes, reinforcing lessons learned, and helping younger engineers understand that growth comes from reflection — not perfection.

The other foundational lesson happened before the Crucible. While I was in the squad bay, I stood at attention as a drill instructor yelled inches from my face. When he turned away, I rolled my eyes. Another instructor across the room saw it, and minutes later, I was being IT’d — incentive training, a form of discipline to build mental discipline — on the quarterdeck.

 However, during the exercise, the drill instructor leaned in and whispered, “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” reminding me that yelling wasn’t personal. The lesson was about keeping composure and staying focused, even under pressure. 

Engineering feedback can feel intense sometimes: redlines, reviews, deadlines and coordination issues. A good mentor will help her mentee understand that none of the feedback is personal. 

Ineffective mentorship is someone standing at a whiteboard correcting every one of those red lines, sometimes — but hopefully not — crushing confidence, or worse, humiliating the young engineer. 

A better picture of mentorship is a senior engineer first reminding her teammate that the mistakes are not the end of the world. Then, she creates a space where the younger engineer feels safe to think out loud and solve the mistakes on his own. 

She asks questions that encourage reasoning, reflection and discovery. She helps her mentee find clarity in his own thought process instead of handing him answers.

Where mentorship matters most

Mentorship is important throughout a career, but there are two phases where its impact is magnified.

• The First Two Years Out of School. Many new engineers spend their early years printing drawings, scanning documents, or redrawing designs they didn’t help create. These tasks may be necessary, but they don’t require much decision-making, which limits opportunities to build judgment and confidence. 

The work that builds professionals requires reasoning, weighing options and understanding consequences. That growth happens when young engineers are given ownership — leading portions of designs, presenting concepts or participating in client discussions early in their careers. 

In practice, this looks like a junior engineer walking a client through system options, explaining code implications or proposing a design approach, while a senior engineer stays engaged and present but intentionally takes a step back. The senior engineer acts as a safety net — ready to step in if needed — without immediately correcting, redirecting or taking over. 

Conversely, constant correction or takeover, even when well-intentioned, can undermine growth. When senior engineers step in too quickly, junior engineers are conditioned to think, “I’ll wait until I’m told what to do,” rather than learning how to think independently.

The early years determine how young engineers see themselves within the industry. A strong mentor during this time can put someone on a trajectory of growth by shaping habits, confidence, communication style and the ability to interpret expectations. And it all starts with being present and listening.

An early-career engineer once called me in tears after making an error on a complex project. The project manager was frustrated, and the owner was upset. 

Instead of taking over, I listened. We walked through the mistake, explored options and built a plan that he executed himself. 

I recognized that what he needed most wasn’t someone to troubleshoot or fix the issue. He needed me to recharge his confidence, think clearly and re-engage with the problem.

Senior engineers can be invaluable in helping younger engineers keep perspective when things go sideways. Early in my career, I was under intense pressure on a high-end office project. After extensive coordination around a rooftop unit and screen wall, the submitted and approved unit ended up taller than what was originally designed, and the screen wall no longer fully concealed the equipment. The client was understandably upset.

Working collaboratively with the architect and contractor, we developed a field-built screen wall extension that resolved the issue. The client was satisfied, and we still work with them to this day. 

However, what stuck with me was a comment from another engineer during that process: “No one was hurt, and the system still functions.” It was a needed reminder in the moment.

Those moments reinforced the importance of perspective. Problems deserve to be taken seriously, but not every issue is a crisis — and learning to distinguish between the two is part of becoming a better engineer.

• The first year for experienced hires. This transition period is often overlooked. Senior engineers are frequently expected to arrive fully aligned on day one, yet every firm has its own culture, processes and priorities. 

While experienced hires may not need the same safety net as junior engineers, that doesn’t mean they don’t need support navigating a new workplace. Internal systems, standards and workflows vary widely from firm to firm and can still present a steep learning curve.

In many cases, senior engineers benefit from being paired with a support engineer — often someone more junior in total years of experience but more familiar with the firm’s tools, standards and informal norms. 

Just as important are intentional, ongoing check-ins with leadership to understand expectations, work preferences and communication styles. Investing in this early helps experienced hires integrate faster and sets them up for long-term success within the organization.

What I want engineers to walk away with

I believe deeply that every engineer deserves someone in their corner. Yes, young engineers should advocate for themselves, ask questions and take responsibility for their development. But they also deserve advocates who see their potential, notice their effort and help them navigate the uncertainty of early career growth.

If our industry’s goal is to lessen the impact of the impending retirement boom, mentorship cannot be treated as a side task squeezed into already full schedules. We must intentionally set aside time — and mental space — to be effective mentors. 

Maybe you just rolled your eyes at that, as I did after my drill instructor’s lecture, but consider this: Engineering has taught me that steady, intentional mentorship is the bridge between experience, intelligence and wisdom. 

And wisdom doesn’t flow in only one direction. Clarity, curiosity and learning happen both ways, meaning that as mentors support their junior colleagues, they inevitably learn something about themselves that makes them better engineers as well.

More importantly, good mentorship travels. Today’s mentees become tomorrow’s mentors, carrying forward the lessons, mindset and culture they were given. 

Over time, this creates teams that communicate better, trust each other more, and perform at a higher level because expectations are clear and support is real, not just talked about. In that environment, accountability is shared, growth is continuous and people are willing to step up — knowing someone has their back. 

That is how mentorship scales, and that is how high performing, high-trusting engineering teams are built. 

References:

1. Tektome “APQC’s ‘The Great Retirement’ Findings: What Teams Can Do About Knowledge Loss” (https://bit.ly/4ezJLqd)

2. Boston Consulting Group / SAE International “The US Needs More Engineers. What’s the Solution?” (https://bit.ly/4eyug1K)

3. Tianpan / Industry synthesis on unfilled engineering roles and skills gaps “One in Three Engineering Roles Stays Unfilled Every Year, While 25% of Engineers Plan to Retire Within Five Years. Is This a Hiring Problem or a Pipeline Crisis?” (https://bit.ly/4tpKjnm)

Dale Garfield is a senior mechanical engineer and team lead at EUA, specializing in HVAC system design and controls integration. With a passion for mentorship and a knack for continuous improvement, Garfield helps bridge the gap between design intent and real-world performance. He’s also an advocate for continuous learning and collaborative problem-solving within small, high-performing teams. Garfield is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and holds an Executive MBA from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and a Bachelor’s degree in Architectural Engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering.