Are Engineers too risk averse?

Do engineers choose engineering because they’re risk averse? And could that be holding our industry back?

I became an engineer because I wanted to be creative, but I also loved the technical problem-solving involved in making things.

But over time, I’ve realised not everyone enters the profession for the same reason. Many engineers (certainly not all) are drawn to it precisely because it feels safe. Predictable. Governed by logic, rules, and clear answers. It can feel like a refuge for those who prefer certainty over ambiguity.

That mindset produces reliable outcomes, but it can also create limits. If you’re attracted to a world where the answers already exist within a predetermined framework, you’re less likely to thrive in situations that demand invention, persuasion, or risk.

I’ve always thought the fundamental difference between architects and engineers isn’t about creativity, but about people. Architects live in the messy, human side of design, managing clients, interpreting wants and needs, balancing competing personalities. I’ve always said that’s the hardest part of their job, and it’s something I simply couldn’t do.

Engineers, by contrast, often choose a role that feels more contained. We can retreat into calculations, codes, and models. I can see why that feels comforting, but it can also isolate us from the bigger conversations that shape a project. When we struggle to communicate our ideas, we lose influence. And when we lose influence, we default back to verification instead of creativity.

The public perception of engineers doesn’t help either. The stereotype of the methodical, introverted problem-solver reinforces the idea that our value lies purely in technical ‘sign-off’. Clients and even other members of the design team often don’t expect engineers to be creative, so they don’t invite or value that input. And if creativity isn’t expected of you, it’s rarely developed. Over time, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The irony is that the technical rigour required to be a good engineer can act as a filter. It selects for people who are brilliant at precision and detail, but it quietly filters out those who might think laterally, challenge assumptions, or bring imagination to the table.

The few who can do both, the technically rigorous and the creatively curious, have always been the ones who change things. Brunel, Arup, Otto, Rice. They could calculate, but they could also dream.

Which makes me wonder: could AI change that?

If machines can handle more of the repetitive, technical grind, perhaps engineering could become more accessible to creative thinkers. People who see patterns, make connections, and imagine new possibilities, but don’t necessarily want to spend their lives buried in spreadsheets and safety factors.

Maybe AI will let engineers spend less time proving what we already know, and more time exploring what we don’t.

Maybe it could make space for a new kind of engineer. One who’s as comfortable with ambiguity as with frameworks.