Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Communication Network in a Small Laboratory
13
12 14
7 6
8
222
5 18
174
15 29
33
1630
21 19 25 24
23 34
20 1
11 10
9
35
27
283
31
32
26
36
Figure by MIT OCW.
High Communicators Compared with Colleagues in Readership of Refereed Journals
Laboratory 'A'Laboratory 'G'
Laboratory 'E'Laboratory 'L'Laboratory 'M'
Laboratory 'H'Laboratory 'S'Laboratory 'T'
Laboratory 'U'Laboratory 'V'
0 5 10 15 20Mean Journal Readership
High CommunicatorsAll Other Staff
p < 0.001
p < 0.02
p < 0.01
p < 0.05
p < 0.05
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
N.S.
High Communicators Compared with Colleagues in Terms of Regular Informal Contact Outside of the Organization
Laboratory 'A'
Laboratory 'G'
Laboratory 'E'
Laboratory 'L'
Laboratory 'M'
Laboratory 'H'
Laboratory 'F'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Mean Number of Contacts
High CommunicatorsAll Other Staff
p < 0.05
p < 0.05
p < 0.05
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.01
p < 0.001
Gatekeeper CharacteristicsHigh Technical PerformanceNot 'just communicators’Highest technical performers in the organization.Cannot be created by management.Low in the Organizational HierarchyConcentrated at first level of technical supervision or below.Seldom found at higher levels of management.Seldom found on the technical ladder.VisibilityThey are easy to identify.Everyone knows who they are.ApproachabilityMust be at least receptive to people.
International Gatekeepers
• International Gatekeepers tend to be Engineers or Scientists, who have worked in other countries and returned home.
• Engineers and Scientists visiting from other countries had very high foreign contact, but insufficient domestic contact to be International Gatekeepers.
Lessons From the Study of International Gatekeepers
Transplanting Staff from Home Laboratory into Subsidiary is Unlikely to Produce GatekeepersTechnical Bringing Technical Staff from the Foreign Subsidiary to the Home Laboratory and then Returning Them Can Create International Gatekeepers, Provided that the Appropriate People are Chosen.
Reward Systems
The ‘Dual Ladder’
Reward Systems
The Technical Ladder– Where did it originate?– Does it work?
A Managerial Career
LE
GS
SH
DH
DM
AD
VP
$
$$
$$$
The Dual Ladder
LE
GS
SH
DH
DM
AD
VP
$
$$
$$$
SS
SSS
SDSS
$
$$
$$$
Managerial
Engineer AEngineer BEngineer C
?
Technical
Distribution of Positions in One Firm's Dual Ladder
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Managerial Technical
Prop
ortio
n (P
erce
nt)
The Inherent Problems
Continued Power ImbalanceCultural Biases
Problems Created by Management
Promotion CriteriaPlateaued Managers
The Dual Ladder
LE
GS
SH
DH
DM
AD
VP
$
$$
$$$
SS
SSS
SDSS
$
$$
$$$
Managerial Technical
Engineer AEngineer BEngineer C
LE
GS
SH
DH
DM
AD
VP
$
$$
$$$
SS
SSS
SDSS
$
$$
$$$
Managerial Technical
Engineer AEngineer BEngineer C
Criteria for Technical Ladder Promotion
The Dual Ladder System’s Biggest Problems
LE
GS
SH
DH
DM
AD
VP
$
$$
$$$
SS
SSS
SDSS
$
$$
$$$
Managerial Technical
Engineer AEngineer BEngineer C
Proportion of Engineers & Scientists in Ten Organizations Choosing Each of Three Possible Career Paths
MANAGEMENT 32%
TECHNICAL LADDER 20%
PROJECT ASSIGNMENT 48%
Career Preference as a Function of Age(N = 1,402)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20 30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Prop
ortio
n (P
erce
nt)
Management
TechnicalLadder
InterestingProjects
Career Preferences of Technical Ladder Staff as a Function of Age (N = 351)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
20 30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Prop
ortio
n (P
erce
nt) Management
TechnicalLadder
InterestingProjects
Career Preferences of Managers as a Function of Age(N = 374)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20 30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Prop
ortio
n (P
erce
nt)
Management
TechnicalLadder
InterestingProjects
Effect of Promotion (Nine Year Period) on Perceived Autonomy
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Tech Ladder
Managerial
None
Type
of P
rom
otio
n
Change in Perceived Autonomy
The Gatekeeper as a Link to Outside Technology
X XX
XX
Outside
Experts
Gatekeeper
Literature
