Managing Human Resources: Technical Professionals Are Not Only A R&D Organization's Greatest Asset, But Its Most

Expensive Investment As Well
By Badawy, Michael K. Publication: Research-Technology Management Date: Sunday, July 1 2007

The ideas, talents and skills of scientists, engineers and other technical professionals are an R&D laboratory's greatest asset. In organizations whose most valued product is essentially ideas, the importance of effective utilization of human resources cannot be overemphasized. This article provides an overview of managing human resources in R&D during the last 50 years. My objective is not to provide an exhaustive review but, rather, to highlight the issues and develop a representative framework. Building an effective system for managing human resources can be viewed as consisting of four distinct, yet, interrelated components or subsystems: * An effective human resource planning system. * An effective reward system. * An effective performance appraisal system. * An effective career management system. Each of these elements will be discussed in terms of what we know about the particular area, major research findings, and most important lessons. HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING Effective human resource planning is the key to achieving innovation in technical organizations. This includes analyzing and determining staffing needs, recruiting, selecting, and hiring qualified people to do good R&D. Effective Staffing Practices There are six different stages of a technical innovation project: pre-project, project possibilities, project initiation, project execution, project outcome evaluation, and project transfer (1). Research shows, further, that five different work roles are critical to the innovation process (1,2). These are: * Idea Generating: Coming up with ideas for a new or improved product, process, or service, a new technical procedure, or a solution to a challenging technical problem (3). * Entrepreneuring or Championing: Recognizing, proposing, or pushing a new technical idea, approach, or procedure to formal management approval (4). * Project Leading: Providing leadership and motivation necessary for mobilizing scarce resources to undertake a technical program or a project (5). * Gatekeeping: Collecting and disseminating information on latest developments inside and outside the organization as they relate to science and technology, marketing, or manufacturing (6). * Sponsoring or Coaching." Providing guidance and support to less experienced personnel in their critical roles. Four observations need to be made here: 1) These critical functions call for different personal characteristics, knowledge, and skill competencies. An appropriate mix, therefore, must be maintained in staffing and building a "talent bank" of scientists and engineers; 2) The five critical roles identified above need, quite frequently, to be fulfilled by more than one person on a project team in order for the project to be successful (1); 3) Some individuals occasionally fulfill more than one critical function; 4) The role a

scientist or engineer plays changes over his or her career with an organization. 4) The role a scientist or engineer plays changes over his or her career with an organization. Effective staffing in technical organizations thus requires identifying different staffing categories and determining the proper mix required in each. Creative Engineers and Scientists.--At one level, a clear distinction should be drawn between creative and less creative people (7). The breadth of the continuum in creative ability appears to cover several orders of magnitude. In practical terms, it is reasonable to designate as "creative" that upper percentile of the continuum from which will come most of the creative ideas developed in the organization (8). The remainder of the technical staff can be designated as "assistants." Note that both groups are equally necessary for an R&D organization; the former is simply more creative than the latter. As shown in the diagram below, the distinction between "initiators" and "problem solvers" is significant for staffing purposes (8). The initiators are the individuals who, in Norman Hilberry's words, "have that additional mental ability that enables them to recognize previously unrealized problems and to evaluate their importance.... It is one thing to have an idea about some specific problem; it is quite another to have an idea about what it is that is worth having ideas about" (9). In contrast, the problem solvers must be shown the significant problems. It follows, therefore, that initiators are the leaders--the individuals whose judgment the technical organization wants in charting its future course. The problem solvers, though perhaps equally ingenious once into the problem, must be directed. There are two types of initiators: "discoverers" and "inventors." Discoverers see a phenomenon or a problem in terms of the question "Why?" They are basically interested in understanding a phenomenon rather than in trying to use that phenomenon to some advantage. Inventors, on the other hand, are concerned more with the question of "how" things work, and how they can be made to work better. It follows from this analysis that scientists and engineers can, for staffing purposes, be placed in six categories: more assistants than creative people; more problem solvers than initiators; and more inventors than discoverers. This last group is rare indeed! (7, 8). The key point of this discussion is that some technical specialists will be primary to the needs of the organization, and others peripheral. Unfortunately, many technical organizations do not differentiate between the six staff categories and, thus, end up hiring the wrong people. Product Champion.--Evidence suggests there is a high degree of difficulty in matching the definition of champions found in the literature with practical realities (10). In general, the product champion portrayed by previous research is not particularly congruent with reality. Thus, a meeting of R&D directors at the University of North Carolina, was not able to reach consensus about the existence of, characteristics of, or management role of an "executive champion" as suggested by Roberts (11) and Maidique (12). Product champions appear to have several personal traits including (13): technical competence; knowledge about the company; knowledge about the market; drive and aggressiveness; political astuteness. While participants in the North Carolina conference generally accepted this list as a good summary of traits generally associated with product champions, they differed from the literature in tying the emergence of championing activities more to imperfections in organization and management than to the inherent predispositions of individuals.

there is evidence that the attributes of a successful product champion closely match the description of the effective general manager developed by Kotter (15). Entrepreneurs. * A number of product champions have failed badly after an initial success. In a perfect organization. but tenaciously. In addition to the absence of distinguishing characteristics at this age.--Entrepreneurs are basically out for themselves. Successful champions are seen as both insightful and diplomatic. one does not know which is which until it is all over. so as to reduce the perceptions of others that what they are doing is in any way unusual or risky. reward systems. Hence. imperfect knowledge of the market. Absence of these six conditions was strongly correlated with project failure. and they will not be deterred by the logic of corporate planners or the edicts of their own management. if necessary. it remains outside the process of management. * Organizational location of the entrepreneur's project. and a general management tendency to favor the status quo. * Informal influence of the entrepreneur. difficulties in moving projects from laboratories to the operating divisions. * In order for the championing to be effective. failure was much more expensive than it might otherwise have been. The really top-notch entrepreneurs will probably leave the company in which they reside and start their own businesses. the project manager's role is a formal one. .e. The entrepreneur or product champion is an aggressive advocate. outside normal channels. Six conditions were found to be correlated with entrepreneurship and the success of new product development efforts (16): * Early identification of potential entrepreneurs. Those not comfortable in doing so may serve the host corporation very well if their ideas are good. * Product champions don't necessarily make good project managers. and skilled at organizational politics. providing visibility. * Discretionary power given to the entrepreneur. etc. Effective champions actually reduce the risks they face by acting on probabilities and presenting their arguments incrementally. management must create an environment that supports championing (i. While the product champion's role is informal. This person is persistent and will take every opportunity to advance his idea. reducing risk of failure.) * Championing should in no way be considered a formal role. Unfortunately. * It is futile to attempt to identify product champions in the recruiting process. but not to the champion. Research tells us (14): * Product champions are not made--they are born out of existing corporate situations.. They should. work together and complement each other.It is interesting to note that these imperfections include irrationalities in project selection processes and articulation of R&D objectives. They can also spend a lot of the company's money chasing a failure. there would be no need for champions! Champions act in ways that might be considered irrational to others. therefore. * The entrepreneur's formal license. * Sponsorship provided for the entrepreneur. uncertainties as to what top management actually wants. going. The primary theme stressed by conference participants was that product champions usually arise around the imperfections in the organization in which they work. The entrepreneur's interests go beyond the technical work into the marketing and business-related aspects. They are driven by a faith in themselves and their idea.

Intrapreneurs.g. One is the "information gatekeeper"--the individual whose contacts are mainly with the technical professional and whose sources are technical journals and colleagues. There is no success without risk. a recent phenomenon." (18). the real payoff is the feeling of success--"I did it. 3M and Texas Instruments (20). The other is the "technical marketeer" whose contacts are mainly with consumers. they are often poor at carrying them out because of a morass of analysis. development groups and research groups must be managed very differently. an organization needs at least one gatekeeper in each of its primary disciplines. The new style involves a radical departure from corporate policies based on control from the top. and who thereby acquires a feel for what innovations will and will not be successful and for what the marketplace currently seeks. Gatekeepers. tight travel budgets).--Both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs are pushed primarily by the desire to accomplish something (17). * There is a negative correlation between technical performance and communication with the outside world for development teams that lack gatekeepers or means of access. Among their preliminary findings (22): * Engineering development groups that are managed by gatekeepers or that have regular access to them are perceived by upper-level management as performing better than groups that don't. Intrapreneurial arrangements have been adopted by a large number of companies. Data General. layers of reporting and analysis. These include: * In terms of gatekeeping. and management should remove any barriers to this (e. The role of project teams and the impact of gatekeepers in several electronics and chemical organizations have been explored by Allen. teams that do have access to a gatekeeper show a strong positive correlation between the extent of external communications and technical performance. including AT&T. Ethyl. * Gatekeepers play a vital role. while members of research groups ought to be their own gatekeepers. gatekeepers perform a necessary and important function. and an intolerance of failure. As integrators of information who serve as a "bridge" between the organization and the outside. General Electric. It is just the opposite with applied research groups." While large companies are good at coming up with sound ideas. But for intrapreneurs. not only by communicating themselves but by helping others communicate more effectively. intrapreneurship seems to work best in companies like 3M that have a long tradition of encouraging employees to be independent and innovative. As a result. suppliers and the literature. Katz and Tushman. IBM. . nonetheless. presumably. was the basis for 3M's motto: "Be sure to generate a reasonable number of mistakes. and it worked. have a number of implications for management.. * Young engineers should work for or in close proximity to gatekeepers. Although Peter Drucker has called "intrapreneurship" a new name for an old idea (19). Failure should be regarded as a learning experience and firms must permit it. according to the researchers. the relatively wide adoption of this concept by large corporations is. Hewlett-Packard. Frohman identifies two types (21). Du Pont. On the other hand. Taking no risk is the surest way to fail. Ideally. The former needs a person who fills this role. The study findings. This. approvals and politics.

his best performers (26). or whether the candidate might be better suited to solo work. The challenge for technical management is to create the conditions conducive to meeting the corporate goals of productivity and profitability as well as the technical professionals' needs for satisfaction and motivation. hiring. What one is looking for is not an idealized personality. not realizing that a pushbutton approach runs the risk of losing the respect of. This will also give an early indication of whether the individual has potential to become a manager later in his career. and alienating. Clearly. * Interviews are "not very good" at differentiating between people who merely do good research and those who do exceptional work. to be effective. Both groups are needed. . Management increasingly needs to manage and organize its research personnel as members of a team. but rather a fit with people who are already on board. are ill-suited to the condition of corporate scientists. the R&D organization. nor would it succeed if all were 20 years away from their alma mater. placing. Several caveats for technical interviews are summarized in Table 1 (24). The organization would not succeed if all the staff were within a few years of graduation. The complexity of this task is compounded by the fact that different organizations with different tasks. and/or transferring its scientists on a one-to-one basis. Gatekeeping works because it is nurtured. but few of them are. he can actually decrease the team's productivity.28). one individual who does not fit in can be worse than a non-performer. The typical manager confuses motivation with manipulation. the problem is applying them in a practical manner consistently and useful to corporate management for improving technical performance and productivity (27. The R&D organization also needs a mix in the dimensions of staff experience. One should interview for personality traits as well as pure knowledge and experience (25). Because research and engineering are often performed in teams. If you try to dictate the gatekeeper phenomenon by appointing people rather than letting them move into the role gradually (and also move out of it as they rise in the organization). needs a mix of staff with a variety of skills and backgrounds. training. There is evidence suggesting that (23): * Interviews are "fairly useful" for helping to decide whether or not there is a good match between the applicant and the culture into which the company is considering inserting him or her. selecting. management must consider them as members of integrated work teams and handle them as such. Many sound motivational concepts and principles exist. then you're likely to stifle rather than encourage gatekeeping. EFFECTIVE REWARD SYSTEMS Most technical managers believe they are good motivators. and hiring practices in particular. * Interviews are "fairly good" at helping the company to decide whether or not the applicant would be an effective team player. The literature also suggests that conventional personnel practices in general.* Management should be careful not to overmanage the function. different competitive environments and different staff needs require different approaches to motivation. Instead of recruiting. Selecting and Hiring Research and experience show that employment interviews have pros and cons as a tool in the selection of R&D personnel. if recruiting is for a project-type activity.

In order to motivate technical professionals. These include IBM. The "skunk works. is another example of an effective system for managing and rewarding scientists and engineers (31). Behavioral research shows that three basic questions are central to effective motivation: Their answers help an individual define the relationship between effort. or between performance and eventual rewards. Furthermore. or if the type and magnitude of rewards are not particularly valued. and self-development and growth. Needs initiate and guide the individual's actions until the goals that generated them are reached. following the principles in Table 2. "What's the use?" To the extent that individual needs can be identified or personally-meaningful goals articulated. Peters and Waterman. for other important technical accomplishments as well. was developed by teams of R&D specialists at 3M and NASA (32). Several other examples of effective reward and recognition systems have been reported (33. HewlettPackard." created by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson at Lockheed in 1943. will it make a difference in my performance? Can I influence my level of performance through my level of effort? * Am I rewarded for what I produce? If I increase my level of performance will I receive an increase in rewards or personal consequences. Those perceptions simply define their expectations. Superior technology. managers must either act to create the feelings of need within the individuals involved or offer means for satisfying already existing needs. open communication.34). 3M. Procter & Gamble. They all point to the importance of building an organizational climate that reinforces recognition. They are presented not only for inventions but. the technical manager has clues as to the types of rewards and consequences that are important to that person. The award plans are independent of pay and other compensation. is designed to recognize individual achievements (30). These factors are critical for enhancing motivation and productivity of R&D personnel. IBM's awards program. the "right" team of people. which helped Stars & Stripes slice through the water off the coast of Australia. and vice versa? Scientists and engineers (like others) manage personal motivations depending on their perceptions of the relationship between effort. Success Models The literature provides a number of models of successful companies with positive organizational climates. .Keys To Motivation Needs are the keys to motivation. and a good reward system reinforcing excellence and individual achievements were all key factors in winning the 1987 America's Cup. individual rewards. Effective motivational systems can then be developed. for example. recognition and reward systems for technical professionals. and Eastman Kodak (29). performance and rewards: * What's in it for me? How important to me are the available rewards or personal consequences of working at this job for this organization? * If I try harder. a creative climate. If the technical professional believes there is little relationship between effort and performance. performance and rewards. at which time the tensions created by those needs are dissipated. means for satisfying already existing needs. cite several companies with excellent systems for managing technical resources. for example. Awards are intended as responses to singular achievements above and beyond the expected levels of performance. he may decide.

about productivity with knowledge work. job performances. The former are characterized by an appreciation of individual differences. and organizational rewards. On the other hand. if existing. Peter Drucker eloquently asserted: We know that the organization is rapidly shifting from one of manual workers to knowledge workers. Management's failure to reward technical professionals differently than non-professionals may be responsible for the higher rate of turnover among the former than the latter group at comparable organizational levels (37). reward systems based on employees' varying needs. and pay grade. discovering new data or technologies. as expensive and scarce resources. * Lack of managerial delegation to "protect" subordinates against failure or error. and prestige. salary. "motivation" by fear. and that the technical environment is characterized by unknowns and uncertainties which militate against close control (38). and close links among motivational effort. These rewards include security. such as job classification. * High degree of uncertainty and ambiguity which reinforces insecurity. How to Inhibit Motivation . focus primarily on ratings and judgments rather than goal setting and planning. The net result is that engineers and scientists. * Overly paternalistic managers. * Misdirected management policies and procedures. are often badly mismanaged. characteristics of manipulative work environments include the following (40): * Disregard of individual differences. and achieving high quantity and quality) are the crux of motivation. seniority. Although internal rewards (including perfection of skills. And despite all the research done in the last 50 years. and measuring it. Motivation vs. But we know pitifully little about managing knowledge workers" and knowledge work. including "across the board" salary increases with no meaningful relationship between performance and rewards. * Formal compensation systems often based on factors other than performance. they are either ignored or deemphasized. * Performance appraisal systems. Manipulation There are striking differences between motivational and manipulative work environments. integrating it. They point to mounting dissatisfaction and alienation among scientists and engineers in industry (36).Dissatisfaction and Demotivation In his keynote address to the Academy of Management in 1986. problem solving. compensation. that scientists and engineers are professionals who demand special treatment. we really so far know very much about how to quench motivation and very little about how to kindle it (35). * Low trust and confidence in employees and ill-defined performance expectations. * Overemphasis on external rewards for work performed. A third reason for technical professionals' dissatisfaction relates to the improper utilization of their talents and skills. Research shows that as much as 30 to 60 percent of a professional's time is spent on work within the reach of a high school graduate (39). and about organizing knowledge work. They also focus more on personal traits than accomplishments. Another reason relates to the failure of some managements to recognize that R&D and engineering are inherently creative and cannot be managed like other labor. Research findings reinforce Drucker's points. * Motivational gimmicks imposed upon individuals which deter growth and achievement.

45). has an organizational career orientation that manifests itself in a lesser commitment to the profession but a greater concern for the goals and approval of the organization.. Because R&D tasks are integrative. underutilized and misutilized (43). Through work designs containing strong elements of challenge. contributing to knowledge. At worst. R&D activities are generally less structured. 2. they are manipulative. The following highlights are representative of the diverse literature in this field: 1. Research shows that those problems can be attributed to several factors including: worst. but not market orientation. . imagination. While other corporate functions are fairly well defined. on the other hand. complex and creative. * Inadequate motivational systems for older engineers. and with creativity required for their effective performance (44). some contain a large number of "built-in" demotivators--at best. they are better handled through informal decentralized structures. needs and career objectives between the two groups (41). e. These include the often unique and general criteria for promotion and professional advancement. ingenuity. and the traditional guidelines often used in measuring creativity and R&D productivity (42).27). they are manipulative. As a result of these differences in task characteristics. There seems to be a built-in bias toward youth in some R&D organizations. with a high degree of uncertainty of outcome.g. professional achievement. there are important differences in work orientation. Research shows that those problems can be attributed to several factors including: * Communication gaps between technical professionals and managers resulting from differences in values.While many R&D organizations provide positive and well-designed motivational climates. * Often have a strong product (or discipline) orientation. R&D scientists tend to be different from other corporate personnel. * Failure to develop task-related motivational systems. Although engineers and scientists are professionals with extensive intellectual training and a high degree of specialization. An Effective Reward System Considerable research has been done on characteristics of effective motivation and reward systems in technical organizations. there is a strong indication that scientists and engineers in general are underemployed. These differences include: * Very long time horizons. and enhancing his professional reputation in his field. Yet. attitudes. * Inadequate reward systems have produced negative motivational effects. Giving challenging assignments exclusively to younger people creates obsolescence by depriving senior people of chances to learn. While most scientists are committed to the creation of new knowledge. change and grow. most engineers are committed to the application of current knowledge. Effective motivational systems are based on the following premises: * There is no magic laundry list of motivators. The typical engineer. goals. the dual ladder system where rewards for managerial careers are often more attractive than the rewards for technical careers (43. the typical scientist has a primary professional orientation characterized by a basic interest in advancing science. * Tend to identify more with their professional peers than with their company. * Primary thrust is toward invention rather than sales. and career orientations (41. * Inappropriate managerial practices reflecting inadequate understanding of scientists and engineers' expectations as professionals. and flexibility. R&D managers can create significant opportunities with tremendous motivational potential for their subordinates. 3. In addition.

Only people can motivate themselves. * You can't motivate engineers and scientists unless you open opportunities for advancement. Establishing a creative climate for R&D professionals is a . 2. Research by Michael-Roth (51). Instead. Allen and Katz have found that many technical people are not interested in being promoted to either a technical or a managerial ladder (49). 4. Only people can motivate themselves. public recognition and accomplishment. * There are important differences in motivational style between engineers and scientists. Motivation Strategies Although motivation ultimately comes from within. 1. Effective reward systems for engineers and scientists consist of several elements including: * A dual ladder system. * Professional awards program. they far prefer the opportunity to engage in challenging and exciting research activities and projects. This finding is supported by another study reporting that management's failure to provide challenging work and to emphasize the need for staying current technically is more likely to cause obsolescence than is age (50).* Motivation is a state of mind. and equipment and facilities. and Badawy (52) suggests that the dual-career reward system. Keep in mind. It is not something you do to people. that effectiveness of incentives will depend on several factors. * Mentoring. The type of technical work technologies perform is clearly a very important incentive. * Creative climate. including the job context.--Two classes of incentives are shown in Table 3 (46). define meaningful job opportunities on different rungs or levels. Build Climates Conductive to Creativity--There is strong evidence that creativity has often been mismanaged in R&D organizations (54). * Not all professionals can be motivated. in order to work effectively. Furthermore. the researcher's career stage and abilities. 3. * Treating talented R&D personnel as human beings and professionals. however. and how the program is administered and communicated (47). there are some items of recognition and reward for technically talented people where parity with the competition will suffice (48). In fact. Make the Dual Ladder Work. must: have equally attractive reward systems. Attracting and retaining the best technical talent requires two other factors (48): * Maintaining an honest R&D environment that is supportive and also free and open to new ideas. * Career action planning system/career development efforts. research suggests a number of steps managers can take to motivate technical professionals. Tailor Incentives for Researchers. * Organizations cannot motivate people. and create an organizational culture that supports and reinforces the feasibility and viability of both managerial and technical ladders as legitimate career paths (53). These items are salary and benefits. * Effective communications. The criteria necessary for the dual ladder system to operate effectively are sometimes seriously violated (44). type of incentive used.--The dual ladder is a system by which two paths (the administrative and the technical or professional paths) are created for promotion and advancement.

inadequate and unreliable. and performance tests. ranking. * How performance will be evaluated. * Who shall be the evaluator(s). An effective system for performance appraisal addresses four major considerations (44). or the employee himself. paired comparison.cornerstone in designing effective recognition and reward systems. and significant time lags (5-10 years sometimes) occur between research initiation and profitable results (58). Measuring Performance is Difficult Technical professionals generally believe that R&D cannot be controlled in the traditional managerial sense. * Who shall be evaluated. APPRAISING PERFORMANCE Appraising subordinates' performance is one of a technical manager's most important and difficult tasks. measure and evaluate R&D performance properly. cash flow. The problems facing technical managers in measuring the productivity of R&D and other technical personnel include (44): * Difficulty in establishing goals in R&D. inconclusive regarding their validity and reliability (56. however. * Difficulty in establishing standards of performance because of the creative nature of the activity and the fact that it usually lacks precedent. flexibility and autonomy. and to identify areas for future performance development and growth (developmental purposes). research shows that performance appraisals are. * Hire individuals with demonstrated creative potential. weighted checklists. * What shall be evaluated (the criterion problem). Research on these techniques has been extensive and. * Establish a creative work climate with reasonable freedom. Traditional standard measures of performance (such as profit to sales.57). * Labor-intensive character of R&D. rating committees. multiple measures must be used. it can only be monitored. Evaluation techniques include graphic rating scales. Furthermore. The research available suggests three major elements necessary for effective management of creative people (7). for the most part. measured and evaluated (44). resulting in "market value" appraisals of technical professionals (55). As single measures of an R&D employee's performance are not effective criteria. The evaluators include the employee's immediate supervisor. subordinates. or return on investment) are inappropriate in the case of R&D because R&D is only part of a company's overall innovation system. peers. forced distribution. yet. What shall be evaluated and the criteria for evaluation will actually depend on the purpose of the evaluation. arbitrary. Research on performance appraisal shows: . An effective performance appraisal has two primary objectives: to generate information on which to base salary adjustment and promotability decisions (evaluative purposes). * Hire leaders who encourage creativity. they believe that only other technical professionals can monitor.

therefore. The instruments used to obtain performance scores range from gross overall performance ratings to rather complex indicators of the quantity of written output and the quality and creativity of the scientist's output. there is wide variability in the measuring methods. not criticism. unclear job definitions. a scientist's written output. This means subordinates should participate in the process. In measuring the individual's scientific performance. Single criteria are. and recency (the last few months of performance exercise undue influence) as possible sources of bias in evaluating subordinates. that is. the invention of new methods of doing things. creativity of output. value judgments and subjectivity will play a dominant role. which makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies when written output is the dependent variable. Even in what seems to be the most straightforward aspect of scientific performance. however. Also. * Salary and promotion should be considered during interviews designed to improve performance. it has been demonstrated that most people have unrealistically favorable perceptions of their own performance (60) and that a person's perception of his or her own productivity may vary considerably from more objective measures (61). * Mutual goal setting. There has been little agreement on operational definitions of scientific performance. that measuring the performance of engineers is somewhat easier and more feasible than measuring the performance of scientists. * Criticism has a negative effect on performance. It would seem. This is partly because of the nature and diversity of what professionals do. * Managers should watch for projection as a source of appraisal bias. and partly for the lack of appropriate measuring devices. * Performance improves when specific goals are established. * Superiors should watch for personal relations. There is little consistency with respect to what is included or left out of this measure. Research has clearly revealed--as mentioned above--that scientific output is multidimensional and cannot be satisfactorily measured by any one criterion alone. * No matter how carefully appraisals are done. Measuring the performance of professionals has been a major challenge to management students and practitioners (44). There is very little agreement as to what constitutes scientific output or what measures should be used to reflect the output. Measuring the quality and creativity of output has raised numerous methodological problems relating to the criteria to be used in evaluation. the tendency to recommend routinely the same course of action to all employees without much discrimination. let alone on what components to include or who should measure it (59). the research available utilizes one or more of the following measures: overall performance. * A major fault in conducting appraisals is the manager's failure to separate performance appraisals and salary actions in time.* It is difficult for the boss to be both a judge (evaluator) and a counselor (coach). quality of output. however. * Praise has little effect one way or the other. which has been based upon such indices as quality and quantity of publications and estimates of potential value of discoveries to the organization. quantity of written output. misleading. It has also been shown that performance scores can be distorted in either higher or lower directions by manipulating a researcher's behavior (62). Scientific output consists mostly of the discovery of new facts. and the combining of known concepts to create new devices (60). Variance is a strong factor--there are those who appraise more leniently or tougher than others. improves performance. .

recent reports. Each stage differs from the others in the tasks that must be performed. there is serious question as to just how valid these measures are (66. Since many younger scientists and engineers are eager to undertake their own projects. And for this function to be handled effectively. gatekeeper. . and contract-monitoring load (44). and the psychological adjustments to be made. project completions. Two additional observations should be made: First. it is the individual's responsibility to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for managing his most important investment--his career. likableness as a member of the research team. 67). Dalton and Thompson identified four distinct stages that successful professional employees pass through (68). originality of written work. recruiter. and whether the researcher was productive in implementing his programs. project approvals. he is probably assigned to a project directed by a senior professional or a supervisor. helping and learning from one or more superiors (69). current organizational status. etc. presentations. but his life as well. At this stage. 64. support and development programs needed for effective career planning. Choosing a career involves choosing an identity. it is a continuing process of evaluating aspirations in terms of the larger context of a person's life. In the first stage. by breaking down the researcher's activities into several parts. mentor. the supervisor and researcher hopefully can agree on the researcher's performance in each part. the types of relationships engaged in. Career management. in spite of the difficulty of appraising performance and productivity of technical professionals. and salary and age level (63. overall quality ratings by immediate supervisors. has two perspectives: individual and organizational. R&D performance should somehow be related to the financial performance of the company. there is no doubt that appraising a researcher's performance will be more subjective than that of a design engineer. visibility. a technical professional typically works under the direction of others as an apprentice. for example. recognition for organizational contributions. judgment of actual work output. reports. For example. they can evaluate whether any novel ideas or new areas of research were identified. they should consider if he functioned as a consultant. Certainly the overall appraisal process will be assisted by the researcher's buying in beforehand to as many specified objectives as possible. professional society membership. Determining one's career stage is crucial to assessing past success and making future decisions. they may find such a work situation frustrating. The impact of that decision will affect not only an individual's career. Second. then. In addition. CAREER MANAGEMENT Although it is management's responsibility to provide the organizational climate. However. creativity ratings by high-level supervisors. status-seeking tendencies. whether approaches were proposed to investigate and develop the suggested ideas. it must be a joint partnership between technical professionals and the employing organization. publications. However. whose performance can be directly compared to other people performing similar tasks. 65). These measures include the number of patents. Several studies have explored the use of objective measures as performance criteria.Criteria used to measure scientific performance include productivity in written work. The Individual's Perspective Career planning is not a one-shot effort.

they and their superiors must decide whether they can find a role in which to exert an influence without supervising others or whether they should move back to Stage 2. They also usually play a critical role in helping others move through the first career stage. if they undertake sole responsibility for work they are not prepared to do. . they assume some responsibility for directing and developing other people. scientists and engineers learn to take care of themselves. Independence is the primary prerequisite for the second stage. idea person and manager. the more likely they are to get stuck there.Although this attitude is understandable. Many scientists and engineers find this third stage satisfying and rewarding in terms of money. The major career dilemma at this stage is how much to specialize. inexperienced scientists and engineers may quickly acquire a reputation for mediocre performance that will be hard to overcome. The risks of specializing--such as becoming pigeon-holed in one area or ending up in a specialty that is being phased out--can be reduced by careful selection. Doing well in the second stage is vital for effective career development. internal entrepreneur or idea innovator they have a high degree of influence on the direction of their organization or one of its major segments. they learn to take care of others. Because of their broad interests and capabilities. provide innovative proposals and expertise. at least temporarily. Adjusting from dependence to independence requires originating and developing ideas and individual standards of performance. Learning to live with routine work and adjusting to the dependence inherent in the role of subordinate are major psychological issues at this career stage. Scientists and engineers make the transition to this stage by developing a reputation for being technically competent and able to produce significant results independently. This can lead to career failure. This can be done by choosing a broad area of specialization or by developing a set of specialized skills that can be applied to a variety of problems. status and growth. In such cases. A person who has done outstanding work in one area is more likely than a jack-of-all-trades to gain visibility in a large organization. and therefore stay in it until retirement. trying to escape the subordinate relationship too quickly will result in missing an important aspect of career development: learning what others have gained through experience. Others move on to the fourth stage where as a senior manager. It involves a change in attitude and behavior. This transition requires major adjustments that some engineers and scientists find confining and uncomfortable. a willingness to assume responsibility for others' performance. While in Stage 2. Successful transition to Stage 3 requires a high degree of self-confidence. The best way of accomplishing this is to become a specialist. However. Some scientists or engineers who find this stage uncomfortable rush into supervisory positions before establishing themselves as competent professionals. Thus. but remaining in this stage too long can be detrimental. The probability of continuing to receive above-average ratings diminishes with time. Others might even choose to leave R&D and enter other functional areas (71). A successful transition to the second career stage is not easy. Worse yet. it is important to note that some individuals can and should choose to rise to higher levels in what might be considered Stage 2. Technical people in Stage 3 play multiple roles. within a certain field of endeavor. Some find that they are stagnating and hardpressed to keep up with younger competitors. In Stage 3. and a capacity for dealing with the tension that results from bridging the worlds of management and professional discipline. the longer people remain in this stage. they tap resources in the organization. and assume a formal managerial role. including informal mentor.

and 73 percent of engineers between the ages of 45 and 50 have significant managerial responsibilities. image and power. Managing Career Transition and Growth One out of every three engineers ends up in management. clout. Image--how a scientist or an engineer is perceived by his peers. Engineers and scientists in this stage must understand that the power game is part of management and that it is played best by those who enjoy it most. * Determine how the employees are distributed within the four career stages. corporations will be headed by individuals with technical backgrounds (72). * Using the information gained from the above analysis.Like scientists and engineers who move to Stages 2 and 3. * Design reward systems that acknowledge and reward technical performance--not just managerial performance of engineers who end up in management. Power emanates from several sources including titles. including such data as age. They must learn to delegate and to trust subordinates. Another crucial adjustment is becoming accustomed to exercising power--fighting for projects and programs and forming alliances. determine which job assignments will be most helpful in an employee's career at a particular time. seniority. those entering Stage 4 must make dramatic psychological adjustments. education level. By itself. Success will also be determined by how much power one is perceived to have. and the types of training and experience necessary to implement these plans. It has been estimated that by 1990 more than 50 percent of U. Several steps are necessary (70): * Determine the human resources needs of the company. There are several guidelines for effective individual career planning. Job assignments should be matched or tailored to employees' needs and to the organization's business goals. Management Actions 1. Under normal circumstances. This will help the organization attract and retain competent technical talent. orientation and content of training for employees at different career stages (73). and think about the organization in terms of the "big picture." which means adopting a long-range orientation. three key variables stand out-performance. Although success in a career can be attributed to a variety of factors. There is evidence that the nature of the assignment an employee gets during his early association with the organization will have a significant impact on the employee's entire career. * Design and implement "career-based" training and development programs. make good operating decisions fast. Management should make sure that initial assignments for engineers and scientists in Stage 1 are challenging. and field of interest for each employee (44). and knowledge. A list appears in Table 4 (73). The first step in designing a sound professional development program is to diagnose the career issues in the organization.S. These pointers are so true that they may be considered "career commandments" or "golden rules" that an engineer or a scientist need to understand for managing his career development. For . Each department within the company should be asked to classify its staff members according to these stages. length of job assignments. however. Using the multiple career stage concept as a basis for designing and evaluating the training effort will enable management to identify the gaps in the over-all training program and achieve balance in the type. This covers business strategies and plans. it is not enough. Creating and maintaining a favorable image through "impressions management" is also crucial for success. Management's Perspective Company policies and practices can substantially affect an employee's ability to work out a satisfying career. a solid performance record is essential for getting ahead. subordinates and superiors--has a great impact on a person's career. * Develop a profile of the workforce. responsibilities.

6. Breadth of job assignments is crucial for the professional's development in Stage 2.S. nor are organizations clear-cut hierarchies. therefore. 3. For professionals in Stages 3 and 4. lacking both unity of language and a consensus on the research approaches and paradigms to be pursued. R&D management does not usually provide much challenge for new employees. Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Edge (78). In successful companies. 4... some of the major questions on the research agenda include: * How do we go about determining an "ideal" or even a proper staff mix in an R&D laboratory? . The problem was highlighted in the National Research Council report. research supervisors and effective technologists must be in that top 5 percent of the company's staff. management should create and foster an organizational culture where lateral moves and even demotions are not only encouraged but can be necessary and valuable for the employee's professional development and career growth. there is a strong likelihood of high employee turnover and a loss of corporate productivity.. 5. there are a number of unresolved issues. Strategies management can employ are discussed extensively in the literature (76. LOOKING AHEAD Effective management of human resources lies at the core of the management of technology. Another constraint is that academic researchers find it difficult to gain access to industrial and government projects for management of technology research. This is in line with findings of a study by Hughes Aircraft on R&D productivity which defined the issue: "The over-all productivity of an R&D organization depends heavily on its management and top 5 percent of its technical staff' (77).. As we look forward to the next 50 years. Hall and Berlow reported that employees who received challenging assignments were more likely to be evaluated as effective seven years later (71). Research efforts in management of technology at U. Technical professionals are not only an R&D laboratory's greatest asset but its most expensive investment as well. and technical professionals. Hall and Lawler reported that in only 2 of 22 organizations studied did employees feel their first job assignments had been moderately or highly challenging (74). in a study of employees at AT&T. In a study of unused potential in R&D organization. believe that different forms of partnerships and cooperation are needed between scholars and practitioners. our knowledge is neither complete nor conclusive. 44). universities are presently limited. careers are not linear or static (71). Both managers and technical professionals need a thorough grounding and understanding of career profiles of scientists and engineers. Despite this evidence. We have certainly come a long way in 50 years! But perhaps we have a longer way to go.example. and factors that help or hinder career growth and development. Management practices in managing human resources will largely determine the productivity of the R&D effort. Managers must assume responsibility for coaching and communicating with employees concerning their career direction (75). In addition to funding and gaining an access to research settings. 2. The literature is highly diverse. Despite all the research done over this period. Since careers are not simple ladders. fragmented and uncoordinated across the various subfields. Addressing these issues and research questions must be a joint responsibility for both universities and industry.. challenges. The field as a whole receives very little research funding. Well-designed career-oriented development programs can provide the tools and techniques necessary for managing individual as well as organizational careers. strategies for managing careers. and research questions of particular importance to academicians.. I. Otherwise. managers of technology.

) D. Modern Management Techniques in Engineering and R&D. pp. 1953). 1977). 75-82. Argonne National Laboratory. 2006. J.K. Badawy. "The Role of Champion in Product Innovation.* How can we improve on our employee selection technology in matching individual's qualifications and skills to job requirements? * How can we better manage creativity in R&D organizations? * What are the key personality issues involved with product champions? Are they the same as those of general managers? How do product champions emerge and what motivates them (10)? * How can we improve on current recognition and reward systems for engineers and scientists? To what extent are the differences between the two groups significant? * How can organizations do a better job of managing the career transition for technical professionals? * How can we do a better job of appraising the performance of technical professionals? * Are there better techniques for identifying the managerial potential of engineers and scientists? * How do we get managers to understand the concept of the managerial skill mix and the necessity of maintaining balance between technical. 1988).) E. 11-29 (Jan." Technology Review. (10. Badawy. Special Issue on "Accounting Measurement." Research * Technology Management. pp. "Staffing the Innovative Technology-Based Organization. 161 169. and administrative skills at different management levels? * What are some of the successful techniques in enhancing communication and team building within and between R&D teams? * How do we leverage the effectiveness of technical professionals (78)? * How can we help top management understand and implement a strategic planning system linking technical human resources to corporate strategy? I believe the above list provides a representative direction for a future research agenda. New Horizons for a Flat World. August. Palgrave. National Academies of Science. (5. "How to Prevent Creativity Mismanagement.) E." Sloan Management Review. 241 (Van Nostrand Reinhold. March/June. R. K. 3. pp.) N. Roberts. Harvard Business Review. Birnbaum." Research Management.) M. Maidique. November 13. C. 114-129. 2004. Macmillan. and Hitt.) "The Role of the Product Champion Conference Report. July 2007 References (1. Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists. and Incentives. 71-72 (1985). Fusfeld. and Technological innovation. G. Richard. R. Peter F.) J." Sloan Management Review. 13-16 (May-June 1986). Champions. 15. B. 59-76 (Winter 1980).) A. interpersonal." California Management Review. P. 2005. 2006. P. Issues in Science and Technology. B. pp. 1. Fischer. Scientists in Organizations. Hilberry. 23. 27-33 (Oct. Michael K. Desourza. Leveraging Tacit Knowledge in Alliances: The Importance of Using Relational Capabilities to Build and Leverage Relational Capital. B. 2006. pp. Allen. Michael A. Innovators Losing Their Corporative Edge? New York Times. Chakrabarti. "Management Factors in Project Performance. (12. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. D. and Technological Innovation. pp. Roberts. 33 (Jul--August 1986). "Entrepreneurship and Technology: A Basic Study of Innovators. Illinois (September 22. Timothy L. Revised ed. 58-62 (Winter 1974). Drucker. Harvard Business Review. Roberts and A. No. Hal. 1995." Vol. Winter." MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper (1966). 1-2. p. Rubin. Cambridge. Vol. 2005. pp. Kevin C. Roberts.S. Managing the Flow of Technology. (11. A.A. McLaughlin. Lemont. (3. Roadmap Your Way to Better Innovation (White Paper). Leonard and Salzman. Andrews. Are U. B. pp. (7." Research Management (July 1968). (2.-Feb. 23. No. (13.) E. Florida. see M. P. Addressing these issues constitutes both an opportunity and a challenge for academics. 2002. Goodman. pp. (14. O'Brien.. "Entrepreneurs.) E. Lynn. 2006. America's Looming Creativity Crisis. . Stahl." R&D Management. The Discipline of Innovation. 5-11. MIT Press (1977). Innovation. Second edition.) T. Zmud. Hamilton." Research Management. R&D executives and managers for the next 50 years. Pacharn. 1984). Balderston. W. Elements of Basic Research Management Philosophy at Argonne National Laboratory. Pelz and F. "The Elusive Product Champion.) D. (Editor). W. pp. Incentives. and Zhang. and R. March. Nov. Wiley. (6. M. September. L. University of Michigan Press (1976).) For information on spotting creative people during job interviews.) W. p. pp. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 19-34 (Spring 1981).B. Marquis and I. J. (4. K. pp. "Generating Effective Corporate Innovation. Collins. Accounting. Further Reading Alignent Software. (8. 147-187. M. (9. and M. New Frontiers of Knowledge Management. "Managing the Process of Invention and Innovation.

L.) G. 103-110 (1981). and Micro-Analysis." Research Management. "Why Engineers Transfer. Tushman. and M. M. "The Americas Cup: May The Best Technology Win. Drucker. Badawy." Personnel Administration. 11. (37. cit. and Rewarding R&D People. pp. K. II." op. and "Industrial Scientists. 3. Katz.(15. Dalton and P. P. (32." R&D Management. "Understanding the Role Orientation of Scientists and Engineers. Wolff.) M." Academy of Management Journal (June 1970).) M. Sacco.. Ingrain.) M. Katz. pp.--Feb. 1. Imberman. pp. Wolff. Hill. 37-42 (May 1978). Hall.) S. Allen. Pake. New York (Feb.) W. "To Innovate Faster. 152-156. (44.) See. Tests. pp. "Here Come the Intrapreneurs.) See. pp. Scott Foresman. (26. pp.) For more information on this point. (42. Katz. Allen and R. R." Research Management. "Dual Career Ladders. 1964). "Underemployment of Engineers. K. "A New Way of Managing.-Oct. "The Dual Ladder: Motivational Solution or Managerial Delusion?" Working paper.." Journal of the Society of Research Administrators (Winter 1982)." Research Management." op. for example. "Toward Better Management of Research Organizations. (18.) T. Novations: Strategies for Career Management (Glenview. "Encouraging Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporations. "Who Are Your Motivated Workers. Nurturing. (49. 74-75 (February 2. pp. pp. A. K. J. Living Case Histories of Industrial Innovation (1981).) L. F. Center for Research in Career Development. 1984). (27. 21-22 (March-April 1973)." Personnel Psychology." Proceedings of 1987 IEEE Careers Conference. Free Press (1982). J. pp. 9-13 (Fall 1976). K. Knopka." Research Management.) W. pp. 449-455 (June 1971). (53. K. pp. F. 7-13 (July 1976). (21. 33-37 (May June 1987). 16." Research Management. E.) See S. "Management: The Problems of Success. and Albert Chalupski. "Motivation. (45. (47. 30-32 (May-June 1987).) G. pp. R. 185-197 (1986)." Business Horizons.-Feb." Research Management. 1986)." Industry Week. (51. "Bureaucracy in Research: A Study of Role Conflict of Scientists." Proceedings of the Conference Board National Conference on Research & Development: Kev Issues for Management in 1986. H. 35-40 (Sept. pp. pp. (20. 18-22 (May 1981). 1985). (34. for example: Industrial Research Institute. (39. pp. Try The Skunk Works. and R. Rosica. "As the Engineer Sees his Problem. pp. Wolff. pp.-Oct.) M.) M.) M. "An Investigation into the Managerial Roles and Career Paths of Gatekeepers and Project Supervisors in a Major R&D Facility. and W.) J. R. 8-9 (Jan. Holley. The General Managers. Souder. 339-354 (1969). H. Goldstein. J. 47-48 (April 1970). Turner. "How the IBM Awards Program Works. (17. "Unused Potential in R&D Organizations. 2. W.M. (23.) A. 28.--Dec. 1986)." Time." Harvard Business Review (Jan. pp.) See. D. 13-19 (Feb." The Academy of Management Executive. Myers. 1975). and A. 1970)." Research Management. 1984). and E. 1987). Smith et al. (38. "On the Accuracy of the Employment Interview: Gut Feelings." Personnel Administrator. Badawy. Oct. pp. Badawy. Badawy. K. and M. Lawler. Maccoby. F. Waterman Jr. 67-87.) G. Jr.) M. (40. his "Management and the Professional Employee. (46. "Project Performance and the Locus of Influence in the R&D Matrix. 1988). "Restructuring the Dual Ladder at Goodyear. 57-60 (Jan. 74-83 (Jan. Frohman. MIT Sloan School of Management. Jauch." Harvard Business Review." The Wall Street Journal (November 7. (25. J." Journal of the Society of Research Administrators. and E. pp. Kotter. Wolff. Moser. M. 7-8 (Sept. "Human Aspects of Technical Management: Review of Research and Practical Implications. "One More Time: How to Motivate Your Engineers. pp. A. 1968). (31. II. 11-16 (Fall 1971). Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. J.) See.) Peter F. Badawy. Hughes.) Laurie Michael-Roth. Thompson. "Critical Mid Management Functions for Innovative R&D. Lavendel.) M." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. E. 24-27 (July 1979). pp. 23-27 (Nov. K." The Personnel Journal. Intrapreneuring (Harper & Row) (1985). pp. pp.. L.) The Editors.) M. "Promoting Understanding and Bridging the Engineer-Manager Communications Gap. (36. Badawy.. Badawy." pp. "One More Time . Peter F. "Incentive Practices as Viewed by Scientists and Managers of Pharmaceutical Laboratories. Myers. In Search of Excellence (Warner Books 1982). "Industrial Scientists and Engineers: Motivational Style Differences. K. "Preserving Individualism on the R&D Team. Summer 1973." Research Management. No. Evans and J. 8-12 (May-June 1987). 1692-85 (August 1985). R&D Management. (50. Katz and M." op. Pinchot." Human Organization. Working paper. 69-72 (June 1984)." Proceedings of the Annual National Design Engineering Conference (1986). Peters and R. E. XII. R. for instance. "A Critical Examination of the Dual Ladder Approach to Career Advancement. K. pp.) Business Week. Badawy. pp. Columbia University (1986). (48. (35. (28. (16. No.. "Lessons from 10 Case Studies in Innovation--I and II" in Research Management. "Misusing the Dual Ladder" or "The Case of Joe Mertz. 1987). and R. pp. "Communicating Fringe Benefits. (30. "Managing the Knowledge Worker. pp.) M. 1984). pp. 437-452 (Oct. "Selected Research on Scientists and Engineers in Industry: A Review and Assessment. cit.. (29. (22. (19. (52. cit.) Allen and R. and R&D Productivity (1986). (43. T. Badawy.) See D. Chapters 3 and 12.-Feb. 1982). "Tailoring Incentives to Fit Researchers. 4." Industrial Relations." (Monograph)." Research Management. (24. W. 36-41 (July-August 1983). for example. (33. K. 1972). cit. see I. Gerstenfeld and G. 7-9 (March April 1985)." op.. (41. and M. G. for example: T." Harvard Business Review (May-June 1952).. F.) M." Research Management." Research Management. Drucker. 385-401 (Winter 1964).) See William H. Whitten. Felsher. MIT Sloan School of Management.) For a critical review of the concept of the dual ladder system see: M. pp. "Revisiting the Dual Ladder at General Mills.K.. 5.) See. 12-17 (Nov.) T.) M. 1987). Badawy. Allen. 36-37 (February 4. III. ." Academy of Management Journal. pp. B. Chapters 3 and 4. Jr. Badawy. "Hiring People Who Do Good Research. 1640-85. pp. 1976). "New Program Development at Ethyl..) See Ralph Katz and Thomas J. "One More Time . "Technical Obsolescence: Inevitability or Management Direction?". 19-20. "A Critical Reanalysis Regarding the Management of Professionals." California Management Review. "An Intrapreneur-Turned-Entrepreneur Compares Both Worlds. III. 2327 (Sept." IEEE Spectrum. Franklin Squires and G." Research Management.

471-476 (1966). (75. G. K.) H. French. demographic. 7-12. pp. Careers in Organizations (Goodyear. "The Productivity of Scientists: XIX. Zachary and R.) G. Hall. Harvard Business Review. (65. K. 4. Milwitt. "The Value of Performance Appraisal in the Motivation of Engineering Personnel.) National Research Council. pp.) G. Oakes. Badawy. E. Strauss. D. (60.) M. pp. Shapero. 2. 1985)." Perception and Motor Skills. B. 1986).C. (63. Frost.. 507517 (1977).C. 1984)." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (Feb. 1987. and T. A. (77.) National Science Foundation Science Resources' Study Highlights (NSF 87-605). (59. 28-31 (July-August 1983). Washington." Chemical and Engineering News (Oct. (64." Personnel Psychology. 37. Badawy. Krone. 161-177 (1971)." Research Management (Nov. p. "Managing Creative Professionals. "Planning for a Career in Technical Management. This "update" has two sections: the first identifies some of the new realities. "Helping Engineers Help Themselves. Raelin. XII. "Career Stage Profiles of Engineers.) Douglas T. 20." Harvard Business Review. Dalton and P." Research Management. K. Beatty.) J. 44. pp. Thompson. "Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness." Dissertation Abstracts International." IEEE Spectrum. Hall. (69. W. "Nurturing the Innovator." Human Relations. Kaufman. "Measuring the Performance of Researchers. B. pp. Significant changes in corporate R&D and technology management practices have taken place since 1988 when my original article was published. the second section proposes action strategies for guiding corporate technology leaders in implementing practical mechanisms for leading the intellectual capital for technological innovation. and managerial styles." Research Management. 1976). (71. (76. "Unused Potential in R&D Organizations. Nowhere have these impacts been more profound than in the effective utilization of technical professionals as the corporate core intellectual capital. (56. economic.) Hughes Aircraft Company. 13. "The Measurement of Performance in Research. I. 377 389 (June 1974). pp." IEEE Spectrum. (78. 1985). 15-22 (May-June 1985)." International Conference on Engineering Management (September 1986). Badawy. C. 23. pp. Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage (Washington. Intrapreneuring (Harper & Row. 1983)." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.) S. (55. (72. "Managing Career Transition. October 1976)." The Wall Street Journal (February 8. "Using Integrators to Manage Conflict in a Research Organization. (68. (67. Kay. pp. pp. 5. 1979). H. Badawy. "Measuring R&D Productivity. functions. and worldwide political developments have had a massive impact on corporate management strategies. Professional Contributions and Competency of Engineers. K. 1985). 1973). pp. The New Realities . 43-47 (December 1986). (61. and Richard Henderson. practices. Job Satisfaction and Productivity of Engineers and Scientists.) R." Research Management (March--April 1985). Badawy. 28. 546-558 (1975).) I. 371-376 (Summer 1980). Oct. Split Roles in Performance Appraisal. pp. "Research on Career Development for Engineers: Implications for Management Practice. Nat'l Academy Press. 1987). "Relationship of Early Work Challenge to Job Performance. S. (62. and W. "Increasing the Productivity of Scientists. pp. pp.) See M..) J. and J.) R. A. 1954-1955 (4-B. (73. cultural. W. 15. 36.) R. 28-35 (July--August 1986). South. "Managing Creative Individuals in High Technology Research Projects. 66-76 (1958). 34 (Jan. 43-47 (December 1986). E. "Helping Engineers Help Themselves. Global changes in information technology and social. pp. Meyer. pp." Proceedings of IEEE Career Conference (Boston. 1965). 9-17 (Oct. RELATED ARTICLE: "Managing human resources" revisited. Steers. Kelton.(54. John Bernardin and Richard W. Performance Appraisal: Theory to Practice (Reston Publishing Company 1980).-Feb. competitive. R&D Productivity (Second ed. 1974). Novations: Strategies for Career Management (Scott Foresman." Research Management. 2. (66. (58. "The Evaluation of Scientific Personnel. W. (70. pp." Research Management. 1987). Van Duren. 24. Stumpf. H. Lawler III.) Shirley Edwards and Michael W. 339-354 (1969).) M. "Fakability and the Engineer Performance Description Forum. Merrifield. A. Whitley and P.) Richard A. Patten. R. McCarrey. K.) A. Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work (Kent 1985).) M. A Manager's Guide to Performance Appraisal (The Free Press 1982). Thomas H. and Dalton and Thompson. p. p. and Dalton and Thompson. 123-129 (Jan. M. D." Research Management. (74.) H.) D." Journal of Applied Psychology. forces and mandates which have shaped or are shaping the corporate R&D and technology management environment in the 21st century." R&D Management. Pinchot.) For a review of this research see: H. Considering the space limitations. P. Remer. my objective here is to provide a snapshot identifying some of these contemporary forces along with their possible implications for effective leadership of technical professionals. Hinch." Administrative Science Quarterly. Pappas and Donald S.) M. (57. G. "Career Advancement. "How to Prevent Creativity Mismanagement. pp.

Chief Learning Officer (CLO). * From closed to open innovation systems. * From traditional corporate-centered approaches to time-based management focusing on the customer while coping with time. capital). * From traditional labor-intensive strategies to technology-driven global competitive strategies. Implications for Effective Utilization of Intellectual Capital .The last 25 years have witnessed major shifts from traditional thinking and technology management practices to contemporary trends and organizational patterns reflecting the new realities of corporate internal and external environments. process and manufacturing orientation to a predominantly service sector where information technology is the currency of the day.. * From a traditional managerial authority to a newer form of "shared" authority where there are many "chiefs" with collaborative authority shared among: Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). pressures. flexible and adaptable organizational architecture where the corporate capacity for survival depends on its capacity to change. land. market share and competitiveness. as technology has become the great equalizer among companies and countries. The following is a representative listing of some of these forces. leadership styles. inspiration. * From largely "home-grown" growth technology strategies to "growth from without" in the form of technological acquisitions. * From large companies as the major source of technological innovations to smaller companies--where small is beautiful! Shifts in corporate structures. adapt and avail itself of new opportunities. and Chief Ethics Officer (CEO)--with many grey areas and overlapping accountability boundaries. * From the economies of scale to the economies of scope (or variety) of the flexible production or service delivery system. * From a Not Invented Here ("NIH") attitude to corporate technological collaboration and alliances. For presentation purposes. informational. * From product management to process management represented by the project. control and power focused on the skill sets necessary for doing things right. * From the traditional belief that managers are necessary to the new recognition that leaders are essential. 2. * From the traditional managerial authority. * From a strong product. joint ventures and partnerships.g. Chief Technology Officer (CTO). physical. and capabilities for doing the right thing. labor. Note that the differences between these shifts may vary among cases and variables and could be viewed more or less in absolute or relative terms. I have organized the new realities into a two-module framework: Strategic shifts in managing technology * From a competitive advantage fundamentally rooted in efficiency and cost savings in traditional resources (e. human. and financial * From traditional bureaucratic and hierarchical structures to a more fluid. to a competitive advantage that is technology and strategy-driven. * From mega centers and R&D laboratories to technological entrepreneurship where organizational size does not matter. to innovative leadership styles requiring vision. matrix and hybrid forms of organization with the goal of maintaining flexibility to maximize profitability. * From R&D management to technology management. and managerial skills * From the traditional static view of management as a practice and a profession to a more contemporary model viewing management as a new form of social technology or an architecture of an organization encompassing an integrated system of interactions and interrelationships between the primary organizational resources: technological. Chief Information Officer (CIO).to.

leadership and organizational action strategies for how companies can excel in technological innovation. Prof Badawy received the Korea Technology Medal of Honor from the Korea Industrial Technology Association (KITA). they are trying to hire the best people in their fields that they can find. * Technical people should not be hired solely on whether or not they conduct a successful interview. with honors from New York University. July 2007 Michael Badawy is professor of management of technology and strategic management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Otherwise. Prof Badawy is the founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (JET-M) and the author of two books and over 250 journal articles. they reflect a variety of management. He holds a Ph. and lectures at corporate functions. mbadawy@vt. executive development seminars and professional workshops.--Caveats for Interviewers (24) * Interviews are most useful when the interviewer is intimate with the applicant's technical specialty. Regardless of who wins the argument. the organization ends up hiring people who interview well--and not necessarily people who do good research. Instead. Virginia.--Seven Principles of Effective Motivation . * There is considerable skepticism about the value of hasty psychological evaluations. and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). His entire career has been devoted to engineering. and overseas.D.-M.K. welladjusted people.The above 17 trends and forces have profound implications for corporate technology management leaders charged with the responsibility for designing and implementing practical mechanisms for leading technical professionals toward increasing technological innovation. in which these practices have been organized into two categories: traditional and newly emerging practices. you won't come away with a great deal of useful information about the Table 1. The recipient of numerous awards for teaching and service. The Academy of Management. Companies are not necessarily trying to hire normal. Merrifield. published and consulted extensively. He consults widely to private and public organizations in the U. He is the founder of the Technology and Innovation Management Division. Taken collectively. and was elected chairman of the Academy's Management Education and Development Division. Badawy. R&D and technology management. Several of his articles and his bestselling book Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists (Wiley) have been translated into Japanese. * Technical disputes with the applicant should be avoided. He has also served as editor-in-chief for a two-volume series on strategic and technology management for McGraw-Hill and Thomson International publishers. The highlights of these strategies are presented in the accompanying Table. Table 2. Spanish. Korean. about which he has taught. and Chinese. * Some technical people react so enthusiastically to an applicant's exciting technical idea that they are prevented from learning much more about the applicant.S.

g.) * Reward (positive reinforcement) is more effective than punishment in motivating a technologist to perform in a particular way. Rewarding so-called successive approximations provides assurance that a person will continue to move in the right direction. * Feedback on performance is an important form of reinforcement. a reward should follow soon after occurrence of the behavior a manager seeks to reinforce. * For best results. * Desired performance should be clearly defined and stated. * A clear distinction should be made between a need for training and a need for motivation (reinforcement). Table 3. with the result that attempts to motivate fail because a technologist needs training or training is unsuccessful because of weak motivation..--Types of Incentives for Researchers (46) Organizationally Oriented Merit salary increases Promotions within career ladder Stock options Profit sharing Rewards for suggestions Rewards or royalties for patents Improved office space Increased technical or clerical assistance Increased challenge in job assignment Special recognition and/or Professionally Oriented Encouragement to publish Time off for professional meetings Paid transportation to professional meetings Dues paid in professional organizations Greater freedom to come and go Better technical equipment Sabbatical leave for education Tuition or other educational aid Participation in company seminars . praise increases the likelihood that the performance will be repeated. Punishment is to be avoided whenever possible. Only when behavioral objectives are made explicit and concrete can they be measured and rewarded. These are often confused. (A reinforcer is any consequence that increases the likelihood that a specific behavior will occur in the future: e.* Reinforced behavior tends to be repeated. * Rewards should be given for movement toward the desired target behavior. Behavior modification technology often provides for graduated "schedule of reinforcement" by which technical professionals move from wherever they are (their baseline behavior) to the target behavior.

* Stay marketable. or experimenting in a small. jobs of the latter type may be substitutes for real opportunities. * Strive for positions that have high visibility so your accomplishments are recognized by top-level management. cleaning up the mess left by a predecessor. * Organizational politics is inevitable. unstructured situation. this can be a reason for your not being promoted. * Leave an organization at your convenience. on good terms. therefore. Summing Up . if you want to rise quickly within a department or learn a new skill by working in another department. * Do not make yourself indispensable in your current position. * Change jobs for more power but not primarily for higher status or pay. Move outside your job's limits. establish alliances and fight the necessary skirmishes. and then question whether or not you are sacrificing too much for the organization.--Strategies for Career Growth (73) * Manage your career by influencing the decisions that affect you. accept the challenge of starting a new operation.monetary reward for superior performance Table 4. Do not remain under a supervisor who has not been promoted in three to five years. * Periodically examine your personal values. * Assess your strengths and weaknesses before accepting a new position. make your intentions known. * Avoid overspecialization or being trapped by a narrow job description. * Take risks. * Publicize your goals. good effort alone may not be rewarded. and if you keep too quiet. you might get lost. and without criticizing the organization. * Nominate yourself for other positions. so that you increase the organization's dependence on you while enhancing your career opportunities and professional mobility. avoid promotions that expose your weaknesses or involve activities you dislike. but limit battles with superiors to the truly important issues. modesty is not necessarily a virtue.

the types of relationships engaged in. project leading. * Successful technical professionals pass through four distinct career stages. Action Strategies for Companies To Excel in Technological Innovation Traditional Strategies and Practices Variables and Assumptions Strategic Drivers 1. * Not only are there differences in task characteristics between R&D and other corporate functions. Core driver 4. Strong focus 9. * Performance appraisals are. * Reward systems should be tailored to fit particular groups of technical professionals. how the program is administered. for the most part. and unreliable. but there are differences in value orientation and motivational style between engineers and scientists and also within them as two separate groups. it is the individual's responsibility to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for managing his or her own career. Purpose/goal 6. Each stage differs from the others in the tasks that must be performed. Dominant player R&D/technology 8. entrepreneuring or championing. arbitrary. gatekeeping. and how it is communicated. Strategic orientation 5. types of incentives used. Distinctive capabilities 7. Concept 2. Although it is management's responsibility to provide the organizational climate. resulting in "market value" appraisals of technical professionals. inadequate. Their effectiveness depends on a number of variables including the job context. * Work climates in some companies seem to be highly manipulative. Future target Invention--newness in concept Discipline or product-driven Technology push "Want driven"--solutions looking for problems to solve Creating knowledge Strong engineering orientation On technological discoveries Next-generation science and technology . and sponsoring or coaching. and the psychological adjustments to be made. Dominant thrust 3. * Effective career management has two perspectives: individual and organizational. background and skills.* Five different work roles are critical to the innovation process: idea generating. the individual's career stage. support and development programs needed for effective career planning.

Primary focus 5. and communication 13. Major form of capital 4. Concept 2. Core driver Innovation--newness in use/ application Market or customer-driven Demand pull . Corporate Culture 9. Dominant thrust 3. Technical Populations 7. Mode of operation 16. Source of competitive advantage 6. Philosophical theme 18. Management technologies and methods 3. Major players 11. Tenure and organizational careers 10. Corporate target mission 2. Modes of R&D. Heavy investment Achieving efficiency Largely labor-oriented Physical resources Traditional corporate functions R&D Highly homogenous Coherent strategies for effective utilization Relatively strong Long tenure with stable careers Individual technologists Specific time and space-based R&D projects Professional conferences and library-based projects Position advertising and recruitment pure intellectual creativity Individuals create--"lone wolf approach" In technological infrastructure and labor-intensive projects-individuals doing cuttingedge R&D "If it ain't broken. Technology operations 8. don't fix it" Mistakes are discouraged at all cost Newly Emerging Strategies Newly Emerging Strategies and Practices 17. Organizational architecture Disciplined organizational designs with strong emphasis on efficiency and coordination Intellectual Capital and Technological Innovation 1. Impact of IT and communications technology 12. knowledge exchange. Creativity 15.10. Changing job market 14. Attitude toward failure Variables and Assumptions Strategic Drivers 1.

cross-disciplinary. Future target 10. "portable" careers-with no "binding ties" Technology project teams: cross-functional. Purpose/goal Distinctive capabilities Dominant player Strong focus 9. 8. Changing job market 14. Tenure and organizational careers 10. Heavy investment 17. and an electronic job market place Applied creativity Teams or groups innovate-enlightened trial and error In applied R&D--people with different skill sets to play multiple roles "If it ain't broken.4. Primary focus 5. Corporate target mission 2. fragmented with a weaker sense of employee loyalty Much shorter. Strategic orientation 5. Impact of IT and communications technology 12. Technology operations 8. search engines. Corporate Culture 9. Modes of R&D. Major players Achieving effectiveness Largely knowledge-oriented Knowledge Knowledge management Intellectual capital Highly diverse and heterogeneous Outsourcing and offshoring Multi-faceted. 6. Creativity 15. Management technologies and methods 3. Source of competitive advantage 6. Organizational architecture "Need driven"--problems looking for solutions Commercialization of knowledge Strong service orientation Marketing On technological entrepreneurship for exploiting scientific findings Creative destruction or disruptive innovation (or technological discontinuities) Fluid organizational designs with strong emphasis on management of technological innovation Intellectual Capital and Technological Innovation 1. break it" Failure is the discipline through which we advance 11. and web-based data bases Internet-based. and cross-cultural Highly dispersed and virtual distance-based technology teams Internet. Mode of operation 16. Philosophical theme 18. cross-national. Technical Populations 7. Major form of capital 4. knowledge exchange. 7. Attitude toward failure Fail often to succeed sooner . and communication 13.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful