Status, Role

8/2/2019 Status, Role

1/18

Status, role and satisfactionamong development engineers

Barbara Bigliardi and Alberto PetroniDipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Universita degli Studi di Parma,

Parma, Italy, and

Alberto Ivo DormioDipartimento di Economia e Tecnologia, Universita di San Marino,

Repubblica di San Marino

Abstract

Purpose To identify the problematic areas relating to the current managerial practices inmotivating engineers and evaluating their relative contribution to the overall level of engineers

satisfaction.Design/methodology/approach Based on a conceptual model, an empirical study was conductedwithin 11 organizations operating in the food machinery industry in Italy. A survey was carried out on376 development engineers staffed in these companies and a statistical analysis was conducted on thedata collected in order to refine and operationalize the conceptual model proposed and to investigatethe relative effects of the various factors considered.

Findings From the statistical analysis it emerged that job satisfaction can be split into threedimensions and that it is impacted by five factors related to managerial policies, perception ofengineers status and job-related motivational mechanisms.

Practical implications The analysis clearly suggests that engineers in industry are generallydissatisfied and largely demotivated. It also emphasizes the importance of sound managerial practicesthat enables the organization to establish appropriate reward systems, to understand engineersexpectations as technical professionals and to provide them with task-related motivational tools

fostering challenge and flexibility.Originality/value It addresses an explanation of engineers satisfaction based on a theoreticalframework, striving to identify key motivational stimuli effective with engineers.

Keywords General management, Food manufacturing equipment, Human resource management,Job satisfaction

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEngineering managers are increasingly facing problems in motivating engineers as aresult of changes in economic, social and technological conditions. A vast body ofresearch has demonstrated that engineers dissatisfaction is mounting in industry and,consequently, has focussed attention on the identification of more appropriatemotivational systems (Amar, 2004; Debackere et al., 1997). It is thus not surprising tolearn that at least half of the engineers that are trained for responsible positions inindustry have no intention of remaining in such roles for more than four or five years(Johnson and Sargeant, 1998). The lack of appropriate motivations has resulted in ahigher rate of turnover among the engineers than among non-professionals.

Several reasons have been put forward in literature. McGovern (1995) points outthat employers are generally more concerned with having a steady turnover of staff,for which they saw a number of advantages, than with the development of policies

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm

Developmentengineers

453

European Journal of Innovation

Management

Vol. 8 No. 4, 2005

pp. 453-470

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1460-1060

DOI 10.1108/14601060510627821


2/18

which would enable them to retain scientists and engineers. These employers have,instead, developed a dual labour market approach that is contingent on the turnover of

existing staff. This consisted of a general inclination to exploit the benefits of theprevailing labour market conditions while simultaneously engaging in a policy that

allowed them to selectively retain certain key human resources (Hiltrop, 1999).Another reason is to be traced back to the managerial failures to satisfy engineers

orientations and expectations to be treated as professionals. Technical professionals

need special treatment irrespective of traditional management and control approaches.

Accordingly, various approaches to managing technical professionals have beenproposed. The most famous (and perhaps the most controversial) is the so-called dual

ladder system (Allen and Katz, 1986; Hesketh et al., 1992). As pinpointed by Allen andKatz (1992), the shortcomings of the dual ladder system can be traced back to:

. the fact that technical and managerial careers have a different attractiveness fororganization members;

. the fact that even when technical positions are put on the same level asmanagerial positions in terms of prestige, salary and status, the former lacks the

vital ingredient of power; and

. the generalized practice whereby technical promotions sometimes tend to

become a loyalty prize instead of true career advancement.

A third rationale for engineers dissatisfaction is to be related to the misutilization of

technical professionals whose skills and competences are reported to be widelyunderexploited (Badawy, 1978).

T hes e f ac ts h ave c au se d conside rable t ens ions and st rain s in t he

engineer-management relationship. This calls for changes in engineeringmanagement styles to maintain motivation and productivity (Day and Allen, 2004).

The motivational methods, as ranked by Kuby (1993) in order of increasingprobable success, are:

. motivation by development;

. motivation by objectives;

. motivation by intrinsic-need satisfaction; and

. motivation by management.

There are differences in the most appropriate ways to satisfy engineers expectations.

Thus, managers may find that a combination of methods best suits their needs. Inother words, management should develop different motivational patterns to fit

different employees requirements at different levels of the organization.The present study is aimed at investigating both positive and negative stimuli

to maximize the motivation and potential satisfaction for typical engineers. Byunderstanding the relative strength of various motives it is possible to identify key

motivational stimuli effective with engineers (Appelbaum et al., 1998).More specifically the purpose of this article is:

. to systematically identify the problematic factors relating to the current

managerial practices in motivating engineers; and

EJIM8,4

454


3/18

. to evaluate their relative contribution to the overall level of engineerssatisfaction.

Finally, the paper discusses some implications and suggests guidelines to management

for better motivation and utilization of engineering manpower.

Conceptual modelBased on the above discussion, a conceptual model, on which this research is based,has been formulated.

The motivational factors relating to the managerial practices having an impact onengineers satisfaction are visualized in Figure 1 as comprising the managerial policiesand supervisory practices, the appropriate managerial perception of engineers statusand role within the organization, and the job-related motivational mechanisms.

Management systems and supervisory practices do not generally reflect anadequate understanding of engineers expectations and as such are perceived as a firstproblem area. One example refers to the managerial practice of supervising engineers

by administrative managers. Another source of problems relates to criteria used forpromotion and career advancement. So far, particular attention has been given to theproblem of potential mismatch between R&D staff career orientations and availablecareer opportunities (McCormick, 1995). In the study by Hesketh et al. (1992),satisfaction was related to the perceived fit between career path preferences andperceived career path opportunities among senior engineer managers and traineeengineers. Senior respondents actual career paths (managerial, technical, or thosewaiting for promotion into either path) were not well matched to their preferences, withthose in paths that were less well matched being less satisfied.

Another source of tension and potential conflict between management and technicalprofessionals is the managements perception of engineers, and more specifically itsfailure to differentiate between knowledge and non-knowledge employees (Howard,1983). Managerial practices relating to this aspect include the inappropriate use oftraditional techniques of work organization and bureaucratic controls, and of authority

Figure 1.The conceptual research

model


455


4/18

systems. Thus, managements understated perception of engineers emerges from thefailures to differentiating between engineers as knowledge employees and othernon-knowledge employees. These practices are dysfunctional to lead to the erosion ofthe engineers sense of professionalism. Also, in this area the important theme of the

engineers transition into management can be located (Roberts and Biddle, 1994). Thistransition is described as difficult both for those who make it and for those who do not(McGovern, 1995). The perceptions of engineers as managers derive from the way thecompany defines the profession by qualifications required and the boundaryestablished between them and other technical employees (Canainn, 1995).

The dynamics of the transition into management has been approached underdifferent perspectives. Howard (1983) has studied the basic characteristics that arerequired for a successful later transition of engineers into management. A primarycharacteristic are administrative skills, consisting especially of the dimensions ofplanning and organizing, and decision-making. Interpersonal skills are equallyimportant; these include such things as face-to-face leadership, oral communicationsskills, and making a forceful and likeable personal impact. Intellectual ability is alsocritical, and research has shown that both verbal and quantitative skills relate tosuccess. Finally, motivation for advancement is a strong determinant of later progress;those who want to succeed are much more likely to do so. In managerial skills, on theaverage, engineers come up a little short compared to other majors. Munson andPosner (1979) have investigated the differences in personal value orientations betweenengineers and management engineers. Personal values demonstrated significantdiscriminative and predictive validity in distinguishing management engineers fromnon-management engineers. The results of the study suggest that information aboutpersonal values might play some role in organizational decisions regarding jobplacement, promotion, formation of special groups, and in the design of employeemotivation and incentive programs.

A third leverage to increase engineers motivational potential is through thetask itself. The managerial failures with this respect are evident: there are, asstated above, clear indications that engineers are in general underemployed andmisutilized.

It would be expected that all these three areas have an impact on engineerssatisfaction. Job satisfaction has many dimensions that can range from careersatisfaction, to organizational commitment and job involvement (Orpen, 1997). Allthese three aspect will be investigated in more details later on.

Based on this conceptual model, an empirical study was conducted within 11organizations operating in the food machinery industry in order to: refine andoperationalize the conceptual model, and investigate the relative effects of the variousfactors considered on job satisfaction of development engineers.

The rationale behind the choice of this specific industry has to be traced back tothree main aspects. First, the relative importance of these manufacturers for theregional economy of the Emilia-Romagna district, with a record of over 1,700 millionUS dollars for the Italian trade balance. The most important reason is, anyhow, theincreasing managerial concern for the retention of engineers in technical engineeringdepartments. This industry has in fact demonstrated high rates of turnover in the pastas for development engineers and designers. Furthermore, the area investigated isparticularly interesting since it has been prompting a continuous re-shaping of the

EJIM8,4

456


5/18

technical skills and competencies required to engineers. This is mainly driven by thetechnological evolution that the industry has undergone and which may be ascribed tothe computer-induced change of the way industrial designers work, through theadoption of new techniques (CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping and machining tools).

Research design and measuresThe first stage was the operationalization of the attributes. As alluded to previously, aclose review of the literature resulted in the identification of general themes.Additionally, and of more value in identifying specific elements relating to themanagerial practices in the issues investigated, there was a trawl through a number ofbusiness and technical journals (over a five-year period) chasing articles on engineersmotivation and abstracting all references to the elements of the model of Figure 1.Interviews with six plant directors were also conducted to provide face validity andassure accuracy and completeness of data. The results of this process were edited foroverlaps and repetitions to produce a final list of 27 attributes, that is reported in the

Appendix.

Data collectionData for the study were obtained from 11 companies: five large divisions of aworldwide engineering Group active in the design, production and marketing ofmachines and complete lines for the food and tobacco industry, and a host of smallerfirms manufacturing bottling equipment and food processing machinery. A profile ofthe 11 organizations represented in the group of respondents is reported in Table I.

The sample was randomly selected from professionals including developmentengineers, designers and implementers. The respondents came from a variety oforganizational units: manufacturing departments, R&D and engineering groups.Questionnaires were distributed to each participant by organizations internal mail.

Participation was voluntary and each participant was assured confidentiality. A coverletter from the management of the respective organization was attached to thequestionnaire.

Through the procedure described above, 642 professionals were asked to participatein the study. Of these, 66 currently hold a managerial position and were thus excluded.A total of 376 of them returned a complete and usable questionnaire for a satisfactoryresponse rate of 58 percent. The demographic characteristics of the sample are reportedin Table II.

Of respondents, 21 percent hold a functional technical position without project(either temporary or stable) responsibilities. The remaining respondents hold aposition along the technical ladder and are steadily assigned to a project team.

A total of 44 percent of the respondents describe their current job as pertaining

mainly to strict product design activities (i.e. design and prototyping), 44 percent statethat his/her job is related to engineering and implementation aspects, 10 percentmainly act as the interface between and in support of either manufacturing orcommercial departments, while the remaining has been categorized as other.

Performance measuresJob satisfaction is very rarely assessed on a single item but on a number of measures.Therefore, in addition to the elements of the research framework mentioned above, the


457


6/18

Firm

Productcategor

y

Turnover

(US$million)

Percentageof

export/turnover

(%)

Employees

Employeesstaffedin

engineering/design

departments

A1

Rowsdistributionsystems;electronicin-line

feeders;electronichighspeedhorizontalpillow-pack

machines;robotichandlingandcollating

units;feedersforcontinuousandintermittent

motioncart

78.1

25

98.8

446

90

A2

Turnkeyplants

fordrinkinanystylecontainer

(glass,

PET,can

s)

187.5

00

95

1,4

00

250

A3

Machinesforfoodprocessing,preserving,packaging

andpacking

65.6

25

75

402

76

A4

Machineryforw

eighing,packagingandpacking

60

75

Upto500

N/A.

A5

Turnkeyprojectsforindustrialbakeries

218.7

50

80

900

211

A6

Rinsers;unscramblers;fillers;completetraditional

bottlinglines;completeasepticfillinglines

50

70

240

60

A7

Cartonfillers;confectionery-packagingmachines;

horizontalpillow

-packwrappers

112.5

00

59

600

131

A8

Yeast-packaginglines;variouswrappersand

overwrappers;labelingmachines

Over350

97

Over1,5

00

N/A

A9

Horizontalpouc

hmachinesandpouch-cartoning

systems

15

75

45

10

A10

Automaticcanpressure/leak-testingmachines;high

speedcheckweighersoraerosollinesgassingroom

tofillinflammablepropellantgas

56

80

185

39

A11

Baggingmachin

esforliquids,powdersandgranular

products

8

30

15

4

Table I.Profile of the samplefirms

EJIM8,4

458


7/18

respondents were asked to rate the level of agreement with 13 statements, on five-pointLikert scales. These 13 measures of job satisfaction can be shown to be captured bythree underlying dimensions or factors (Table III) which simplifies the interpretation ofthe results. To this purpose factor analysis provided a three-factor solution (principal

component with varimax rotation) that was based on eigenvalues . 1 and accountedfor 63.6 percent of the variance. The dimensions identified have labelled as: careersatisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment.

As far as career satisfaction is concerned, satisfaction with the promotion rate, paylevel, status achieved and progress in achieving career goals were included into themeasure. Career satisfaction was measured by a five-item scale developed byGreenhaus et al. (1990) and reported in the Appendix. Responses to the items wereaveraged to create a career satisfaction score (a 0.93).

Job involvement refers to the degree to which an employee identifies with his/herpresent job and the extent to which the job situation is central to the employeesself-identity (Igbaria et al., 1999). This construct was measured by items investigating

GenderMale (%) 96Female (%) 4

EducationSome graduate school (%) 59Graduate degree (%) 18Age (in years) 34.6 SD 10.7Organizational tenure (in years) 11.5 SD 6.65

Table II.Demographic

characteristics of thesample

Factors % of variancea Factor components Loadb

Career satisfaction 40.6 Success achieved in career 0.90a 0.93c Progress in achieving career goals 0.86

Satisfaction with rate of promotion 0.84Satisfaction with the pay level 0.63Satisfaction with the status achieved 0.63

Job involvement 14.7 Personal goals achieved through the job 0.80a 0.80 Overlapping between personal life interests and job

interests0.77

Sense of professional pride 0.68Organizational 8.3 Willingness to put an effort beyond that required 0.75commitment Loyalty to organization 0.61

a 0.70 Overlapping between the organizations andpersonal values

0.60

Pride to belong to the organisation 0.41Agreement with the organisations practices andpolicies

0.41

Notes: aVariance explained for each factor. Total variance explained: 63.6 percent,Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.854;

bLoading of variable on each factor;

cReliability coefficient for each

factorTable III.

Performance factors


459


8/18

the personal goals achieved through the job, the level of overlapping between personallife interests and job interests and the sense of professional pride. Frone et al. (1995)measurement was used to assess job involvement. The scale (Appendix) consists offive statements, each of which is followed by a five-point disagree/agree response scale.

Responses to the items were averaged to produce a total job involvement score(a 0.80).

Finally, organizational commitment can be defined as the employees identificationwith a particular organization and his/her desire to maintain membership in theorganization. Aspects such as the willingness to put an effort beyond that required,loyalty to the organization, the level of overlapping between the organizations and therespondents values, the pride to belong to the organization and the agreement with theorganizations practices and policies were included. These five items, reported in theAppendix, were averaged to obtain an overall index of organizational commitment(a 0.70).

ResultsAfter identifying the performance factors and their relative importance in theorganizations considered, the second aim of the research was to conceptualize andidentify the underlying elements that critically impact on satisfaction. Factor analysiswas used to accomplish this (principal components with varimax rotation with anumber of factors based on eigenvalues.1). Factor analysis produced five factors thataccounted for the 66.3 percent of the variance (Table IV). These factors have beenlabelled as (in decreasing order of importance):

(1) Inadequate reward system;

(2) Inadequate understanding of engineers expectations;

(3) Failure to differentiate between professionals and other workers;

(4) Lack of task-intrinsic motivation; and(5) Inadequate managerial competence and knowledge.

The factor solution is considered to be robust since the factors are easily interpretablefrom their components and Cronbach alphas confirmed their reliability (all factors havealphas $ 0.50).

As for the research model of Figure 1, the five factors have been grouped into threemeta-factors, that are purely nominal in that they logically aggregate conceptuallycomplementary factors. In other words, the three meta-factors are only labels ofsimilar factors and do not represent constructs or variables resulting from thestatistical analysis. As an example, we logically combined the two factors Inadequatereward system and Inadequate understanding of engineers expectations since they

could be considered as two facets of a unique organizational attribute labelled asManagerial policies and supervisory criteria. Similarly, the third factor (Failure todifferentiate between professionals and other workers) was coupled to Inadequatemanagerial competence and knowledge for the sake of brevity and sound reasoninginto the meta-factor labelled as Perception of engineers status and role. This featuresin fact, refers to the way management understands the differences in work orientations,need systems and career objectives of different groups of workers, and to the trainingof engineers for careers in management. Finally, Lack of task-intrinsic motivation is

EJIM8,4

460


9/18

a standalone concept that can be referred to a generic Job-related motivationalmechanisms organizational attribute. It deploys work design based on challenge,

professional achievement, ingenuity, imagination and flexibility.

The next step was to investigate the linkages between the five factors and the three

dimensions of performance. Multiple regression analysis was conducted with the latter

ones as independent variables. As for the dependent variables, since the objective was

to link managerial failures to dissatisfaction, the value complementing to five of the

scores given to each of the performance items (since all judgements were on five-point

Factors % of variance Factor components Load

Inadequate reward systema 0.81

23.4 Mismatch between opportunities granted tomanagerial and technical roles 0.91

Excessive association of incentives tohierarchical advancement 0.85Excessively structured and formalisedreward systems are not effective 0.80Mechanisms are excessively focused onrewarding compliance rather thanachievement 0.73Low emphasis on status rewards 0.68

Inadequate understanding of 15.9 Superior authority by non-professionals 0.91expectations a 0.73 Vague criteria for promotion and

advancement 0.81Vague criteria for productivity evaluation 0.76Vague definition of job description 0.67

Low effort to develop subordinates skillsand potential 0.58Vague criteria for effectiveness evaluation 0.55

Failure to differentiate 11.5 Bureaucratic controls 0.80between professionals and Authority systems 0.74other workers a 0.65 Excessive focus on organisational

efficiency 0.67Low salary differential 0.61

Lack of task-intrinsic 8.6 Low challenge 0.75motivation a 0.59 Low ingenuity 0.75

Low creativity 0.70Low flexibility 0.65Low discretion 0.63Low professional achievement 0.53

Underemployment of individual skills 0.53Low perceived fitting of individualcontribution into the global picture 0.50

Inadequate managerialcompetence and knowledge

6.9 Inequality of technical to managerialcompetency 0.80

a 0.50 Lack of managerial training for technicalprofessionals

0.71

Lack of identification of the managerialpotential in technical professionals 0.68Automatic advancement to managerialposition 0.68

Table IV.Factor components and

loadings


461


10/18

Likert scales) were used. Table V reports the results. All equations are highlysignificant. As a further check, correlation analysis was also conducted and producedsimilar results.

These results are discussed in the following.

The impact of an inadequate reward system on dis/satisfactionInadequacy of the reward system is strongly associated to career dissatisfaction (withthe highest regression coefficients of the whole data group), and to a lower extent toorganizational commitment. No significant statistical correlation was establishedbetween this factor and job involvement.

There are a number of problematic areas relating to the adoption of the wrongreward system.

One of these is that the rewards for the technical and the managerial career havenever been equally attractive. Despite strong recognition of the importance of technicalexcellence in organizations, the managerial career path is perceived as providing the

major opportunity for promotion (Goldberg and Shenav, 1984). These findings confirmthe results of prior studies (Amar, 2004; King, 1997) that pinpointed the need toimprove the mix of managerial and technical skills in organizations via better jobevaluation systems, the use of skills and abilities, job design, and incentive paymentfor keeping up technical skills.

A second important point is that tension between managers and technicalprofessionals is caused by the excessive use of incentives that are almost totallyassociated with hierarchical advancement.

Third, development engineers seem to rely upon their supervisors for recognitionrather than upon the organization itself, with very poor trust in the structural solutionsdesigned to offer opportunities for professional and financial advancement.

Fourth, current reward systems for engineers are also inadequate due to they are

generally tend to privilege achievement rather than compliance with the managementwishes.

Last, the analysis has confirmed that engineers do partially complain for the lack ofemphasis on status rewards. The work role considered appropriate to an occupational

Dependent variables/independent variablesOrganizational

commitmentCareer

satisfactionJob

involvement

Inadequate reward system 0.11 *a 0.30 * Inadequate understanding of expectations 0.12 * 0.26 * * Failure to differentiate between professionals and

other workers

0.14 * * 0.21 * 0.11 *

Lack of task-intrinsic motivation 0.11 * * 0.25 * *

Inadequate managerial competence and knowledge 0.19 * 0.23 *

No. of factors in equation 5/5 3/5 3/5Adjusted R2 0.33 0.48 0.35

F-value (equation) * * * 8.3 19.9 13.1

Notes: a Regression coefficients (standardized betas); * significance at the 0.1 level; * * significance atthe 0.01 level; * * *Significant at 0.001 for all three equations

Table V.Regression coefficients

EJIM8,4

462


11/18

group is determined by its status in the organization. Status depends on how groupmembers are perceived. Hence, being staffed in technical development departments isprobably not so prestigious as working in manufacturing and/or commercialdepartments.

The impact of an inadequate understanding of engineers expectations ondis/satisfactionInadequacy in understanding engineers expectations is strongly associated to careerdissatisfaction (with the second highest regression coefficients), and to a lower extentto organizational commitment. In this case too, no significant statistical correlation wasestablished between this factor and job involvement.

One can, thus, affirm that management systems do not reflect a soundunderstanding of engineers expectations as professionals. Superior authorityexercised by a non-knowledge worker is likely to cause resentment, as it breachesengineers professional pride.

A second problematic area relates to the criteria used for promotion and careeradvancement that tend to be too general and vague. Standards of job description andadvancement are generally put forward by management in a fuzzy and unclearfashion. Thus, if an employees development is raised by management to a criticalcriterion of performance evaluation and effectiveness assessment, engineers concernand dissatisfaction increase. Tension also stems from the fact that firms still putemphasis on measuring engineers productivity in a traditional way. One majorcomplain is for the low effort made by engineering managers to look for newtechniques and modified measures in order to appropriately associate creativity to thetraditional measures of productivity. Demotivation may largely hinge upon perceivingthe difficulty to measure individuals achievement. In this sense, turning to the analysisand development of the individual skills and competencies is much more felt asequitable and appropriate. This calls for a shift from productivity evaluation toeffectiveness appraisal. But again, the research has confirmed that low effort is spentby managers to communicate unequivocally what criteria would be used.

The impact of the failure to differentiate between professionals and other workers ondis/satisfactionThe failure to differentiate between professionals and other workers is associated withall three measures of dissatisfaction. One of the major tensions in theengineer-management relationship arises from the use of outdated and old-fashionmanagement practices, originally conceived mainly for shop-floor workers. Examplesof these practices include excessively bureaucratic controls and authority systems and

disproportionate focus on organizational efficiency. In addition a small salarydifferential between knowledge and non-knowledge employees (especially those skilledworkers that are not perceived as professionals by the engineer) lends furthersupport to the inadequacy of management methods (Smith and Rupp, 2003). Theimportance of salary-related incentives for engineers is in that money represents thetangible evidence of how they rate in the organization. Engineers are particularlysensitive to what they perceive as unfair and tend to reject rewards based on anyother basis but recognizable professional achievement. Thus, a small salary


463


12/18


13/18

As far as the company policy is concerned, the future of the knowledge organizationis dependent on establishing sound recruiting, career planning and placement policies.In particular, there is a need for improved management understanding of the concept ofcareer planning for professional enrichment and growth of engineers. Research on

career planning shows that diversity is a critical ingredient in ensuring a beneficial andfulfilling career, especially for older professionals. However, most companies do notprovide the necessary chances and incentive for diversity. In short, there is strongevidence suggesting that pushing technical personnel in their late thirties and earlyforties into new fields will enlarge their interests on and off the job, and will have asignificant impact on motivation and satisfaction.

From the standpoint of nourishing engineers vitality and motivation, severalstrategies can be pursued. These include continuing education, retraining, sabbaticalleaves, rotation programs, job transfers, and redesign (Cheng and Ho, 2001). For theeffective implementation of these strategies, however, management must show its totalcommitment to continued learning throughout life as a compelling instrument.Incidentally, It is noteworthy here that these mechanisms are particularly importantfor motivation and technical vitality of older engineers, as they can become bored withthe same work after some years.

Placement is another key area because placement of knowledge workers is the routeto their productivity. Not only do opportunities have to be provided to people capableof coping with them and of transforming them into results, but technical professionalsmust also be placed where their skills can be productive. Designing appropriateplacement policies for engineers is thus a vital concern for personnel managers.

Reward systems emphasizing such factors as status, advancement to managerialpositions, and authority and influence within the company structure are those mostappropriate for engineers. The engineers status, influence, satisfaction, andproductivity are in turn greatly favoured by opportunities for participation and

involvement in managerial and technical decision-making. A special theme is then thatrelated to salary. In view of the importance to engineers of salary and economicincentives, as discussed above, a sound scheme is a necessity. Salary ranges forvarious engineering classifications should be specifically made clear, with recognitionfor personal development efforts.

Managements perception of engineers status and role expectationsTechnical professionals are more productive when they feel they are a nontrivial partof the company and that the organization cares about them as individuals. Asdiscussed above a major antecedent of disillusionment and disappointment forengineers is that current management practices and policies do not contemplateadequate understanding of their needs and expectations as professionals.

Responsibility, achievement, and contribution are very important elements ofmotivational mechanisms for engineers. Engineering managers, should, therefore, putmore emphasis on these elements driving their attention toward maximising theengineers contribution. This fact has obviously great implications for evaluationcriteria that should be more based on judging engineers strictly on the basis ofcompliance, competence and quality of work. These criteria should include not onlyperformance goals (cost, product features, and efficiency), but also personal andsubordinates development efforts. This would encourage managers to help


465


14/18

subordinates develop their skills and potential, and thus enhance subordinatessatisfaction and motivation.

Management methods and practices has also shown a significant need to bedesigned for better understanding the differences in work orientations and

expectations between engineers, as knowledge workers, and other technical skilledworkers. For instance, engineers should be granted the chance to analyze, evaluate, andcritic their own performance. Perhaps the most important principle is to enable theknowledge workers to do what they are being paid for. Not to be able to do what one isbeing paid for infallibly quenches whatever motivation there is.

Another mechanism that has considerable effect on engineers motivation is thepowerful communication content of incentives. In general terms, the messageembodied into an incentive will prevail any time formal verbal communications andthe implications of an incentive are conflicting. That is, concrete managementinitiatives are more powerful than words. Open communications, integrity, andpositive reinforcement of company and professional values are certainly key elementsof an effective motivation.

Another major source of conflict is represented by the low degree of managerialcompetence of engineering managers with a technical background. This suggests atleast three possible remedies. A first principle of general validity is that the malpracticeof promoting the most technically competent to an administrative position simply fortheir technical abilities should be abandoned. Engineering managers should betechnically competent to obtain the respect of their subordinates, aspiring tosupervisory assignments, and be trained to smooth the transition from technicalcompetence to management capability.

Second, more effective selection procedures must be identified and used to identifythose promising candidates who are likely to have the right individual profile(orientation to manage, power and interpersonal empathy) for a managerial position.

In addition to proper identification of managerial potential and sound selection, achange in the current educational continuing system of industrial engineers is calledfor. The present system fails to develop engineers managerial skills (asdecision-makers). There are evidences of in-house programs being undertaken byseveral companies worldwide, offering training and coaching activities to bridge thegap from engineering to management.

Job-related motivational mechanismsOne important principle is here that engineering managers should keep in mind thatthe design of the task environment has huge impacts on learning, growth andmotivation. Employees can find creative solutions only when they truly enjoy theirwork. Managers can also fit the job to the employees motivational needs by modifying

the work situation or organization or by changing their own leadership styles. Morethan mere positive thinking or generalized confidence in the employee, expectationsshould be goals tailored to the individuals capabilities. A powerful motivationalmechanism is, thus, through job redesign. Work satisfaction is gradually changing itsmeaning. The significance of meaningful work for engineers is changing due tomodifications in cultural and social values. Meaningful work is not only puzzling out atechnical challenge. Accordingly, jobs need to be redesigned in order to includeingredients of challenge, achievement, and conveying the feeling that the job would

EJIM8,4

466


15/18

make a positive contribution to the overall company mission. In short, the concept ofjob enrichment is quite relevant here and should be used by engineering managers toenhance the motivational potential and productivity of engineers.

ConclusionsMotivating technical employees who are typically bright and independent-minded canappear uniquely difficult to those attempting to lead them without understanding theirneeds. Both classical and modern theories of worker motivation assert that motivationstems from the nature of the work and not its peripheral benefits, and, consequently,managers should recognize and maximize motivational circumstances. Managerscannot directly control the staffs motivation, but they can indirectly influence factorsrelated to its absence or presence. Trust, communication, and listening are essential inmanaging engineers and can provide the climate for motivated staff.

Creating the right internal environment and using it to motivate individual workersis the key to achieving organizational excellence and making a quality product.Managers can optimize engineers energy by adapting the environment to the job athand. Steps can be taken to help managers create a work environment that fostersindividual motivation. These steps include a set of coordinated actions that leverage ondifferent elements.

First, better monitoring and receptivity of new ideas, less concern with personalfitness for an organizational pattern, and a reasonable degree of freedom andautonomy are some positive ingredients of a creative organizational climate.

Second, more decentralized and less formal structures providing opportunities forcommunication, interaction, and participation are to be implemented. The system oftwo-career ladders one for managers and the other for top-level specialists orprofessionals has worked satisfactorily up to a certain level. However, there areindications that there will be a change in the natural career progression in the near

future. The rising educational level of the workforce, the onset of lean,knowledge-driven companies that are competence-based, and doubts about theeffectiveness of the classical manager are responsible for this.

Third, technical employees such as engineers desire opportunities to work withfreedom within specified responsibilities and to be recognized for their achievements.

References

Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1986), The dual ladder: motivational solution or managerial delusion?,R&D Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 185-97.

Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1992), Age, education and technical ladder, IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 237-45.

Amar, A.D. (2004), Motivating knowledge workers to innovate: a model integrating motivation

dynamics and antecedents, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 89-101.

Appelbaum, S.H., St-Pierre, N. and Glavas, W. (1998), Strategic organizational change: the roleof leadership, learning, motivation and productivity, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 5,pp. 289-301.

Badawy, M.K. (1978), One more time: how to motivate your engineers, IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 37-42.

Canainn, A.O. (1995), Herr Ingenieur or the grease-monkey? How the managerial prospects ofengineers are perceived, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 74-92.


467


16/18

Cheng, E.W.L. and Ho, D.C.K. (2001), The influence of job and career attitudes on learningmotivation and transfer, Career Development International, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 20-8.

Day, R. and Allen, T.D. (2004), The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacywith protege career success, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 72-91.

Debackere, K., Buyens, D. and Vandenbossche, T. (1997), Strategic career development for R&Dprofessionals: lessons from field research, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 53-62.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1995), Job stressors, job involvement and employeehealth: a test of identity theory, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Goldberg, A.I. and Shenav, Y.A. (1984), R&D career paths: their relation to work goals andproductivity, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 111-17.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), Race effects on organizationalexperience, job performance evaluation, and career outcomes, Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-96.

Hesketh, B., Gardner, D. and Lissner, D. (1992), Technical and managerial career paths:an unresolved dilemma, International Journal of Career Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 9-16.

Hiltrop, J.M. (1999), The quest for the best: human resource practices to attract and retaintalent, European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 422-30.

Howard, A. (1983), Can engineers succeed in general management? Enhancing engineeringcareers by fulfilling individual and organizational goals, IEEE, New York, NY, pp. 76-80.

Igbaria, M., Kassicieh, S.K. and Silver, M. (1999), Career orientations and career success amongresearch, and development and engineering professionals, Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 29-54.

Johnson, D. and Sargeant, A. (1998), Motives for transition: an exploratory study of engineeringmanagers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 41-53.

King, A. (1997), The crescendo effect in career motivation, Career Development International,Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 293-301.

Kuby, T.E. (1993), Motivate your engineers, Chemical Engineering, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 137-8.McCormick, K. (1995), Career paths, technological obsolescence and skill formation: R&D staffin Britain and Japan, R&D Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 197-211.

McGovern, P. (1995), To retain or not to retain? Multinational firms and technical labour,Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 7-23.

Munson, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1979), The values of engineers and managing engineers, IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 94-100.

Orpen, C. (1997), The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizationalcommitment and job performance, The Learning Organization: An International Journal,Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 53-60.

Roberts, K. and Biddle, J. (1994), The transition into management by scientists and engineers:a misallocation or efficient use of human resources?, Human Resource Management,Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 561-79.

Smith, A.D. and Rupp, W.T. (2003), Knowledge workers: exploring the link among performancerating, pay and motivational aspects, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 107-24.

Further reading

Allen, T.J. and Katz, R. (1995), The project-oriented engineer: a dilemma for human resourcemanagement, R&D Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 129-40.

EJIM8,4

468


17/18

Appendix. Sample of survey items

Please see Figure A1.

Figure A1.


469


18/18

Figure A1.

EJIM8,4

470

Status, Role

Documents

Transcript of Status, Role