About This Report Last year 100 major industrial employers o f engineers were asked to name the most troublesome area in the relationships between management and engineering personnel. The problem most frequently mentioned was "communication" —management d i d not feel that i t was exchanging ideas effectively with its technical personnel. O n the basis of this preliminary study the National Society of Professional Engineers surveyed more than 3 5 0 large companies on their practices in management-engineer communications. This is a condensation of the results of that survey. Subsequent studies will be made of the three other most frequently mentioned problems: Better Utilization of Engineering Talent, Recruiting Competent Engineers, and Training Engineers in Industry. C H E M I C A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G N E W S will publish t h e results of these surveys as they become available.
L^^^^^^M^^^^^
M a n a g e m e n t a n d the Engineer A r e Not Speaking A condensation of a report by the National Society of Professional Engineers
x RADITIONALLY, t h e relationships of en-
gineers a n d management in American industry have been close a n d cordial. Many of our greatest firms were formed by engineers and carry on an essentially engineering-based business. Engineers have provided one of t h e most important sources of t o p management men. Accordingly, engineering staffs are u s ually considered well-informed on t h e management aims a n d long-range planning of their companies. For the past 10 years, however, t h e size, complexity, a n d dispersion of typical engineering staffs have been steadily increasing. It has b e come more difficult for managements t o maintain t h e bonds of communication which inspire confidence a n d bring out t h e best in cooperation from their engineers. T h e problem has been to develop effective methods a n d materials for keeping engineers informed, and in turn, t o learn what is of interest a n d importance t o technical people. D u r i n g this survey, one vice president of engineering for 'a major company said, " H o w can I still keep in personal touch with all of our engineering departments with t h e amount of work I now have? I've just discovered that o n e of o u r plants 1076
is still pinning hopes on a program that headquarters lost interest in six months ago. I would like to talk to all of our folks b u t just can't." Presenting a different attitude, a manufacturing company president crisply stated, "It's u p to supervision to keep engineers informed. Just send the word down t h e line." This survey was m a d e to discover which of these attitudes is most typical of all industry a n d to t r y t o uncover practical techniques of broad utility to bring m a n agement a n d its technical employees back into cor*:act. W h o W e r e Surveyed— And W h a t They D o Companies all over the U. S. replied to t h e survey. T h e companies a r e e n gaged in over 100 separate fields of production, design, a n d engineering activity. Manufacturing, which employs t h e greatest number of engineers, w a s t h e largest single field of activity reported, accounting for 6 0 % of t h e replies. T h e companies replying h a d from 1 to 200 plants. The total replies represented more than 1000 plants employing more than 45,000 engineers. T h e respondents were asked t h e title CHEMICAL
of their t o p engineering position, and t h e title of their immediate superior. This question disclosed that the chief engineer is a mighty important executive. Companies replying said that 7 1 % of their chief engineers hold t h e t o p engineering positions. Vice presidents of engineering hold 1 8 % of the top jobs and directors of engineering 8 % . Miscellaneous titles such as technical director accounted for 3 % . This question also disclosed that t h e top engineering executives reported t o : President Vice president General manager Executive vice president
48% 30% 13% 9%
W h o Communicates to W h o m Recently, psychologists a t t h e Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted a group of significant experiments on industrial communications. Their object was to determine the effect of different kinds of communications networks on group performance. In the experiments, t w o groups of p e o ple were arranged to represent t w o opposite types of organization. One group of five people was arranged in a circular pattern, communicating with one another AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
Figure 1.
Circular
as in FiguraJjJ" T h e other group was arranged in The hierarchical pattern of an inverted Y, shown in F i g u r e 2. Both groups were given t h e same problem a n d told to solve it b y exchanging messages. T h e circular group had higher morale, but was not as efficient as the "Y" group. T h e central person i n t h e "Y" arrangement a s s u m e d t h e position of leadership a n d w a s h a p p y but the other members lost interest. These results verified what experience i n actual practice h a d shown. People a t central points in a communication network t e n d to b e t h e most satisfied while those on t h e fringes are likely to b e more discontented. To t e s t t h e adaptability of the two groups, another experiment was performed in w h i c h b o t h w e r e given t h e same k i n d of problem as previously. But this t i m e minor changes w e r e periodically introduced into t h e proceedings. T h e results of this experiment showed that t h e more democratic, contented circular group Kad^ greater adaptive and survival powers. The" inverted "Y" h a d become too specialized to a d a p t to rapid changes although they h a d b e e n more efficient at a particular task. This result again h e l p e d confirm t h e belief of some managements that more participation in company affairs will mean better performance. However, the tests also suggest that the best morale is not necessarily synonymous with highest efficiency. Many companies h a v e solved this dual problem of adaptability vs. efficiency and
Table L Engineers W h o Participate in Planning Vice president in charge Chief engineer Project engineer Engineering staff
V O L U M E
3 0,
N O .
11
*
»
Figure 2 .
broad vs. centralized participation along t h e lines dictated b y their industry. Stable organizations like public utilities require less flexibility, while firms in t h e intensely competitive consumer products field must b e ready to adapt to shock and rapid change. W h a t the Survey Disclosed To determine w h e r e engineers stand in relation to t o p management on this p r o b lem of participation, t h e N S P E survey asked what levels of engineering personnel participate in management planning on a series of important, everyday topics. Table I shows t h e percentage distribution of engineers w h o participate in planning on each topic. In interpreting these results one fact becomes strikingly apparent. T h e chief engineer is t h e key figure in managementengineering communication and enjoys the broadest participation in company planning. Except for t h e two areas, corporate organization and finance, the chief engineers of industrial organizations particip a t e more broadly in company planning t h a n do vice presidents in charge of engineering. Of course, in a n u m b e r of companies the positions of chief engineer and vice president of engineering are combined as t h e top engineering job. Members of the engineering staff also are represented in planning in t h e majority
The "Y" group
of industrial companies. Individual e n g i neers participate in engineering matters, new products a n d processes, a n d employee training. Percentagewise they h a v e n e g ligible participation in other activities. T h e survey indicates that t h e chief engineer is a m e m b e r of the t o p m a n a g e ment team in most companies and comes in c o n t a c t with a w i d e range of problems in m a n y areas of company operations. W i t h this responsibility it is apparent t h a t he is the person to establish effective lines of communication b e t w e e n t o p m a n a g e ment and the entire engineering staff. I t is also a p p a r e n t t h a t most engineering departments are organized on t h e inv e r t e d "Y," o r p y r a m i d basis, with the chief engineer at the communications apex or control point. Any management p r o gram, to instill enthusiasm in engineers through greater participation in company affairs, would have to take this fact into consideration. T h e survey shows relatively minor p a r ticipation by engineering staffs in m a n agement planning. T h i s indicates t h a t managements have a fertile field for experimentation in improving engineeringmanagement communication b y b r o a d e n ing t h e base of participation. H o w Management Gets the Opinions of I t s Engineers Industrial m a n a g e m e n t s h a v e
found
P a r t i c i p a t i o n b y Engineers in M a n a g e m e n t Planning Strîc+Ιγ Engineering Matters
Corporate Organization
21% 36% 25% 18%
66% 29% 3% 2%
M A R C H
17,
1 9 5 2
Finance 59% 31% 6% 4%
New Products and Processes
Employee Training
Purchasing
Plans f o r Expansion
25% 38% 23% 14%
24% 41% 19% 16%
27% 38% 22% 13%
33% 40% 15% 12%
1077
Table I I .
Engineers Whose Opinions Are Sought Vice president in charge Chief engineer Project engineer Engineering staff
E x t e n t t o W h i c h C o m p a n i e s Seek t h e Opinions and Suggestions of Engineers Engineering Subjects Solely
Product Design
Production
Sales and Promotion
Customer Services
22 % 367o 247o 18%
23% 35% 25% 177.
27% 377o 217· 157ο
41% 327o 147ο 137ο
30% 347. 197. 177.
thai employees like to have their opinions sought. Virtually no o n e resents being asked for his opinion and advice. In fact, he is usually flattered and often will make useful contributions. To determine to what extent manage ments make use of this prime communi cations tool, the survey asked, "Does your company seek the opinions and suggestions of its engineering people on general man agement?" A majority of companies, 8 8 % , replied "Yes," while 1 2 % replied "No." These figures indicate that most manage ments have established—or have tried to establish— an "upward" channel of com munications affording their engineers a means of expressing themselves. An examination of the "No" returns revealed that they come almost uniformly from small organizations employing less than 25 engineers. For the most part these firms arc engaged in extractive industries, i.e., oil, mining, or ore processing. The survey further asked what the company problems were upon which the different engineering levels arc invited to comment. The results of this inquiry are revealed in Table II which shows that the chief engineer is again t h e key figure. Except on the subject of sales and promo tion, he has broader participation in "up ward" communications than any other person in the engineering hierarchy. How Docs Management Invite Participation? The survey asked how management gets the opinions and suggestions of its engi neers on the subjects listed in Table II. The answers showed the following per centage distribution :
to be artieiilatc and confident enough to seek the ear of higher authority. Arc These Methods Successful? The survey asked if managements thought their present methods of seeking opinions and suggestions were as success ful as they would like them to be. A slight majority, 5 5 % , said "Yes," and 45'/r said "No." As a corollary question, the survey asked for opinions on how present meth ods coidd be improved. Following arc representative comments by managers on how they feel that in formation gathering methods could be improved: "By engineers developing their per spective on economics, labor relations, and sales problems." "More participation by higher management;" "Get suggestions from one division to another;" "By educa tion of engineers in management and or ganizational problems;" "Better commu nication between top management and en gineering department as to plans and ob jectives;" "More conferences and recog nition of engineers' general knowledge, not just their technical ability;" "Let lower echelon engineers into the 'know' on projects early;" "By placing chief engi neers on same management basis as sales manager;" "Carry participation to lower levels;" "By more interviews between top management with engineers at the project level and lower." It is apparent from the answers that the majority of managements want the opinions and suggestions of their engi neering people on a broad range of com pany affairs. The very slight majority that is satisfied with present methods of ob-
personally and discuss company affairs in. detail. Inside, advance information "'right from the horse's mouth"" has a great psychological value and in most cases, will challenge people to come up with answers. What Engineers Want to Know About Management Policy The survey asked coir*panies if they receive requests from their engineers for information on management policy. A large majority, 8 6 % , replied ' Yes." The "No" reply was 14%. The survey then asked management t o indicate on what subjects engineers most frequently requested information. The percentage results of the query are a s follows: Opportunities for advancement . 22% Expansion plans 17% New products and process-es contem plated 14% Technical trends in industry 9% Competitive standing 8% Benefits and security 8% Sales and earnings 7% Sales promotional activities 5% Corporate organization 5% Company financial status 5% These returns indicate that engineers are essentially ambitious for themselves and their companies, that, the engineer approaches problems with SL broader point of view than merely his o w n personal selfinterest. Benefits and security a s interests rate lower among engineers than among other industrially-employed grot_ips o n which data arc available. The relatively low interest of engineers in information on such subjects as sales and earnings, sales promotion, and company financial status presents managements w i t h a n oppor tunity to conduct économie education programs. Engineers readily could be sliown that their interest in personal advancement and company progress arc dependent upon costs, sales, carnin gs, a n d other financial matters. Techniques of EngineeringManagement Communication How managements conimiinicate with their engineers can be as important a s the
"The majority of managements w a n t the opinions a n d suggestions of their engineers on a b r o a d range of c o m p a n y affairs" Conferences Meetings Interviews Surveys Suggestion boxes
40% 32% 15% 9% 4%
These returns demonstrate the wide use and apparent value of group get-togethers on company problems. T h e relatively negligible use of suggestion boxes indicates that w h e n management desires the opinions of its engineers it expects them 1078
taining this information indicates the need for improved techniques. The majority of suggestions for improvement express, essentially, the feeling that participation should be broadened. Since management holds the initiative here, it appears that the stimulation of engineers to apply their analytical talents to thinking about over-all company success depends on the extent to which management executives meet with them C H E M I C A L
information communicated. To discover what methods are in mos± frcciucnt use, companies were asked ho^w management messages are presented. T h e percentage frequency of different methods i n use are as follows: Line of supervision Personal talks by executives Regular engineering conferences Management newsletters Engineering seminars AND
ENGINEERING
30% 28% 237© 12% 7% NEWS
The majority of companies, 90%, employ more than one medium of communication. The most frequent combination includes verbal line of supervision communication, personal talks by executives and regular engineering conferences. Management newsletters and engineering seminars are generally employed by medium-sized to large organizations. The newsletters are generally directed to supervisory employees and may contain material rangi | from a friendly chat by the president to a detailed analysis of the company's financial ' position. A number of companies have found seminars uniquely suited to improving engineering-management relations. Special Treatment To determine if and how engineers receive special attention on communications, the survey asked, "Is your information program on management aims and long-range planning more comprehensive for engineers than for other employees?" The replies showed that a majority, 6 3 % , did not provide special information while 3 7 % did. Examination showed that engineers receive special treatment chiefly in the larger companies engaged in highly technical work. For example, three major electrical firms publish excellent magazines, for internal and external circulation, devoted to technical papers and engineering department achievements. Two large manufacturers covered in the survey publish special news organs for their widespread engineering staffs. Each of the four companies contacted who employ over 1000 engineers provide special engineering information publications. The majority of the companies stating that they give engineers more comprehensive information, reported that management long-range planning in their companies usually involves engineering, thus naturally engineers are taken into confidence on management aims. The 6 3 % of companies which reported that their information programs were no more comprehensive for engineers than for other employees employ the bulk of all the engineers covered in this survey. In these firms the number of engineers is usually small in comparison to the total of all employees. Specialized information for engineers in these companies comes down the line of supervision through meetings, directives and special reports. Special Situations To determine to what extent engineers are taken into the confidence of management on special business situations not usually disclosed widely, the following question was asked, "When business situations cause engineering projects to be suspended or new developments to be shelved, are the engineers on the project told why?" A 96% majority of companies replied "Yes." The 4 % which replied "No," explained that security regulations interV O L U M E
30,
NO.
11
>
»
fered and that construction stoppages] were often political, controversial, or both, and the subject should be dropped. The firms which keep their engineers informed reported that they do so chiefly through the line of supervision. Unionization To determine if the occasional unionization of engineers has blocked communication with management the survey asked the following question: "Are your engineering employees unionized, and if so what effect does this have on communication?" A majority of firms, 9 3 % , replied that their engineers are not unionized. The 7% that have unions reported the following minor effects on communication: 64% 22% 14%
No effect Hinders Aids
The survey showed that the line-ofsupervision is the most widely used single channel for getting management messages ' engineers. However, in the aggregate, the more personal methods of meetings and verbal exchange are used widely. Apparently managements have found that the engineer is best appealed to on an individual rather than a group or class, basis. Newsletters, seminars, and special engineering forums are enthusiastically endorsed by many managements and engineers, who have found that they draw management and engineering closer together. Paradoxically, the large percentage of companies which provide no special communications for engineers expect their engineers to be interested in management problems. These companies also look to their engineers as potential management men. It appears that where this situation exists managements should review their communications programs with respect to engineers. Developing Management Potential in Engineers During the period of large scale corporate organizations at the turn of this century, it was traditional for men with training in law, banking, or accountancy to become the executives and heads of companies. As mass production developed, more production-minded men assumed positions of leadership. In the past 25 years companies have expanded their research and engineering activities enormously, bringing greater
M A R C H
17,
1952
numbers of technically-trained people into industry. These men have been responsible for the steady advance of industrial technology, and it is natural that many of them have assumed positions of leadership. The complex and highly technical activities of many new industries can scarcely b e directed by men without engineering training. The Management Potential of Engineers The survey attempted to determine whether managements consciously look to their engineers as candidates for executive posts — and encourage them — or whether the process takes place without plan. Asked, "Does your company consider professionally trained engineers potential general management executives?" The great majority of companies, replied "Yes." The 8% which replied "No" were chiefly small firms in nonengineering fields. A few manufacturing companies qualified their "No" answer by saying that they looked for qualified people in all fields of specialization. As a corollary question, the survey asked each company how many of its executives are trained engineers. All but two companies replied that they had engineer-executives. The proportion of engineer-executives to the entire executive staff ranged from more than 5 0 % for about a third of the companies to 100% for 15% of the firms. The companies indicating that they favor engineers as good sources of executive material were asked how they informed engineers of the opportunities available to them. Of the companies that reported any specific method of communication on this subject, the . majority replied that they use the introductory training period to outline the opportunities. However, 56% of the firms reported no formal training program for newly-hired, recent engineering graduates. Asked if they maintained an indoctrination program for newly-hired, experienced engineering employees different from that for other new employees, 66% reported "No." The organizations that have organized training programs for new and experienced engineering employees use them broadly for management communications. Companies without training programs reported a variety of methods by which engineers could learn of their management opportunities. Some of these are: "observing promotions from time to time;" "the inspiration of those who have made the grade;" "discussion with each individual about twice a year;" "if not selfevident—then verbally;" "during luncheon meetings;" "by line of supervision;" "medium of everyday correspondence;" "management and engineer meetings;" "various company publications;" "through industrial relations department;" "bulletin board notices of openings;" "organizational changes published in company publica1079
tions;" "well known company policy;" "circular letters," and "periodic performance review contracts." Engineers and Public Relations The survey asked if engineers were encouraged to engage in public relations activities and how, and what activities were suggested and supported. A large majority, 92%, of firms replying stated that they encouraged their engineers to engage in public relations activities. Also, the majority of companies replied that public relations participation is encouraged by an advanced management policy. However, the methods of communicating management's interest in having engineers participate in public relations appear inadequate in a large number of organizations. Some of the methods given are: "bulletin board notices," "well-known policy," "by example," "individual initiative." These approaches cannot be .considered the most effective and stimulating means of causing people to act. Those companies which encourage public relations activity list a variety of incentives and types of support for outside activity. The principal methods of support are the granting of time off and paying expenses of civic and professional activities. These responses indicate that industry appreciates the vital role of public relations in modern industrial life. Wherever this understanding exists, engineers have the opportunity to advance their company's recognition, increase their own stature, and build better relations between industry and the general public. To get the best participation from its engineers, industry should sharpen its approach and methods of letting its engineers know how they can help in a public relations way. General Suggestions on Company Operations To determine if companies find their engineers interested in company operations outside of regular duties, the following question was asked: "Can you cite any instances in which the volunteered suggestions of engineers on subjects other than their specific assignment have been of value to your company?" This question brought an unusual number of identical replies. Of those replying, 5 0 % said, "too numerous to mention." The specific example cited ranged from a new design of watermark for a company's stationary to a saving of $100,000 per year for the organization. With the exception of the few companies using suggestions systems, engineers communicate their suggestions and recommendations through line of supervision or informally to the responsible authority. Conclusions Industrial able use of professional more than 1080
firms show a very considerexecutives who are trained, engineers. They also have ordinary interest in their
engineers as potential future managers. However, the majority of companies have no specific methods of keeping engineers stimulated and aware of their opportunities in management. The methods reported as used to keep engineers aware of opportunities are mostly vague and nonspecific. Bulletin boards and circular letters cannot be expected to spur interest and effort. Nor can all new or even long-term employees be expected to have active interest in man-
agement jobs as a result of a "well known company policy." Stimulation to special effort is a continuing responsibility of management and should be done conscientiously. The survey indicates that those companies which start with a wellrounded introductory training program and regular follow-ups appear to have the best engineering-management relations and develop and retain the best engineerexecutives. How to Improve Communications Recently, a leading U. S. firm set out to determine why ideas didn't flow upward to management as easily as orders flowed down. A study panel of management men was assigned the job. Specifically, their investigation was aimed at discovering what the barriers to communication are, how to remove them, and how to select the best media for continued effective communications. The findings of the panel put most of the blame for poor communications on management people. The panel found difficulty in convincing management people that getting information from subordinates is a genuine problem. Discussing the authoritarian attitude of supervisors, the panel noted, "Listening and acting on the basis of what subordinates think, not what we think, is absolutely essential to realistic management." If management doesn't first "dispel impatience with subordinates" and what they are saying, all its group meetings, •written reports, and individual praise will be useless. CHEMICAL
Among the specific barriers to good communications, the panel found: management often thinks no news is good news. Actually, lack of criticism may be indicative not of satisfaction but of poor upward communications channels. Management often resents comments that imply its actions are less than perfect. If lower echelons know this, loyal employees, or those who want to keep their jobs, are likely to withhold information. Management tries to dodge the individual personal problems of its subordinates. When it tries to separate the business life from the personal life and feelings of its people it cannot expect understanding or active interest in upward orientation. Management often fails to heed information or act on unhappy situations. Apathy or disinterest on the part of employees is likely to set in when they find it doesn't do any good to make upward recommendations. The investigating panel reported that the worst of the problem is solved when management understands that it bears the responsibility for poor communications and has the exclusive authority to effect improvements. The first, and essential step in making improvement is an earnest desire on the part of management to try to understand the interest of its employees as people and to create a climate, in which communication can flourish. With such a climate, a host of personal and mechanical techniques and communications methods can be applied with good results. Without the proper climate all the techniques in the book are likely to fail. These results of the management panel have been cited because of their close similarity to the research findings of the survey. The survey found that wherever engineering-management communication is a well-developed company function, it has the active support and endorsement of top management. This interest of management is not entirely altruistic. In most cases it is a well conceived plan to improve company operations by creating a climate i n which management's aims will be pursued vigorously by engineers who understand those aims and identify themselves closely with management and successful company operation. When a company decides upon a policy of improving the effectiveness of engineering-management communication, it has available a variety of techniques with which to implement the policy. However, a large proportion (45%) of firms reported that they were not satisfied with the success of their present techniques. These findings do not indicate that the programs are necessarily at fault. Rather, it indicates that the selection, content, and conduct of specific communications methods may be inadequate or unsuited to the interests and needs of the engineers in a particular organization. Complete texts of t h e from which this article is tained from the National Engineers, 1121 Fifteenth 5, D. C , for $2.00.
AND
report and abstracted Society of St., N.W.,
ENGINEERING
conclusions m a y be o b Professional Washington
NEWS
