THE DUAL LADDER:
MOTIVATIONAL SOLUTION OR MANAGERIAL DELUSION?
Thomas J. Allen
Ralph Katz
WP1692-85
August, 1985
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the U.S.
Army Office of Research, which supported the research which this
analysis is based, and the management and personnel of the nine
firms that collaborated in the research.
ABSTRACT
The "Dual Ladder" reward system has been used for years by
industry as an incentive system to motivate technical performance.
Its effectiveness has been called into question on many occasions,
The paper will report the results of a survey of nearly 1,500
engineers and scientists in nine U.S. organizations.
In this survey.
engineers were asked to indicate their career preferences in terms of
increasing managerial responsibility, technical ladder advancement or
more interesting technical work.
Responses indicate marked
age-dependent differences in response, particularly a strong increase
in the proportion preferring more interesting project work over
either form of advancement.
-I-
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of so-called "dual ladder" career systems has
long been debated in both industrial and academic circles (Moore and
Davies, 1977; Smith and Szabo, '1977; Sacco and Knopka, 1983).
The
idea was conceived somewhere in the dim past by a research manager or
personnel administrator, who hoped to increase the number of career
opportunities available to high performing technical professionals
and thereby to sustain their motivation.
The original idea held to the implicit assumption that
productive engineers and scientists were being "forced" into
administrative roles in order to attain higher salary levels and
organizational prestige.
to their organizations.
Their technical talents were thereby lost
The assumption that productive scientists
and engineers had to be "forced" into management was shown to be
invalid.
Many studies (Ritti, 1971; Krulee and Nadler, 1960; Bailyn.
1980) have shown that a very high proportion of scientists and
engineers in industry see their career goals in terms of eventual
progress in management.
In fact, a recent survey of MIT freshmen
shows fully 20 percent of those choosing engineering majors citing
management as their ultimate career goal.
-2-
Nevertheless, there remains some proportion of the technical
staff of most organizations who prefer to remain in full contact with
technical problem solving, for whom management has no attraction, and
who could potentially find a technical ladder career rewarding.
The
basic question is, just how large this proportion is.
Companies vary widely in their estimates.
Some restrict
technical ladder entry severely, while others promote a relatively
high proportion of their staff into technical ladder positions.
Companies also vary widely in their enthusiasm over the concept.
A
representative of one company, who requested anonymity, reported to
the authors that when his company was recently considering the
possibility of such a system. he informally polled the management of
13 other companies that already had such a system.
Most reported
varying degrees of satisfaction, but when asked if, given the chance,
they would do it over again, 12 of the 13 replied definitely not. 1
The problems underlying the dual ladder concept are several.
First there is a general cultural value which attaches high prestige
to managerial advancement.
society in general.
Managers are seen as important in our
Vice presidents are accorded high prestige.
Someone working for an industrial organization with the title of
Senior Research Fellow is not accorded the same degree of prestige by
1
Conversations which one of the authors has had recently with
managers of the thirteenth company question its status as an
exception.
-3society at large.
As a result, technical staff begin very early to
think about eventually attaining a management position.
Consequently
when told that they have been selected for promotion to a technical
ladder position,
such a person hears a very different message.
He
hears that the organization does not think that he will make a good
manager.
The technical ladder promotion then becomes a consolation
prize, and very often de-motivates an otherwise productive member of
the staff.
Second, despite many organizations' attempts to equate pay and
perquisites for the two ladders, there is one key ingredient of the
managerial ladder, which is missing from the technical ladder, viz.,
power.
As an individual progresses on the managerial ladder, the
number of employees reporting to that individual generally
increases.
When that manager requests action, those subordinates
generally mobilize to accomplish the action.
This is a strong
external indicator of power, hence also prestige.
As an individual
progresses on the technical ladder, neither the number of
subordinates nor visible power increase.
Hence a technical ladder
position is viewed inside the organization as less important than its
supposedly equivalent management counterpart.
Finally, organizations tend, over time, to diverge from the
initial design and intent of the system.
For the first few years,
the criteria for promotion to the technical ladder may well be
followed rigorously, but they gradually become corrupted.
The
technical ladder often becomes a reward for organizational loyalty
rather than technical contribution.
Equally damaging is the even
-4more prevalent tendency to use the technical ladder as a repository
for failing managers (Smith and Szabo, 1977).
Either of these
practices will destroy whatever reward value there may be in the dual
ladder system.
Given all of this, two key questions develop.
First of all,
what proportion if any of a laboratory's technical staff will find
the technical ladder career an attractive one?
Second, for those
others who will never be promoted to the limited number of managerial
positions, and who are not necessarily inclined toward the technical
ladder, what can be done to reward and continue to motivate them?
To address these questions, technical staff from nine
organizations were asked, along with a number of other questions, to
indicate their career preferences, whether toward management,
technical ladder, or whether they might simply be interested in
project assignments of a challenging and exciting nature irrespective
of promotion (Table I).
RESEARCH METHODS
The data presented in this paper were collected in a study of
engineers and scientists in nine major U.S. organizations.
The
selection of participating organizations could not be made random,
but they were chosen to represent several distinct sectors and
industries.
Two of the organizations are government laboratories,
one in the U.S. Department of Defense the other in the National
- -
TABLE
_
_
I
111_
Format of the Question
_
__
_
-----------------------·I--········
__
To what extent would you like your career to be:
a)
b)
c)
----
a progression up the technical
professionalladder to a
higher-level position?
a progression up the managerial
ladder to a higher-level
position?
the opportunity to engage in those
challenging and exciting research
activities and projects with which
you are most interested, irrespective
of promotion.
_------
--
1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
--
__
Aeronautics and Space Administration; three are not-for-profit firms
doing most of their business with government agencies.
remaining organizations are in private industry:
The four
two in aerospace,
one in the electronics industry and one in the food industry.
In each organization short meetings were scheduled with the
members of the technical staff to explain the general purposes of
the study, to solicit their voluntary cooperation and to distribute
questionnaires to each engineer individually.
In addition to the
usual demographic questions, the questionnaire included a number of
questions about the ways in which each individual viewed his future
career and the ways in which the organization structured its reward
system around career factors.
There are also a number of questions
addressing the way in which engineers view their jobs and the
-6importance that they attach to various features in their jobs.
Thecentral questions around which the present paper is developed are
those shown in Table I.
These questions ask engineers their
preference in terms of progression on either the managerial or
technical ladders or in lieu of these, the opportunity to engage in
challenging and exciting projects irrespective of promotion.
The
third question was included just for what was expected to be those
few engineers who might not be interested in the traditional paths
of organizational progress.
Individuals were asked to complete their questionnaires as
soon as possible.
Stamped, return envelopes were provided so that
completed forms could be mailed to the investigators directly.
These procedures not only ensure voluntary participation, but they
also enhance data quality since respondents must commit their own
time and effort.
The response rate across organizations were
extremely high ranging from 82% to a high of 96%.
A total of 2,157
usable questionnaires were returned.
RESULTS
Respondents varied in age from 21 to 65 with a mean of 43 and
standard deviation of 9.6 years.
Managers and those holding
technical ladder positions are included.
There are 545 managers and
521 engineers in technical ladder positions among the 2,157 who
completed the survey.
-7Respondents were initially classified as being oriented toward
a technical, managerial, or project-centered career if their response
on one of the three scales exceeded the response on the other two by
at least one scale point.
Those who reported equally favoring any
two of the three options were left out of the analysis.
A total of
1,495 respondents indicated a preference for one of the three
Of these, 488 (32.6%)
options.
preferred the managerial ladder over
the two alternative career paths, 323 (21.6%) preferred the technical
ladder and a surprising 684 (45.8%)
reported a preference for having
the, "opportunity to engage in those challenging and exciting
research activities and projects with which (they) are most
interested,
irrespective of promotion."
Such a large proportion of respondents preferring a somewhat
non-traditional form of reward arouses suspicions that the wording in
the question may have made the alternative more attractive than was
intended.
It would seem reasonable that, were this the case, the
induced preference would not be as strongly felt as preferences based
on the more substantial conviction.
Increasing the margin of
preference required in defining orientation does not, however,
decrease the proportion of those preferring interesting projects
(Table I).
I·
_
1
1·1111__·
-8-
TABLE II
I__
---·C---C---
___1___
--- -------
1____1__11___1_____1___·-··---------------------------
---·
I
-I
Sensitivity Analysis of the Scale Margin
Used in Defining Career Orientation
_····---I-·I----·)---·I
---I··1·-----·--I-·--------^··-----·
--
number of respondents preferring:
margin of
preference
(scale points)
managerial
ladder
technical
ladder
interesting
projects
I
458
(32.7%)
302
(21.5%)
642
'(45.8%)
2
290
(35.8%)
128
(15.8%)
393
(48.4%)
3
151
(36.5%)
50
(12.1%)
213
(51.,%)
In fact, the number of engineers reporting the project preference is
not as sensitive to the increased margin of specification as are the
numbers of preferring managerial or technical ladders.
It would
certainly appear from this that the project preference is relatively
strongly held and is unlikely to have resulted to any significant
degree to the wording of the question.
In addition, a more recent study (Epstein, in preparation),
using a less strongly worded third alternative, has produced nearly
identical results.
I-----
-9-
Orientation as a Function of Age
Career preferences, as one might expect, are significantly
related to age (F =
8.25; df = 2, 1,399; p < 0.001). The proportion
of engineers citing a preference for interesting projects increases
almost monotonically with age (Figure 1).
This may be due,
partially, to a realization that advancement opportunities along the
two traditional ladders is diminishing with age.
This can be only
partially true, since such a high proportion of those in their
twenties indicate this preference.
In fact, it is the most preferred
alternative for all engineers, save those from 25 to 30.
43 iC
Qfr.J
6 0
-
.-
PI sPORT
~~~~~~~~~:'-r'
T !- t-.!-,{{i
ch L- (>
*:; ~l, ':j-ci!tw i
J
N
EHti--GI EERS
40:EE
!2-. ' ~. .. ~~~~~~~~~~~
,~ - ~ ~
~~~~~~~~
N~~""·~e
~ ~~~/~~ ~ ~
t
....
i: ::_.
~
'%'.r.
...
.,....
P1).''ff'OC
:P
r_
1
'
·
--- '--r-
..
I-
.
I_
t--
0
LI
2, 5
iI
I
-
32 5
A GE
----
42 5
(
L
52 5
EA i )
FI GIRE 1.
CAREER PREFERENlCEE
OF ENGI HNEUit
NtiNE ORGANIZATIONS
S
FML-ICTION OF AGE (
i402)
!
E"
'l; ,I ilrI { ¢';t
17ItfO~IF~I
· i-~~~~~~~~~~~~
I [--..r!
I
-F
i
'f
-10The technical ladder career attracts the smallest proportion of
engineers in all ages.
The proportion indicating this preference
hovers around 20 percent showing only a mild peak among those in
their thirties.
The proportion preferring a managerial career peaks
in the late twenties and declines steadily thereafter.
Career Preference as a Function of Position
As one might expect. managers report a marked preference for a
managerial career.
There is some diminution with age (Figure 2) with
a concomitant increase in preference for interesting projects.
Only
for a brief period in their late thirties do managers show any
interest in the technical ladder.
Most of the engineers, who are on the technical ladder, prefer
one of the other two alternatives.
The younger ones tend to prefer
management over the technical ladder.
Older technical ladder
engineers indicate a preference for interesting projects.
i
iV,
'.,,
L:I
EiA
:%,
.,
'·
;··"I
·
a..t.: -.,r·sl:;
E
n
.i
. t. i
·i·
···· aF pil
::
rag-;
i-.
- h
::
,3
fi;F
vMH":Ek T
.,-.- P3~~J
"V
· -.-
'~'~
-'-
55
I iI!
,
,Ii',
- , f ,i_ E t
60
c
(I
L
iI.E,; t
a I't. -I
.-
374)
.1.
,/
'--
Jj
.3
.
.
?i .
~--~--.~.-
iltr
i
-T:TECHIN
-
~I~
l
..,
OF A-sGE
T
:
_- . :-
aI ' '::::..
~::-'---'
1 ·*'N E
·
::'
' i
]I
I
i
'i-
AGE
42.5
(YEAiR)
52'5
CA FEER PREFFREN CES OF TECHNI CAL
EtII iGTEERS AfS A FUIICT OrI
(N = 351)
1_1_
t
i
[
i
t~~~~
0
32. 5
" i:
%
·T
F GiiE
3.
IA !>)iER
C
.
i .·I·N
22, 5
:,.I ;
-F
A F((iii
-
.
, -i'm~..:.f
h- _
i:,:.X "T
(tYEA Fsit. )
CAREER PREFEiRENCEI
i
I
PRO-.0 POrT 1O
IA
5
,F
:;ii
RG=E
1__11__
li'Bil'i'iBT
I
POF(1 ORT I ONl
OF
(ICR,-'"
's . ; )
:L
"
"'fii
OF' AGE
Pi'OJE.CLt
iT O
i
N
A. F 1
;r
B t
-12Characteristics of Engineers as a Function of Orientation
Those engineers, citing different career preferences, differ in
a number of other interesting ways as well (Table III).
As expected.
those preferring the technical ladder are more concerned with their
professional reputation. while those preferring management are more
concerned with organizational matters.
They prefer more to work on
projects of importance to the organization and on those they see
having a potential for advancement.
The project oriented engineers are not so concerned with the
extemalities it appears.
They seein much more influenced by the
intrinsic nature of the task.
They prefer technically challenging
projects, having the freedom to be creative and original and working
with competent colleagues.
The three orientation seem to appeal to very different kinds of
people.
Of course, as if individuals shift their orientation over
time, as the data of Figure 1 suggest, then it is certainly possible
that all of these other preferences change as well in order to
preserve a logical system.
The present data being cross-sectional,
cannot determine whether there are actual changes in individual
orientation of engineers preferring management has increased in
recent years with a concomitant decrease in those who are interested
more in engineering work.
If there is a change over time, it would
seem to be a major reorientation of the individual's motivational
-13-
TABLE III
_IL__
II___
___I__
·I-----··-····--·--------II------
__
-----------
II------
__
_
·-----
----------
Importance of Job Characteristics
As a Function of Career Orientation
perceived importance of:
orientation
-------------------------------------managerial
technical
project
p
ladder
being able to pursue
own ideas
5.72
5.70
5.82
NS
building a professional
reputation
5.74
5.82
5.26
0.001
working with competent
colleagues
5.77
5.83
5.94
0.05
working on technically
challenging tasks
6.04
6.29
6.32
0.001
working on organizationally
important projects
5.36
4.74
4.70
0.001
working on projects
leading to advancement
5.94
5.06
4.09
0.001
working on professionally
important projects
4.92
5.11
4.81
0.01
having freedom to be
creative and original
5.78
5.99
6.07
0.001
-14-
base.
It is important to note that positioning of the questions in
the questionnaire.
Those dealing with motivational issues were
intentionally placed several pages ahead of the career orientation
questions.
So the responses to those questions were not prompted by
any thought on the part of the engineer as to career preferences.
Choosing two of the motivational variables, which show a
significant difference across orientations, we see a fairly stable
preference by orientation across different ages (Figures 4 and 5).
Young engineers with a project orientation value the freedom to be
creative and original at least as much as their older colleagues.
Similarly, those with a management orientation prefer to work on
organizationally important projects without regard to age.
Perception of the Reward System
Following the question about career orientation respondents
were asked to indicate the most likely form of reward for high
performance in their job.
They were given the same three
alternatives, management promotion, technical ladder advancement or
interesting project assignments.
A relatively high proportion of the younger engineers see the
technical ladder as the most likely reward.
For those over 30, this
diminishes considerably and interesting project assignments are
seento be the most likely form of reward (Figure 6).
Only about 20
to 25 percent of respondents see a management promotion as the most
likely reward.
This is less sensitive to age than either of the
-1 5-
J
'
'.
,,
-
r
t.-- ....
:i
-£ .*i' t .,
I
i
.. : ... "
:.iI
. .
-..
.
:
--.
*_
'
- t -!
.I
...v.: r'!:
t
S
v w-
!1 ,
/.. ?!:¢t-
...
e
.:
-
s
%
-
'
L w * _;
~~ ~
~
t
~
-. · ··I:·1.---~~~~~~~~~~7~
1L
, ! 'r
;
i
:~
~
~E ne3 s -,;;
_jjIf
.
r--J-'
:
_
_I,.
*,riri---·
:
i,
· i
!
r- :};
e
!._...
_...._._ ..
__! . .-..-..- t.....
.
Ir2
.
.,_.
_ _........ _ .1 _
5
J.YGL!
I iti 4.
P
IPeh2'oT.
2.!.5,
I
r'-':E OF IF- ,Itt'
CI'E2.EAT !!E
FREED.Olt
NID ORIGI I A!i
TO BIE
other two alternatives and doesn't decrease much in likelihood with
age. at least before the age of 50.
Examining the reward value of each form of promotion
separately produces some very interesting results.
The technical
ladder promotion is seen by young people of all three orientations
to be a reward for high performance.
Naturally it is those with a
technical ladder orientation who themselves feel more strongly about
this (Figure 7).
After the age of 40 however, there is, on the
average, general disagreement with the proposition that high
performance will lead to a technical ladder promotion.
This is true
to some degree even for those oriented toward the technical ladder
career.
_-
1
1
-
-
-
'P'
F*
* '; '
1
e
E
II
t'
~1 ~~~4.
;
=~~;
'_ 1
=··
f
_4C. if
.,:
.i
z
r..
c
if
-LL:
,:;
··
i·
:··
·
-1._
'i
···
r·.
i
i'(
I
4
i'
.I
i··
'''
:
.,i
E
.-.......
i
A
j E
i
-=
;r
.
`-.
r..r
=
::
- _
i
1·
·
4t:
'7P',:'i
:1 - .......
_ '-
j
'....'
;:
i[
i
.i-
.......
:-.
t/
it ..
:C.
I
·
'~~'
w
.
'
is
R
,
O~;;:.~t.;:"rL ._
_
_
,;
:
rJij
h
I
·
~~
'-
,s
] [ P .
sE i
J :fs
a _* i.
~~ ~~ i ~ ~ -' ~ii
:.
i
.
~~~7(
W¥""' :
./0
.
_
~
:f:.
."--'T.
I"t_
'©
_
I
I
1L_.
-, _
c.--, r~,r
O-:i ' TI i t
p R j H
: , i TI. -.t'
gIL
,_
1
f/
I
f }i'I
s E: s;:t4 )Ls
X
).
::t. I HTJEi;i-L'
At]rflrr.ms..t
*-
l---i·-----~------t----·--~-----
52.5
32 ,5
AfE
*f Z'
' : FP
--.i-.-tr'
F
-J. 3-.':PPFJ
--E------3-----------I
(YEATRS)
L TII ~ Ni s F r - Ii RDS j
F- i)
(r- A 1U0i)I
tCA6
FOR
3
i: ,i a
;
''il r E
T;
-17As for a management promotion coming as a reward for
performance only the managers really believe this to be true (Figure
8), and even their belief diminishes with time.
At no point,
however, do they disagree with the proposition.
Everyone else,
T
__-
I
0.5
.
P
.
?
..
.4:,-....
"E-
;&r<.>'
i'.
- ._-
"%.-
EGP1. EE OF
Ni GREE3EiT
' d'.
.
-'----
· . _--~
,
.
1.1
_"
' --- i
----
·
.,
.:'-?Ad.
-. . .
1
fail
(3i:;
i
1
.
%-L-;-
'* --1, -~ - --
'.'l . i'0
-'
-,,
-
,
r , ,- ( 1
x f lI 1"-"IT
I :I - i
T. 'I0-t
.0
1-
4
-5
5 2.
5
AG
(E
FIGUHRE 7.
GREE.iEN-T lITH THE
ST;TEhiEENT THAT
T THIGH PERY'ORtHf:CE
LENtDS TO TECuIi i .IiL
LAiDDiER
PRONOTIONF aS
FCTIO OF
CAREER OR Er T IO
I
particularly those engineers with a project orientation, disagrees
that a management promotion would result from high job performance.
Interesting projects are seen as a reward for performance by
those with the project orientation and by young engineers with a
technical ladder orientation (Figure 9).
Ii
-.
41
..
O
-i
-
42.5
!
>K1
*
hA.
'
,
'.-'
.
------i ._
...
:i
i
A.
-.
iii
t~~i~~tl:
X~~~~i~~f
-' i(1 I1I ,' 0II)-;.
Id
____-As
At no point or do those
-18--
with a managerial orientation agree with this possibility.
In general, with the possible exception of the technical
ladder oriented engineers, those with different orientations tend to
4
'r
%
.N
4--A-
-
14
?
-a,--
:I
-L
I
lk
sr-,- -4
t'
-.
M
""
-
iD. r, BdF
f
-
.i
-1
i
.
-
I
-------- r-------'
-
.i
-
~~ ~ ~
,..
-
i---
::+::-
Ma
3O:C
(
i
IS
jI
;t [!''
Ji
JT.-i",
T | , ,-L
.
.1
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
_.
i:
x--!
c.
-1
-! z
i. GE
s1
g *E.
t
iS
FI~SiJ~
-i- 1-F
88,
K1'
l
IT~1E hTT
i, 1 4:S-i T
R FUlHpCTiO4
ITH
3W
I
AGREEHEiT
E TGH
Ex 114T
A; G;R
iM
tiT Ht
HiA G;ERi
Ti!E
H
r
in
E
PF ORiHHHCE
AL PRO,11O i ON
OF CAi EER (RI EITAT ICN
see performance rewarded in the direction favored by their
orientation.
In the case of those inclined toward the technical
ladder this is true while they are young but diminishes considerably
with time.
Of course there is no way of filtering cause from effect
in these observations.
It may be that the perceived reward system
is the basis for the orientation.
On the other hand it may very
well be that the orientation is acquired for other reasons and
through a rationalization process the engineer comes to believe that
I-
I-`---
'-----
. !.
....
-19-
high performance will advance him in the desired direction.
Perceptions as a Function of Position.
Finally, grouping individuals as a function of their actual
position rather than orientation produces some interesting results.
Roughly 30 percent of the engineers already on the technical ladder
indicate a preference for that type of career trajectory.
On a
seven point scale, their degree of preference averages between 5.0
and 5.5 (Figure 10). Only about 10 percent of managers would prefer
a technical ladder career
Only for a brief period in their late
thirties do managers seem attracted by the relative freedom of the
technical ladder, but they recover from that fairly quickly.
1,5
I
.1
::
......
t
'
_
TEEE
F
d
ifiGEtEI1J
tET
i'
t
:
't
-r
'r
· :-TE tHlfit-L
Li!t)!-?
I E IT i iI .
_A
_,,,,,_--
d~;:2
'i
.4..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.
et
-
A
G
.
I
P it
·. :-
..
/
-j.
-
2s2. 5
42
.5
52.5
AG F:
FIIiGRE 9.
iGREEMENT t11TH THE
; a:iiE
I 4T THT lIGIt PERF---R a1iCE
Lgi:
T- IttTERE:STIIIG PROQJECT
ciICI-HEtle aS i~ FIIt4CTiC11 6F
C-REER ORiE4T*ATiION
--
^1''--1----11I--I-------
·
r-'
;,. -:
-
AUJC.--' {ir!::
it i I f r(. ,t i
"" _, i:
"~~·I~1At
~-~.,~.i~A;["7: 1f
'1
Of
-20-
-
I._
I
i
-
'
,
I
C4
!
"I
,:
-
Wa
W
hi!
I
W I
l
! -*
n
=: =-ii
:
Q~c
i ._
'I-'l
_
I,
aC
#
fA,
ur
·I
9
=7
1-1
! -,-.iasi
fll"
;4
I~~~~~G ···V
i-
I
r..a
'a
1
i~~~~~~~~~~~.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~
i
-r
a-.2taL
_____I
I_
II________
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
-~~
.arca.
*a
L·
-21When it comes to preference for a managerial career, managers
are uneqivocal
(Figure 11).
They rate it higher than anyone.
Interestingly. technical staff rate the managerial career higher
than do other engineers, particularly as they become older.
F
4
I,_
/1se
i
DESIRABILITY
OF
MANAGEMENT
.
L
r
-
i:e
_
-L:::::~'
]
4.5
~·-
-
:[ ! " .-
:
~:
.[
'I
sO t
th
iu i~
;id
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
/
,3
u~1~
*
*.
/
j
'
._
_ .
'45-' .5
iE
TIi-E R
0
.
F'
4!
ie
ii..
r
.,-' -·
-. -
-
_
-
1
-J
:
PHFE-EitE;E
PGi
FOR t ilii.Lr'
riL
C :
...
iiflC-'si
Lott
O
OF JOB CL',AS TFiCTltO:
i
Interesting project assignments increase in desirability for
all engineers, managers included as they age (Figure 12).
Although
younger managers do not seem to place a very high value on the
nature of the work, that they are asked to do, they eventually come
to feel almost as strongly about this as do their subordinates.
II
i
-22-
t
j
,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~_
!n&
ir
-,
3i:i.
::2 '~~....r_
_r
._
I's s.._.rt~~~.d
,Sf I : - TT_i
.lI,
'_
.|
-o
-i
=.
:..r.,.~
./,
,r
.__,
"'--.
............
,a ^./t
_
-i::
>-a
___ t_ _ _ _Or._
'Ir
· :- ECi
4
Ni,
r
4- M lqf-I
7,
T
14
_._.-
5
- - -
1.-
-32.. 5
.2.
FIGURE
A
P JEFEr
.FUII'-I-
__
_
__;
-,-c4.
-
·____
-2__
_
Rt-OI
__
1)
I-: E AIM,
_GJi4
tiCE I HTER;EST I i;
N
PRJECTS
AS
O.F JOB C.LASSIFICATION
CONCLUSIONS
It is very clear from the data that, while young engineers
generally seek managerial advancement, a substantial proportion
report a preference for what has come to be known as "technical
ladder" advancement in the organization.
Both of these more
career-oriented motivations decline with age and are replaced with a
desire for more interesting work content, without regard to
organizational.
An open question remains over the degree to which this results
from rationalization by those who have given up on the possibility
---`-'1-"111._1^11111_11_1_1
E.R
I
55
Cz:n2
C
1111..
---
1-___________--
's
;. ?
-23of promotion or whether it is a real change of attitude with age.
The latter could be the result of an increased awareness of the
costs (increased travel,
longer hours, administrative burden, etc.)
that are often associated with organizational advancement.
The existence of a substantial proportion of young engineers,
who indicate the "interesting project" preference and the fact that
engineers with this orientation differ significantly on several
other parameters, indicates that there is some underlying substance
distinguishing this group.
Managerially-oriented engineers differ
from those with a technical orientation, and project-oriented
engineers differ significantly from both of them.
The increasing concern for work is very important and largely
Work assignments for
neglected in the case of older engineers.
older engineers are often made with the implicit assumption of the
inevitability of technical obsolescence.
That inevitability has
been seriously challenged in recent years (Cf. Cole, 1979; Kaufman,
1975).
Furthermore such an assumption leads to work assignments
that are inherently less challenging and thereby create a
self-fulfilling prophecy, guaranteeing obsolescence.
Recent
research (Felsher, et. al., 1985) shows that instead of age being
the cause of obsolescence, that the failure of management to provide
challenging work and to emphasize the need for technical currency is
the more likely cause.
If older engineers seek more challenging
work and seldom find it, can there be any wonder over why they often
allow themselves to sink into obsolescence?
_______1_·_11___1___111_1_----
-24The present research results reinforce the formula for career
growth proposed by Katz (1982).- Older engineers can be challenged
by modifying job assignments and thereby forcing the acquisition of
new knowledge.
That. they seek this type of challenge is quite
evident in the data.
-25REFERENCES
Bailyn, L. (1980) Living with Technology:
Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Issues at Mid Career,
Cole, S. (1979) Age and scientific performance. American Journal of
Sociology, 8, 958-977.
Epstein, K.A.
(In preparation) Performance of the Dual Ladder in
industry, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management.
Felsher, S. M., T. J. Allen and R. Katz (1985) Technical
Obsolescence: Inevitability or Management Direction?, M.I.T. Sloan
School of Management Working Paper, No. 1640-85.
Katz, R. (1982) Managing careers: The influence of job and group
longevities. in Katz Career Issues in Human Resource Management,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Kaufman, H. (1975) Career Management: A Guide to Combatting_
Obsolescence, New York: IEEE Press.
Krulee, G.K. and E.B. Nadler (1980) Studies of education for
science and engineering:
Student values and curriculum choice. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 7, 146-518.
McKinnon, P. (1980) Career Orientations of R&D Engineers in a Large
Aerospace Laboratory. M.I.T. Sloan School of Management Working
Paper 1097-80.
Moore, D.C. and D.S. Davies (1977) The dual ladder - establishing
and operating it, Research Management, 20, 14-19.
Ritti, R.R.
(1971) The Engineer in the Industrial Corporation, New
York: Columbia University Press.
Sacco, G.J. and W.N. Knopka (1983) Restructuring the dual ladder
at Goodyear, Research Management, 26, 36-41.
Smith, J.J. and T.T. Szabo (1977) The dual ladder - Importance of
flexibility, job content and individual temperment, Research
Management, 20, 20-23.