The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human
resource management
Thomas J. Allen' and Ralph Katz
'MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Sloan School of Management,
Cambridge MA 02139, USA
Several years ago, the authors published a
paper in R&D Management,in which we
reported a surprising result. Some 2,500
engineers, scientists and managers in 10
organizations were asked the degree to which
they would like to pursue a management
career, a technical ladder career or a series of
interesting and challenging projects, inde-
pendent ofpromotion (Figure 1). Nearly half
indicated a stronger preference for project
assignments over the two traditional rewards
(Table 1). Interestingly, the only reason that
the third alternative was even included in the
survey is that Human Resource managers in
the first organization surveyed suggested it.
They told us that many of their engineers
were not particularly interested in promotion
on either of the traditional ladders. Rather
they said, these engineers were motivated to
perform well on current project assignments
in the belief that superior performance would
RdrD Munagernent 25,2, 1995.0 Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995. Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 lJF, U K and 238 Main Street, Suite 501, Cambridge, MAO2142, USA.
increase the likelihood that their next
assignment would be an interesting one.
Conversely, there was a belief that poor
performance led to less interesting future
assignments.
Subsequent analysis showed this prefer-
ence to be a function of age (Figure 2).'
That the increasing preference for project
assignments could be due to older engin-
eers giving up on promotion is an obvious
conclusion, but not fully supported by the
data. A discriminant analysis showed
significant differences among the three
groups in the way they answered other
questions in a lengthy survey. So it appears
that there are distinct classes of technical
employee, with respect to career orienta-
tion. Some desire a managerial career;
some a technical ladder career, and a sub-
stantial number opts for interesting projects
over the two traditional paths.
WHOARETHEY?
Who are these 'project-oriented' engineers
and scientists? Since they make up a
significant proportion of the population, we
should try to learn more about them. Recall-
ing that it is education that distinguishes
those (Table 1) with a technical ladder pref-
erence (Allen & Katz, 1986), we might
hypothesize the same for this group.
Table 1 Proportions of engineers
and scientists choosing three career
options
Management 32%
Technical Ladder 20
Project Assignments 48
From Allen and Katz (19861
129
130 THOMAS J. ALLEN AND RALPH KATZ
To what degree would
you like your career to
involve a series of promotions
to increasing managerial
responsibililp I I I I I I I
not at a great
all deal

To what degree would

you like your career to
involvea series of promotions
up a technical profegsional
ladder within your organization?
not at a great
all deal

To what degree would

you like your career to
involve a series of interesbng
and challengingprojed assignments
independent of any promotion either
managerial or technical? not at a great
all deal
Figure 1 The questions used m the survey

Similarly, although it did not discriminate the the response to the project question. The
technical ladder-oriented, type of work might proportion preferring this career alternative
separate the project-oriented. In fact, as we over the other two does not vary with edu-
see in Figure 3, education does exhibit a cation level, however (Figure 4a). This was
significant relationship with the strength of not the case for the technical ladder-oriented

70

60 -
A
c,

5 50 -

2
-
Q40
5 30 -

8 -
2 20
n
lo -

I I
"
20 30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Figure 2 Career orientationas a function of sge (from Allen and Katz, 1986)

Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995 R&D Management 25,2,1995

The project-oriented engineer: A dilemmafor hwnan resource management 131

Type of Work Degree of Preference

B.S. M.S. PhD

Education
Education: F = 6.20, p = 0.002
Type of Work: F = 2.254, N.S.
Interaction: F = 1.395, N.S.
Figure 3 h j e a prefemce as a function of education and type of work

Education Education
I I

B.S. B.S.

M.S. M.S.

PhD PhD

~-
0 10 20 30 40 ! 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5
Proportion (Percent) Proportion (Percent)

a) Project-Oriented b) Technical Ladder-Oriented

Figure 4 hportions of project-orimted and technical ladder-oriented engineers as a function of education

R&D Management 25,2,1995 Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995

132 THOMAS J. ALLEN AND RALPH KATZ

(Figure 4b). So, if we separate out that dents' work goals Using the responses to
group, who prefer project assignments over these as dependent variables, we can, with a
promotion, we find that they are distinctivetwo-way ANOVA, assess the impact of
in neither education nor in the type of workcareer orientation and organizational pos-
they do. ition on each. The results are displayed in
Figures 5a through 5g2. In every one of
these, orientation produces a significant
THE IMPOIYIANCE OF ORIENTATION effect on the dependent variable. Depending
on their career orientation, engineers
respond very dSerently, when asked about
We should be careful to not forget that we the degree to which they would like to work
are not talking about formal organizational on different types of project, for example.
position. Orientation merely reflects what Moreover, in all cases the effect of orienta-
people say they most want for their careers tion is greater than that of formal position.
is not necessarily what they have attained. From all of the foregoing it is safe to
There is a fair number of managers and conclude that career orientation is a meaning-
technical ladder occupants, who say they ful and useful construct. It is one that is
would prefer project assignments over important to take into consideration when
promotion. So, does orientation mean developing human resource policy. Now, let
anything? One way of addressing this ques- us turn our attention to what we have labelled
tion might be to see whether orientation or the project orientation. Engineers with this
formal position has greater effect on other orientation are those who, in answering the
measures or responses. questions, assigned a greater value to inter-
The survey measured, among other items, esting and challenging projects than to either
a set of questions addressing the respon- of the two promotion ladders.

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
Tech Ladder Management Project
Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 51.25, p < 0.001
Path F = 0.84, N.S.
Interaction: F = 0.86, N.S.
Figure 5a Desire to build a professional reputation as a function of carccr orientation and actual career path

Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995 RCD Management 25,2,1995

The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human resource management 133

Standardized Scale Valuen Career Path

Tech Ladder Management Project

Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 4.40, p = 0.01
Path: F = 2.94, p = 0.05
Interaction: F = 0.31, N.S.
Pigum 5b Desire to work with technically competent colleagues as 8 function of cpreer orientationand actual career path

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Tech Ladder Management Project
Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 18.83, p < 0.001
Path: F = 2.32, N.S.
Interaction: F = 1.47, N.S.
Figurc 5c F’refcrencc for workmg on technically chalknging projects as a fundon of c m r onentatmn and actual career path

R&D Management 25,2,1995 0 Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995

134 THOMAS J. ALLEN AND RALPH KATZ

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

/ .I- -

Tech Ladder Management Project

Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 42.24, p < 0.001
Path: F = 12.31, p < 0.001
Interaction: F = 0.83, N.S.
Figure 5d Preference for working on organizationallyimportant projects as a function of career orientation and actual career path

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

Tech Ladder Management Project

Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 324.94, p < 0.0001
Position: F = 0.88, N.S.
Interaction: F = 0.85, N.S.
Figure 5e Preference for working on projects leading to advancement as a function of career orientationand actual career path

0 Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995 R&D Management 25,2,1995

The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human resource management 135

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

I I I

Tech Ladder Management Project

Career Orientation
Orientation: F = 9.36,p c 0.001
Path: F = 1.35, N.S.
Interaction: F = 0.30, N.S.
Figure 5f Refumcc for working on professionally important projects as a function of career orientation and mal CMI path

Standardized Scale Value Career Path

Tech Ladder Management Project

Career Orientation
Orientation: F. = 4.10, p = 0.01
Path: F = 0.26, N.S.
Interaction: F = 3.86,p < 0.01
Figurc Sg Dcsirc for f d o m to be ‘mative and original’as a function of c m c r orientation and acblal carear path

RdtD Management 25,2,1995 Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995

136
THE CORRELATES OF PROJECT ORENTATION
If neither education nor type of work
distinguishes the project-oriented engineer,
what else, if anything, marks them as differ-
ent? Certainly they and those desiring a
technical ladder career differ significantly
from the managerially-oriented. That is very
clear in Figures 5a through 5g. So the ques-
tion becomes, in what ways do the technical
ladder-oriented and the project-oriented
differ? Turning again to the measures of
work preference, we see that the project-
oriented tend to be more extreme in many of
their preferences than are the technical
ladder-oriented engineers. In Figure 63, four
out of seven comparisons produce
significant differences between the two
orientations. Project-oriented engineers are
much less concerned with their technical
reputation; they show little inclination tow-
ard projects that are of either professional or
organizational importance. And they are
really not interested in advancement. They
would like to have competent colleagues,
have creative freedom and work on techni-
cally challenging projects, but no more so
than their technical ladder-oriented col-
leagues. In contrast, in Figure 7,we can see
that the two orientations do not differ in
their preferred types of work (Pelz &
Andrews, 1976). They both disdain syste-
matic planning, prefer deep, narrow probing
over broad mapping and would rather work
alone than in collaboration.
ARE THEY OLDER STAFF, W
HO HAVE GIVEN UP?
It is certainly a possibility that the project-
oriented are simply older engineers, who
having not been promoted and see any prob-
ability of promotion rapidly decreasing with
age. Therefore, when asked their career pref-
erence, they are disinclined to state a high
preference for either of the two promotion
ladders. This would not necessarily indicate a
decreased desire for promotion. It would
rather reflect the perception of a decreased
likelihood of promotion. When we first raised
this possibility, we dealt with it by performing
the discriminant analysis referred to earlier in
this paper. Given what we now see, the issue
deserves some further inquiry. If the project
orientation results from a pessimism among
Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995
THOMAS J. ALLEN AND RALPH KATZ
older engineers regarding promotion, what
about the younger engineers, who state a
preference for project assignments over pro-
motion? They must have a different reason for
stating this preference. If this were the case,
they might differ from the older project-ori-
ented engineers in their responses to questions
about the work goals exBmined in Figure 6.
An ANOVA, using age grouping as an inde-
pendent variable fails to support this
possibility. Only one of the work goal vari-
ables (i.e. Preference for Organizationally
Important Projects) showas a significant age
effect. In this one case the variable increases
with age, which is counter to what one would
expect under the foregoing argument. Younger
project-oriented engineers are even less inter-
ested in organizationally important projects
than are their older colleagues. This is hardly a
conclusive argument, but it at least causes us
to pause and consider the possibility that
project orientation results from more than
simply giving up on promotion.
What can we now conclude from all of
this? Well, for one thing, it certainly appears
that externals are not very important to the
project-oriented engineer. Not only are they
disinterested in the normal extrinsic rewards
of the organization, but they are not even
interested in what their professional and
organizational peers and colleagues think of
them. They would seem, therefore, to be very
independent, perhaps even so confident of
their capabilities that these things don’t matter.
Are they then so ‘inner-directed’(Reisman,
et al., 1950) that they can ignore all externals
and do ‘their own thing’ without regard to
organizational or professional recognition? At
this point, we dearly wish that we knew more
about their performance. Unfortunately, in a
survey of the present magnitude, it is virtually
impossible to obtain individual performance
measures. We did obtain performance evalua-
tions at the project level. The reader is well
a w m of the risks inherent in attempting to
apply performance measures across levels of
analysis. Nevertheless, we could not resist the
temptation at least to make an attempt. To do
this, we generated for each project team the
proportion of its membership comprising
project-oriented engineers. SuBice it to say
that the correlation between this figure and
project performance is virtually zero
(r=O.Ol). So there is no evidence that their
R&D Management 25,2,1995
 Work Goals:
Standardized Scale Value
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
l " ' l " ' ' i
1

Prof Reputation p < 0.m.l

Competent Colleagues N.S.

Technical Challenge N.S.

0 Tech Ladder
Org Import Projects p < 0.01
Project
h
Advancement p c o.oO0

p < 0.001
Prof Import Projects
N.S.
Creative Freedom

Figure 6 Work goals of technical laddcr-oriatcd and project-oriented engineers

Work Preferences:
Standardized Scale Value
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
I I I I I

Systematic Planning N.S.

General Principles N.S.

Immediate Solutions @- ' N.S.

0 Tech Ladder
Broad Mapping N.S.
El Project
Deep Probing

Collaboration

Solitude

Figure 7 Work orientation of technical ladder-orientedand projcctaiented cngincas

R&D Management 25,2,1995 Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995

 1

0.8

'
a?
2 0.6

0.4
ua
II

5 0.2
v)
w o
w
FQ -Oq2
'p -0.4
C
3 -0.6
v)
-0.8
-1
30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Figure 9 Desire of projea-orientsdenginsen to improve on pan performance as a function of age

1
-
0.8

'
aa
2
Q)
I
0.6
0.4 '
-

5
cn
0.2 -

Figure 10 Rojcc-oriented enginem preference for broad mapping of new technical arcas as a function of age

R&D Management 25,2,1995 Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995

140 THOMAS J. ALLEN AND RALPH KATZ

0.8

'
Q)
2 0.6
0.4
Q)
II

3 0.2
v)
- 0
Q
N
F -o.2
(P
'CJ -0.4
c
?s -0.6
cn
-0.8
-1
20 30 40 50 60
Age (Years)
Figure 11 Desire of project-orientedengineers to improve on past performance as a function of age

Resource Management. None of the old
assumptions about reward systems and
motivation seem to apply to the project-
oriented. We need to know much more
about what lies behind these questionnaire
responses. We also need to know about the
actual performance of the project-oriented
engineer. Perhaps the most troubling result
in this analysis is the discovery that these
people are so low in their desire to improve
on their past performance.
REFERENCES
Men, T. 1. and Katz, R. (1986). 'The dual ladder motivational
solution or managerial delusion'? R d 9 Management, 16, (2),
185-197.
Pelz. D. C. and Andscws, F. M. (1976). Scientists in Indust?y. New
Yorlr:Wiley.
Reisman. D.. in collaboration with Reuel Denney and Nathan
Glazer (1950). The Lonely C m d : A Study of the Changing
American Character.New Haven, m.Yale University Press.
NOTES
1. This figure is based on the 1,402 respondents, who were neither
in manag-t nor on the tachnical Isddcr and who stated a clear
prcfe- for one of the tbiu ahanatives. (In other words, ties
wen exchrdtd)
2. In each figurc. the @dent variable has beem standardized.
Thus the planc at zem reprcscnts the mCBn Ttspwse on the
&pndcnt variabk. 'Ihc category blodts indicate category mean
values above or below the ovcrall mean.
3. once again, the data arc 6 t a m h' b d, using the entin set of
responses. Thus the mean of all responses (iacluding the
managerinlly-onented) is PTO. The bars mprcm the mean
values for technical ladderoriented and pject-orientcd engin-
tm.In most cases, these differ from the overall mean, lying
above or below i t
4. "his lends additional strength to the argument that the cause of
project orientation lies deeper than the phenomenon of older
engineers giving up on pnnnotion.

Q Basil Blackwell Ltd 1995 RdiD Management 25,2,1995