Climbing the ladder ~- _ _ ~ ~

David B. Youst Laurence Lipsett

Changing times have altered the work environment and the traditional

rungs to success.

n the past, an engineer could reasonably hope to advance when the company had open- ings. Willingness to pitch in on

any assignment was a key factor. Loy- alty to the company meant accepting new jobs and geographic transfers with- out question. Those likely to advance paid their dues with round-the-clock shifts, project travel, and other assign- ments requiring sacrifice of personal and family life.

No longer are hard work and loyalty enough to guarantee career advance- ment. Engineers who hope to advance in responsibility and income need to take charge of their careers. They cannot wait for whatever the company may or may not offer.

I

What's causing the change

Increasing global competition has pressured leading American companies to place more emphasis on profitability. Restructuring, downsizing, and layoffs have become familiar, even in Fortune 500 companies such as AT&T, Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Apple Com- puter and Xerox. These organizations are under more pressure to get more "value for the dollar" from their engi- neers. Quicker productivity is required of new hires. Major business decisions are being made on a global rather than a domestic basis. Countries that were closed to outsiders are opening, provid- ing both markets and competing indus- tries. Worldwide communication is in- stantaneous.

Reducing the number of layers in the organizational pyramid decreases the number of promotional positions avail- able, both managerial and technical. In addition, the elimination of many middle management positions and the move- ment toward self-managed work teams forces many technical specialists to assume "supervisory" tasks. The leader- shiD Dositions remaining in flattened

organizations have fewer resoarces, require more stretching to participate in different projects, and have more people reporting to them. The classical organ- izational pyramid has had a section cut out of its middle and its remaining base broadened.

Many corporate giants have divided themselves into independent business units, each having to survive on its own income. Companies are becoming more cautious about hiring "permanent" employees and are using "contract" or temporary workers more frequently. In leaner engineering departments, young engineers often are called upon to coor- dinate the work of contractors hired for the duration of a project. Decision- making responsibility and accountabil- ity are being redistributed to teams that have closer links with customers. Tech- nical success is becoming more closely linked to team accomplishments, lever- aging technical resources, and success of the business unit.

Surviving in global competition requires quicker introduction of new products, faster response to customers, world-class quality standards, and con- tinually decreasing production costs. For an engineer who wants to devise the world's best solutions, the pressure to produce simple answers quickly may require a reorientation. Finding the bal- ance between elaborate and expedient is important to technical success. And, career success often depends on "contri- butions to corporate profits."

Avoiding technical obsolescence has added to the pressures. The prolif- eration of technical information makes it increasingly difficult to attain and maintain expert status in a specialty. Electronic information handling yields great efficiencies, but it also requires time and effort to master and to keep up with new developments. While more time is needed to keep up to date, com- panies have increased pressure to get more work done faster.

Career ladder options One engineer image is that of an

achievement-oriented person who gets absorbed in the detail of solving techni- cal problems and creating new devices. In the past, engineers following that model were valued, but usually paid less than engineers who moved into man- agement. To achieve better balance, some major companies formalized the technical career path option. In research, development, and engineering divisions, titles like Engineering Fellow and Sen- ior Engineering Associate were created to recognize and reward engineers who contributed to corporate profits through inventions, development of new tech- nologies, and professional communica- tions outside the company. Advance- ment on the technical ladder was influ- enced by committees of peers who fre- quently used formal standards and as- sessment systems.

Figure 1 represents several different career tracks traditionally found in manufacturing companies. The first column shows one possibility for ad- vancement up a non-managerial or tech- nical career track. The remaining col- umns depict four different managerial career tracks.

Reality has not matched rhetoric in many companies. According to experts, such as Tom Allen at MIT, the technical ladder has not become the equivalent of the managerial ladder in status or re- wards. There are more people on the managerial ladder and salaries are higher. Attractiveness of the technical ladder has also been limited by the suspicion that some people were placed there to get them out of management positions.

If advancement on the technical ladder was ever possible by just being a very good individual contributor sitting alone at a computer terminal, that is certainly no longer the case. Engineers who now reach the higher levels of the technical ladder must be effective com- municators across divisions, team play-

21 APRIL 1991 0278-6648/91/0004-0021 $01 .OO 0 1991 IEEE

Fig* 1 Traditional Engineering Career Ladders

Technical w 1

Engineering Fellow

Sr. Engineering

Assoc.

Engineering Associate

Project Engineer

Senior Engineer

Engineer

Project Technical management management I c

Sr. Project Manager

or Project Director

Project Manager

Project Coordinator

Project Engineer

Senior Engineer

Engineer

_1 -

v

VP Engineering

Director Engineering

Engineering Manager

Engineering Supervisor

Senior Engineer

Engineer

Production management

A

Vice. Pres. Manufact-

uring

Director Manufact-

uring

Plant Manager

Production Manager

Dept. Head

Section Head

Supervisor

Engineer

_1 -

Business management

NOTES: Since companies vary widely in the ways they are organized, the ladders depicted should be viewed as generic.

Staff jobs are not included. Because of space limitations, the grid represents only the traditional mainstream options which depend on engineering technologies.

I 1

Vice. Pres. Business

Unit

Director Business

Dev.

Product Manager

Technical Marketing Supervisor

Applications Engineer

Engineer

2 -

22 IEEE POTENTIALS

Champion, Sponsor ... shapes organization represents organization influences company

dependent contr

Fig. 2

ers, problem solving facilitators in di- verse settings, project managers, initia- tors of new business efforts, and cata- lysts of change. Many of these skills have been associated only with manage- ment in the past. Now they are becoming fundamental to all forms of corporate leadership and influence. On the one hand, the evolving technical ladder is much wider, reflecting the flattening of organizations. On the other hand, it of- fers more variations. At every rung an individual must create increasingly more value to the company.

The same organizational changes and pressures are also having an impact on managerial advancement. The ability to communicate corporate strategies to employees at all levels through media, such as videotape, is an example of one increasingly important managerial competency. Leading through influ- ence rather than exercise of power is another. Building new businesses around the world is still another. Like advanc- ingon the technical ladder, thepossibili- ties are abundant for talented, focused, and hard working team players.

If either the technical or managerial ladders are too narrowly conceived, some career possibilities may be over- looked. Possible options include techni- cal trainer, purchasing specialist, proj- ect controller, and human resource man- ager for an engineering unit. Compa-

nies, such as IBM, have created cli- mates where moves between line and staff positions are valued. A move in either direction can be accompanied by a salary increase. Although downsizing has reduced the number of these op- tions, they remain excellent career or ro- tational possibilities.

Strategies and skills Technical competence, while criti-

cal to success, is not sufficient to insure advancement. Robert L. Thomas, a Sr. Engineering Associate at Corning In- corporated, stresses the importance of flexibility and of having a broad enough knowledge base to work comfortably across functional specialties. "Team work is definitely increasing in impor- tance for engineers at Corning, espe- cially teams which include production workers, managers, and members from other functions like marketing. Com- municating effectively when deadlines are tight, listening, explaining, getting group consensus, these are the skills that eam respect and lead to increased influ- ence," he states. Engineers need to de- velop both technical and influencing skills concurrently and continuously.

Dalton and Thompson have de- scribed four stages of technical profes- sional development associated with successful growth from "apprentice" to "co-worker" to "mentor" to "technology

champion (Fig. 2)." They have found that many engineers do not advance beyond the second stage, a risky choice as competition heats up.

Building skills that lead to increased respect and influence throughout the in- dustry is central to a professional ap- proach to personal growth management. For instance, in the Dalton and Thompson research, one major differ- ence between stage two and stage three engineers is extent of influence. Stage two employees may work independently but tend to restrict their efforts to the as- signed project. As good followers and team players, they may not be expected to be knowledgeable about other units in the company that might profit from project breakthroughs. They are not expected to be interacting regularly with other groups.

A stage three technical professional, however, is valuable to the company precisely because of success in commu- nicating across the organization. Initiat- ing contacts and cross-functional com- munication effectiveness are two com- petencies required for stage three suc- cess. The organizational changes de- scribed earlier make it clear that compa- nies will need more employees who function at least at the stage three level.

A large portion of the engineering workforce needs to create long-term, satisfying careers without access to middle management and supervisory positions. Ironically, challenging work is a vitally important motivator for most engineers. Recent studies by the Ameri- can Association of Engineering Socie- ties found that large numbers of engi- neers feel severely underutilized and insufficiently challenged. The process of tailoring work assignments to pro- vide challenge and professional growth therefore offers excellent potential. To do this well, engineers need to articulate their own professional growth objec- tives clearly and know how to get com- pany support for reaching them.

Learning Learning projects can be developed

and managed in parallel with the indi- vidual's other work projects. For the professional, there is a clear shift from taking courses to developing competen- cies. An easygoing, intuitive, go-with- the-flow approach to continuous leam- ing is not sufficient. Now, with more to leam and more work to do, working smarter at learning is needed.

When training is focused on the development of individual job-related

APRIL 1991 23

competencies, planned informal leam- ing methods can be combined effec- tively with formal classroom training. Discussions with knowledgeable col- leagues, vendor updates, independent reading, competitive assessment assign- ments, teaching and self-paced training are just a few examples of learning ac- tivities that can be used together to develop a specific competency. This approachalsoismorecost-effective than classroom training alone.

The leaming project method pro- vides specific objectives, leaming meth- ods, resource requirements, outcomes, measures or acceptance criteria, due dates, review dates and change proce- dures. Technical professionals need to balance the normal tension between depth and breadth as leaming goals. Some of both are necessary, but decid- ing how to reach the right balance is not easy. The formality of the learning proj- ect approach provides a vehicle for continuous discussion and adaptation to changing circumstances.

Efforts to organize and communi- cate technical information within com- panies will continue to increase. Sharing in-house expertise will receive more attention as will systems to access in- dustry networks, reference services, and the knowledge of specialized groups of contract professionals. Team approaches to many leaming tasks will be favored. Routine sharing of leaming will become a new professional commitment for engineers and a more valuable "aca- demic" competency.

Keeping yourself on track

Since career paths are more vaned, it is important to keep track of personal and project accomplishments, to describe skills mastered and under development, and to be an entrepreneur in planning new work assignments. Companies will need their knowledge workers even more in the future; but, professionals also need viable, thriving companies to pay their salaries.

Estimating future business and tech- nology needs is an important way to anticipate opportunities for professional growth and for making contributions to the company. You also need to under- stand the technology strategies impor- tant to your company and industry. Inte- grating professional growth targets and emerging business needs goes a long way toward ensuring employability.

Many companies are sponsoring the implementation of career planning sys-

- Key self levaluat ion

questions

Getting focused is one of the most difficult tasks. Without

possibilities might be. However, the process of testing progress experience, it is hard to know what the most promising

against assumptions is continuous. Examples of key - questions follow:

1. How do I want to be known - as an expert, a manager, or what? 2. What comments have others made about my work and abilities? 3. What have I liked about my experiences in education and employment?

Is it solving technical problems, communicating, leading, etc.? 4. What innovations or inventions have I developed? 5. How satisfying have my leadership experiences been?

How effective was I? 6. How strongly will family considerations affect work requirements like long

hours, travel, or relocation? 7. How intensively am I willing to continue learning through my own independ-

ent reading, technical courses, seminars, activities to develop communication and leadership skills, etc.?

- -DBYand L L

tems. Information about actual career moves is becoming more available. Also, more encouragement is being provided for individual adavncement paths within organizations. The technical ladder may not look like it once did. However, it can serve as a useful reference for shaping your unique ladder and your own defini- tion of success.

Read more about it Allen, T. Current Research in

Career and Professional Development for Engineers. Presentation at The Insti- tute of Electrical and Electronic Engi- neers Biennial Careers Conference, St. Petersburg, FL. November, 1989.

Dalton, G.W. and Thompson, P.H. Novations: Strategies for Career Man- agement. Scott Foresman, 1986.

Derr, C.B. Managing the New Careerists. Jossey-Bass, 1986.

Kanter, R.M. When Giants Leam to Dance. Simon and Schuster, 1989.

Peters, T. Thriving on Chaos: A Handbook for Management Revolution. Harper and Row, 1987.

Raelin, J.A. The Clash of Cultures: Managers and Professionals. Harvard Press, 1986.

Toffler, A., Powershift. Harper & Row, 1990.

Wegman, R., Chapman, R. and Johnson, M. Work in the New Econ- omy: Careers and Job Seeking in the 2 1 st Century. Revised 1989.

Weinschel, B. and Jones, R. with Carl Frey and William LeBold. A Study

of Engineering Utilization. American Association of Engineering Societies, funded by the National Science Founda- tion, 1985. Updated by Carl Frey for presentation at the IEEE Biennial Ca- reers Conference at San Diego, CA, 1987.

Wurman, R.S., Information Anxi- ety. Doubleday, 1989.

Youst, D.B. and Lipsett, L. The Technical Ladder is Getting Harder to Climb, IEEE SpectrumSeptember 1990.

About the authors David B. Youst is a training and

career development consultant, and seminar leader for Managing Your Technical Growth, a process for devel- oping leading edge competencies. He is a former Engineering Training Manager for Coming Incorporated where he helped new engineers start their first professional jobs. His Ph.D. is in voca- tional development, M.S.in guidance and counseling, and B.S. in biological sci- ences.

Laurence Lipsett is an Industrial Psychologist based in Rochester, N.Y. He has studied career paths in major businesses and worked extensively in assessment of job candidates for mana- gerial and technical positions. He is a former Professor at SUNY Empire State College and Director of the Counseling Center at Rochester Institute of Tech- nology. His Ed.D. and M.A. are in in- dustrial psychology, and his B.A. is in joumalism.

24 IEEE POTENTIALS