THE DUAL LA DDE RS OF A DV A NCEME NT

A company could offer its engineers promotion along two routes: one for those who wish to continue their
technical work and another for those with managerial aspirations, The key is to keep the rungs even.
SAM WALTERS, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING MAGAZINE

More and more engineers these days are winding up in the upper levels of corporate
management. Their success is the fruit of special aptitudes and specialized training--of their
ability to think analytically and quantitatively, to generalize, and to handle details. But to
many of those attempting to make the transition, trading in the hat of a technical expert for
that of a manager is not as easy as it might at first appear.

The basic goal of a manager is to get things done. Working within the limits of an
organization, managers must be able to respect the decisions of their superiors and see that
they are acted upon. A successful manager motivates staff members to lend their talents to
meeting organizational objectives. At the same time, managers must respect that others
have a stake in the organization and may have valuable insights and information. The ability
to listen to people and truly hear what they are saying is extremely important.

In the course of a single day, a manager may be confronted with an enormous amount of
information. Successful managers are able to organize this data with a minimum amount of
wheel spinning. Underlying this is the ability to discern the overall scheme of things in an
organization and not get bogged down in details. Above all, good managers are never
satisfied with the ways things are; they are always looking for better ways to do a job.

According to consultants interviewed at Performex of San Francisco and at other

management consulting firms, the problems of engineers in middle management are the
same as those encountered by other highly trained professionals, such as physicists,
actuaries, and computer experts. The most basic problem is a lack of knowledge about
management practices. While technical skills may be well honed, the administrative skills of
technologists often leave something to be desired. The same may be true of the ability to
maintain amicable relations with staff members. As a consequence, former specialists may
have trouble adjusting to their new positions.
Another key problem is reluctance to let go of a problem and delegate responsibility for it to
someone else. Most first-line supervisors in the initial stage of transition from specialist
assume that they can do the job more quickly and easily than a subordinate can. Finally, the
instinct to analyze a problem thoroughly may inhibit a technologist from making decisions
when only incomplete information is available.

When an engineer is not performing up to par as a manager, the fact is usually evidenced
by such problems as cost overruns or failure to meet a schedule date or a key company
goal. All too often in such cases, top management shakes its collective head, mutters
something about the Peter Principle, and hopes the employee will go someplace else for a
job. And in fact, good technical experts are in such demand that they often can find new
jobs offering salary increases of up to 25 percent. Meanwhile, the company will have lost an
experienced worker, often to a competitor, and possibly have gained a reputation as a bad
employer in the process.
Traditionally, promotion to managerial positions of increasing responsibility has been an
employee's reward for outstanding performance. One disadvantage of this system, as we
have seen, is the risk of managerial incompetence- Another problem is that the company
suffers when, as often happens, these specialists qua managers feel obliged to sacrifice
their technical work to the demands of daily administration. If a policy existed that could
promote an employee in either a technical or an administrative capacity, and thus retain the
expertise of technologists unsuited to management, it obviously would be in a company's
interest to adopt it.

The dual-ladder system holds out the hope of such a policy. It is based on the principle that
there should be two paths available for advancement in a technical organization, one for
those interested in continuing their technical work, and another for those with managerial
aspirations. The key to the system is maintaining equivalency between the two ladders. The
levels of their respective rungs must be, and must be perceived as being, equal.

One problem with establishing truly equivalent advancement ladders is that, depending on
whether a job is technical or managerial, different aspects predominate. Differences
between technical and managerial positions in terms of promotional policies also lead to
discrepancies. Technologists usually must prove their competence before they are promoted
to higher positions. Managers, on the other hand, tend to be promoted before they have
proved themselves adequate to a new job. This ties in with the common perception that
managers have more responsibility, prestige, and power than technologists. The fact that
technologists are usually rated by managers confirms this idea.

Atrophy of the technical ladder is another problem. Although the two ladders might have
rungs at equal levels up to a point, sometimes the administrative ladder disappears into the
upper reaches of the organization while its technical counterpart stops short. Where this is
the case, motivated individuals will abandon technical work for managerial positions to
which they may not be suited.

True managerial and technical equivalency would also allow movement back and forth
between the two ladders. The primary difficulty with maintaining lateral equivalency is the
danger of technical obsolescence resulting from rapid advances in technology. For this
reason, administrators must recognize the importance of keeping positions on the technical
ladder up to date. As much attention should be paid to technical as to managerial
promotions.

For the dual-ladder system to work, employees must feel that they have tangible evidence
of advancement in their careers. Building perquisites into the system is one way of dispelling
the suspicion that management gets all the rewards. But the most effective way to ensure
the success of the dual ladder is a systematic review program that encourages employers to
examine their career goals in the context of corporate objectives. Employees who know
where they are going are more likely to find themselves on the right ladder.

For more information, see “Easing the Managerial Transition for Engineers and Scientists” by James R.
Hemsath, and “Why Technical Experts Make Lousy Managers—and What They Can Do About It” by Ralph
Bettman.