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.

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

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

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

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

Dissatisfaction and Demotivation In his keynote address to the Academy of Management in 1986, Peter Drucker eloquently asserted: We know that the organization is rapidly shifting from one of manual workers to knowledge workers. But we know pitifully little about managing knowledge workers" and knowledge work, about productivity with knowledge work, and about organizing knowledge work, integrating it, and measuring it. And despite all the research done in the last 50 years, we really so far know very much about how to quench motivation and very little about how to kindle it (35). Research findings reinforce Drucker's points. They point to mounting dissatisfaction and alienation among scientists and engineers in industry (36). 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). 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; that scientists and engineers are professionals who demand special treatment, and that the technical environment is characterized by unknowns and uncertainties which militate against close control (38). The net result is that engineers and scientists, as expensive and scarce resources, are often badly mismanaged. 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). Motivation vs. Manipulation There are striking differences between motivational and manipulative work environments. The former are characterized by an appreciation of individual differences, reward systems based on employees' varying needs, and close links among motivational effort, job performances, and organizational rewards. On the other hand, characteristics of manipulative work environments include the following (40): * Disregard of individual differences. * High degree of uncertainty and ambiguity which reinforces insecurity; "motivation" by fear. * Motivational gimmicks imposed upon individuals which deter growth and achievement. * Overly paternalistic managers. * Overemphasis on external rewards for work performed. These rewards include security, salary, compensation, and prestige. Although internal rewards (including perfection of skills, discovering new data or technologies, problem solving, and achieving high quantity and quality) are the crux of motivation, they are either ignored or deemphasized. * Misdirected management policies and procedures, including "across the board" salary increases with no meaningful relationship between performance and rewards. * Formal compensation systems often based on factors other than performance, such as job classification, seniority, and pay grade. * Low trust and confidence in employees and ill-defined performance expectations. * Lack of managerial delegation to "protect" subordinates against failure or error. * Performance appraisal systems, if existing, focus primarily on ratings and judgments rather than goal setting and planning. They also focus more on personal traits than accomplishments. How to Inhibit Motivation

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

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

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

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

Criteria used to measure scientific performance include productivity in written work, recent reports, originality of written work, professional society membership, judgment of actual work output, creativity ratings by high-level supervisors, overall quality ratings by immediate supervisors, likableness as a member of the research team, visibility, recognition for organizational contributions, status-seeking tendencies, current organizational status, and contract-monitoring load (44). Several studies have explored the use of objective measures as performance criteria. These measures include the number of patents, publications, reports, presentations, project approvals, project completions, and salary and age level (63, 64, 65). However, there is serious question as to just how valid these measures are (66, 67). Two additional observations should be made: First, in spite of the difficulty of appraising performance and productivity of technical professionals, R&D performance should somehow be related to the financial performance of the company. Second, there is no doubt that appraising a researcher's performance will be more subjective than that of a design engineer, for example, whose performance can be directly compared to other people performing similar tasks. However, by breaking down the researcher's activities into several parts, the supervisor and researcher hopefully can agree on the researcher's performance in each part. For example, they can evaluate whether any novel ideas or new areas of research were identified, whether approaches were proposed to investigate and develop the suggested ideas, and whether the researcher was productive in implementing his programs. In addition, they should consider if he functioned as a consultant, gatekeeper, mentor, recruiter, etc. Certainly the overall appraisal process will be assisted by the researcher's buying in beforehand to as many specified objectives as possible. CAREER MANAGEMENT Although it is management's responsibility to provide the organizational climate, support and development programs needed for effective career planning, it is the individual's responsibility to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for managing his most important investment--his career. Career management, then, has two perspectives: individual and organizational. And for this function to be handled effectively, it must be a joint partnership between technical professionals and the employing organization.

The Individual's Perspective Career planning is not a one-shot effort; it is a continuing process of evaluating aspirations in terms of the larger context of a person's life. Choosing a career involves choosing an identity. The impact of that decision will affect not only an individual's career, but his life as well. Dalton and Thompson identified four distinct stages that successful professional employees pass through (68). Each stage differs from the others in the tasks that must be performed, the types of relationships engaged in, and the psychological adjustments to be made. Determining one's career stage is crucial to assessing past success and making future decisions. In the first stage, a technical professional typically works under the direction of others as an apprentice, helping and learning from one or more superiors (69). At this stage, he is probably assigned to a project directed by a senior professional or a supervisor. Since many younger scientists and engineers are eager to undertake their own projects, they may find such a work situation frustrating.

Although this attitude is understandable, 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. Worse yet, if they undertake sole responsibility for work they are not prepared to do, inexperienced scientists and engineers may quickly acquire a reputation for mediocre performance that will be hard to overcome. 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. Independence is the primary prerequisite for the second 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. The best way of accomplishing this is to become a specialist, at least temporarily, within a certain field of endeavor. 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. The major career dilemma at this stage is how much to specialize. 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. 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. A successful transition to the second career stage is not easy. It involves a change in attitude and behavior. Adjusting from dependence to independence requires originating and developing ideas and individual standards of performance. Some scientists or engineers who find this stage uncomfortable rush into supervisory positions before establishing themselves as competent professionals. This can lead to career failure. Doing well in the second stage is vital for effective career development, but remaining in this stage too long can be detrimental. The probability of continuing to receive above-average ratings diminishes with time. Thus, the longer people remain in this stage, the more likely they are to get stuck there. However, it is important to note that some individuals can and should choose to rise to higher levels in what might be considered Stage 2. Others might even choose to leave R&D and enter other functional areas (71). While in Stage 2, scientists and engineers learn to take care of themselves. In Stage 3, they learn to take care of others; they assume some responsibility for directing and developing other people. They also usually play a critical role in helping others move through the first career stage. Technical people in Stage 3 play multiple roles, including informal mentor, idea person and manager. Because of their broad interests and capabilities, they tap resources in the organization, provide innovative proposals and expertise, and assume a formal managerial role. Successful transition to Stage 3 requires a high degree of self-confidence, a willingness to assume responsibility for others' performance, and a capacity for dealing with the tension that results from bridging the worlds of management and professional discipline. This transition requires major adjustments that some engineers and scientists find confining and uncomfortable. In such cases, 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. Many scientists and engineers find this third stage satisfying and rewarding in terms of money, status and growth, and therefore stay in it until retirement. Some find that they are stagnating and hardpressed to keep up with younger competitors. Others move on to the fourth stage where as a senior manager, internal entrepreneur or idea innovator they have a high degree of influence on the direction of their organization or one of its major segments.

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

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

* 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, interpersonal, 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. Addressing these issues constitutes both an opportunity and a challenge for academics, R&D executives and managers for the next 50 years.
Further Reading
Alignent Software. 2006. Roadmap Your Way to Better Innovation (White Paper). Badawy, Michael K. 1995. Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists. Wiley, Second edition. Collins, J. D. and Hitt, Michael A. 2006. Leveraging Tacit Knowledge in Alliances: The Importance of Using Relational Capabilities to Build and Leverage Relational Capital. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 147-187, September. Desourza, Kevin C. (Editor). 2005. New Frontiers of Knowledge Management, Palgrave, Macmillan. Drucker, Peter F. 2002. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, August, pp. 5-11. Florida, Richard. 2004. America's Looming Creativity Crisis. Harvard Business Review, March, pp. 161 169. Lynn, Leonard and Salzman, Hal. 2006. New Horizons for a Flat World. Issues in Science and Technology, National Academies of Science, Winter, pp. 75-82. O'Brien, Timothy L. 2005. Are U.S. Innovators Losing Their Corporative Edge? New York Times, November 13. Pacharn, P. and Zhang, L. 2006. Accounting, Innovation, and Incentives. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Special Issue on "Accounting Measurement, Incentives, and Technological innovation," Vol. 23, No. 1-2, March/June, pp. 114-129. M.K.B, July 2007
References (1.) E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fusfeld. "Staffing the Innovative Technology-Based Organization," Sloan Management Review, pp. 19-34 (Spring 1981). (2.) E. B. Roberts. "Managing the Process of Invention and Innovation," Research * Technology Management. pp. 11-29 (Jan.-Feb. 1988). (3.) D. Pelz and F. Andrews. Scientists in Organizations, Revised ed., University of Michigan Press (1976). (4.) E. B. Roberts. "Entrepreneurship and Technology: A Basic Study of Innovators," Research Management (July 1968). (5.) D. G. Marquis and I. M. Rubin. "Management Factors in Project Performance," MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper (1966). (6.) T. J. Allen. Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press (1977). (7.) For information on spotting creative people during job interviews, see M. K. Badawy. "How to Prevent Creativity Mismanagement," Research Management, p. 33 (Jul--August 1986). (8.) J. Balderston, P. Birnbaum, R. Goodman, and M. Stahl. Modern Management Techniques in Engineering and R&D, p. 241 (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984). (9.) N. Hilberry, Elements of Basic Research Management Philosophy at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois (September 22, 1953). (10.) "The Role of the Product Champion Conference Report," R&D Management, 15, 1, pp. 71-72 (1985). (11.) E. B. Roberts. "Generating Effective Corporate Innovation," Technology Review, pp. 27-33 (Oct. Nov. 1977). (12.) M.A. Maidique. "Entrepreneurs, Champions, and Technological Innovation," Sloan Management Review, pp. 59-76 (Winter 1980). (13.) A. K. Chakrabarti. "The Role of Champion in Product Innovation," California Management Review, pp. 58-62 (Winter 1974). (14.) W. A. Fischer, W. Hamilton, C. P. McLaughlin, and R. W. Zmud. "The Elusive Product Champion," Research Management, pp. 13-16 (May-June 1986).

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

(54.) M. K. Badawy. "How to Prevent Creativity Mismanagement," Research Management, pp. 28-35 (July--August 1986); B. Merrifield. "Nurturing the Innovator," Research Management (Nov. 1979); G. Pinchot. Intrapreneuring (Harper & Row, 1985); A. Shapero. "Managing Creative Professionals," Research Management (March--April 1985); and W. B. Zachary and R. M. Krone. "Managing Creative Individuals in High Technology Research Projects," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (Feb. 1984). (55.) G. Kelton. "The Evaluation of Scientific Personnel," R&D Management, pp. 9-17 (Oct. 1983). (56.) For a review of this research see: H. John Bernardin and Richard W. Beatty. Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work (Kent 1985); Thomas H. Patten. A Manager's Guide to Performance Appraisal (The Free Press 1982); and Richard Henderson. Performance Appraisal: Theory to Practice (Reston Publishing Company 1980). (57.) H. H. Meyer, E. Kay, and J. R. P. French. Split Roles in Performance Appraisal, Harvard Business Review, pp. 123-129 (Jan.-Feb. 1965). (58.) Richard A. Pappas and Donald S. Remer. "Measuring R&D Productivity," Research Management, pp. 15-22 (May-June 1985). (59.) Shirley Edwards and Michael W. McCarrey. "Measuring the Performance of Researchers," Research Management, p. 34 (Jan. 1973). (60.) I. Hinch, W. Milwitt, and T. W. Oakes. "Increasing the Productivity of Scientists," Harvard Business Review, 36, pp. 66-76 (1958). (61.) R. S. Strauss. "The Productivity of Scientists: XIX. Job Satisfaction and Productivity of Engineers and Scientists," Perception and Motor Skills, 23, 2, pp. 471-476 (1966). (62.) J. C. South. "Fakability and the Engineer Performance Description Forum," Personnel Psychology, pp. 371-376 (Summer 1980). (63.) A. Van Duren. "The Value of Performance Appraisal in the Motivation of Engineering Personnel," Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, pp. 1954-1955 (4-B, October 1976). (64.) S. A. Stumpf. "Using Integrators to Manage Conflict in a Research Organization," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13, 4, pp. 507517 (1977). (65.) H. G. Kaufman. "Relationship of Early Work Challenge to Job Performance, Professional Contributions and Competency of Engineers," Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. 377 389 (June 1974). (66.) R. Steers. "Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly. 20, pp. 546-558 (1975). (67.) R. Whitley and P. Frost. "The Measurement of Performance in Research," Human Relations, 24, 2, pp. 161-177 (1971). (68.) G. W. Dalton and P. H. Thompson. Novations: Strategies for Career Management (Scott Foresman, 1986), pp. 7-12. (69.) M. K. Badawy. "Planning for a Career in Technical Management," The Wall Street Journal (February 8, 1987). (70.) See M. K. Badawy. "Managing Career Transition," Research Management. pp. 28-31 (July-August 1983); and Dalton and Thompson. "Helping Engineers Help Themselves," IEEE Spectrum, pp. 43-47 (December 1986). and Dalton and Thompson. "Helping Engineers Help Themselves," IEEE Spectrum, pp. 43-47 (December 1986). (71.) Douglas T. Hall. Careers in Organizations (Goodyear, 1976), p. 44. (72.) National Science Foundation Science Resources' Study Highlights (NSF 87-605), Washington, D.C., Oct. 1987. (73.) M. K. Badawy. "Career Advancement," Chemical and Engineering News (Oct. 28, 1985). (74.) D. Hall, E. Lawler III, "Unused Potential in R&D Organizations," Research Management. XII, 5, pp. 339-354 (1969). (75.) M. K. Badawy. "Research on Career Development for Engineers: Implications for Management Practice," International Conference on Engineering Management (September 1986). (76.) J. A. Raelin. "Career Stage Profiles of Engineers," Proceedings of IEEE Career Conference (Boston, 1985). (77.) Hughes Aircraft Company, R&D Productivity (Second ed. 1974). (78.) National Research Council, Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage (Washington, D.C., Nat'l Academy Press, 1987), p. 15.

RELATED ARTICLE: "Managing human resources" revisited.

Significant changes in corporate R&D and technology management practices have taken place since 1988 when my original article was published. Global changes in information technology and social, cultural, demographic, economic, competitive, and worldwide political developments have had a massive impact on corporate management strategies, practices, functions, and managerial styles. Nowhere have these impacts been more profound than in the effective utilization of technical professionals as the corporate core intellectual capital. Considering the space limitations, 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. This "update" has two sections: the first identifies some of the new realities, forces and mandates which have shaped or are shaping the corporate R&D and technology management environment in the 21st century; the second section proposes action strategies for guiding corporate technology leaders in implementing practical mechanisms for leading the intellectual capital for technological innovation. I. The New Realities

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. The following is a representative listing of some of these forces. 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. For presentation purposes, 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.g., labor, land, capital), to a competitive advantage that is technology and strategy-driven. * From traditional labor-intensive strategies to technology-driven global competitive strategies, as technology has become the great equalizer among companies and countries. * From a strong product, process and manufacturing orientation to a predominantly service sector where information technology is the currency of the day. * From R&D management to technology management. * From closed to open innovation systems. * From a Not Invented Here ("NIH") attitude to corporate technological collaboration and alliances. * From largely "home-grown" growth technology strategies to "growth from without" in the form of technological acquisitions, joint ventures and partnerships. * From mega centers and R&D laboratories to technological entrepreneurship where organizational size does not matter. * From large companies as the major source of technological innovations to smaller companies--where small is beautiful! Shifts in corporate structures, leadership styles, 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, informational, human, physical, and financial * From traditional bureaucratic and hierarchical structures to a more fluid, flexible and adaptable organizational architecture where the corporate capacity for survival depends on its capacity to change, adapt and avail itself of new opportunities. * From product management to process management represented by the project, matrix and hybrid forms of organization with the goal of maintaining flexibility to maximize profitability, market share and competitiveness. * From the economies of scale to the economies of scope (or variety) of the flexible production or service delivery system. * From traditional corporate-centered approaches to time-based management focusing on the customer while coping with time- to- market pressures. * From the traditional managerial authority, control and power focused on the skill sets necessary for doing things right, to innovative leadership styles requiring vision, inspiration, competencies, and capabilities for doing the right thing. * From the traditional belief that managers are necessary to the new recognition that leaders are essential. * 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); Chief Information Officer (CIO); Chief Technology Officer (CTO); Chief Learning Officer (CLO); and Chief Ethics Officer (CEO)--with many grey areas and overlapping accountability boundaries. 2. Implications for Effective Utilization of Intellectual Capital

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. The highlights of these strategies are presented in the accompanying Table, in which these practices have been organized into two categories: traditional and newly emerging practices. Taken collectively, they reflect a variety of management, leadership and organizational action strategies for how companies can excel in technological innovation.-M.K. Badawy, July 2007 Michael Badawy is professor of management of technology and strategic management at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Merrifield, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. with honors from New York University. His entire career has been devoted to engineering, R&D and technology management, about which he has taught, published and consulted extensively. 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. Several of his articles and his bestselling book Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists (Wiley) have been translated into Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Chinese. 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. He is the founder of the Technology and Innovation Management Division, The Academy of Management, and was elected chairman of the Academy's Management Education and Development Division. The recipient of numerous awards for teaching and service, Prof Badawy received the Korea Technology Medal of Honor from the Korea Industrial Technology Association (KITA), and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). He consults widely to private and public organizations in the U.S. and overseas, and lectures at corporate functions, executive development seminars and professional workshops. mbadawy@vt.edu

Table 1.--Caveats for Interviewers (24) * Interviews are most useful when the interviewer is intimate with the applicant's technical specialty. * Some technical people react so enthusiastically to an applicant's exciting technical idea that they are prevented from learning much more about the applicant. * Technical disputes with the applicant should be avoided. Regardless of who wins the argument, you won't come away with a great deal of useful information about the applicant. * There is considerable skepticism about the value of hasty psychological evaluations. Companies are not necessarily trying to hire normal, welladjusted people. Instead, 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. Otherwise, the organization ends up hiring people who interview well--and not necessarily people who do good research. Table 2.--Seven Principles of Effective Motivation

* Reinforced behavior tends to be repeated. (A reinforcer is any consequence that increases the likelihood that a specific behavior will occur in the future: e.g., praise increases the likelihood that the performance will be repeated.) * Reward (positive reinforcement) is more effective than punishment in motivating a technologist to perform in a particular way. Punishment is to be avoided whenever possible. * Feedback on performance is an important form of reinforcement. * For best results, a reward should follow soon after occurrence of the behavior a manager seeks to reinforce. * A clear distinction should be made between a need for training and a need for motivation (reinforcement). These are often confused, with the result that attempts to motivate fail because a technologist needs training or training is unsuccessful because of weak motivation. * Desired performance should be clearly defined and stated. Only when behavioral objectives are made explicit and concrete can they be measured and rewarded. * Rewards should be given for movement toward the desired target behavior. Rewarding so-called successive approximations provides assurance that a person will continue to move in the right direction. 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.

Table 3.--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

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

* Five different work roles are critical to the innovation process: idea generating, entrepreneuring or championing, project leading, gatekeeping, and sponsoring or coaching. * Work climates in some companies seem to be highly manipulative. * Not only are there differences in task characteristics between R&D and other corporate functions, but there are differences in value orientation and motivational style between engineers and scientists and also within them as two separate groups. * Reward systems should be tailored to fit particular groups of technical professionals. Their effectiveness depends on a number of variables including the job context, the individual's career stage, background and skills, types of incentives used, how the program is administered, and how it is communicated. * Performance appraisals are, for the most part, arbitrary, inadequate, and unreliable, resulting in "market value" appraisals of technical professionals. * Effective career management has two perspectives: individual and organizational. Although it is management's responsibility to provide the organizational climate, support and development programs needed for effective career planning, it is the individual's responsibility to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for managing his or her own career. * Successful technical professionals pass through four distinct career stages. Each stage differs from the others in the tasks that must be performed, the types of relationships engaged in, and the psychological adjustments to be made.

Action Strategies for Companies To Excel in Technological Innovation Traditional Strategies and Practices

Variables and Assumptions Strategic Drivers 1. Concept 2. Dominant thrust 3. Core driver 4. Strategic orientation 5. Purpose/goal 6. Distinctive capabilities 7. Dominant player R&D/technology 8. Strong focus 9. 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

10. Organizational architecture

Disciplined organizational designs with strong emphasis on efficiency and coordination

Intellectual Capital and Technological Innovation 1. Corporate target mission 2. Management technologies and methods 3. Major form of capital 4. Primary focus 5. Source of competitive advantage 6. Technical Populations 7. Technology operations 8. Corporate Culture 9. Tenure and organizational careers 10. Major players 11. Impact of IT and communications technology 12. Modes of R&D, knowledge exchange, and communication 13. Changing job market 14. Creativity 15. Mode of operation 16. 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, don't fix it" Mistakes are discouraged at all cost Newly Emerging Strategies Newly Emerging Strategies and Practices

17. Philosophical theme 18. Attitude toward failure

Variables and Assumptions Strategic Drivers 1. Concept 2. Dominant thrust 3. Core driver

Innovation--newness in use/ application Market or customer-driven Demand pull

4. Strategic orientation 5. 6. 7. 8. Purpose/goal Distinctive capabilities Dominant player Strong focus

9. Future target

10. 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. Corporate target mission 2. Management technologies and methods 3. Major form of capital 4. Primary focus 5. Source of competitive advantage 6. Technical Populations 7. Technology operations 8. Corporate Culture 9. Tenure and organizational careers 10. Major players Achieving effectiveness Largely knowledge-oriented Knowledge Knowledge management Intellectual capital Highly diverse and heterogeneous Outsourcing and offshoring Multi-faceted, fragmented with a weaker sense of employee loyalty Much shorter, "portable" careers-with no "binding ties" Technology project teams: cross-functional, cross-disciplinary, cross-national, and cross-cultural Highly dispersed and virtual distance-based technology teams Internet, search engines, and web-based data bases Internet-based, 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, break it" Failure is the discipline through which we advance

11. Impact of IT and communications technology 12. Modes of R&D, knowledge exchange, and communication 13. Changing job market 14. Creativity 15. Mode of operation 16. Heavy investment

17. Philosophical theme 18. Attitude toward failure Fail often to succeed sooner