Professional Attitudes Viewing the problems of chemists and chemical engineers through the eyes of social scientists. Based in part on the symposium on the development of professional attitudes, sponsored by the ACS Committee on Professional Relations and Status, at Atlantic City DR. SIDNEY M. CANTOR, Consultant, Suburban Square Bldg., Ardmore, Pa.
Professional attitudes may be considered as arising in at least two ways. First, they may be the outward manifestation of the feelings the professional has for his vocation— an objective estimate derived largely from his educational experience. Second, they may reflect in a more subjective way a self-estimated status the individual enjoys relative to some particular set of professional standards. In either instance what we call professional attitudes reflect both the personal estimate and an accumulated group estimate of the way in which a particular vocation is regarded. Moreover, professional attitudes and professional status, however estimated and to whatever degree realistic, are obviously closely related. The current concern, therefore, of some chemists and chemical engineers with deficienies in their professional status must be an important clue to their professional attitudes—a symptom suggesting that the amount of satisfaction provided by the application of their chemical education is seriously deficient. Considered as a symptom and properly analyzed, the concern about status should provide valuable insight into the relationship between the chemist or chemical engineer and his vocation. I use the term vocation here rather than profession deliberately because I think we must question whether the vocational activity of chemists and chemical engineers is truly "professional" when viewed against the professional image with which the chemist or chemical engineer is supplied. One of the purposes of this discussion is to determine, if we can, something about this professional image. The concern with status is considerably more prevalent among industrial chemists than their academic colleagues. Evidence for this conclusion includes the recent controversy over the use of academic titles, the identity of those chemists and chemical engineers interested in letters to the editor, papers and panel discussions on subjects related to status, and specific studies of representative groups of chemists. Sources of Conflict While the difference in response undoubtedly reflects the greater number of industrial chemists and chemical engineers—more than 70% of the members of the American Chemical Society are industrially employed—there are more obvious sources of conflict in the industrial practice of chemically based vocations than there are in academic practice. Some of these conflicts are easily identified by
the responses to questions and concepts used in surveys of various industrial groups. In a recent study reported by the Opinion Research Corp. of Princeton, N.J., in which 622 industrial representative scientists and engineers were sampled; 50% had advanced degrees, 30% doctorates, and at least half were primarily engaged in scientific work. In these same companies 105 managers were also interviewed. This group, too, consisted of well-educated professionals, many with advanced degrees. It may come as a surprise to some management groups that on general morale scientists and engineers score considerably less than management and other white collar groups and in general are highly critical of the way in which management handles them. Indeed, the occasion for the survey I am quoting is the apparent growing unrest which management is experiencing with its technical personnel. All the scientists and engineers questioned, as well as the specific groups singled out by management as its most valued talent, agree on these matters: forced overspecialization, misuse by management, and inadequate pay. On further questioning, 75% of the total group reported that they worked best in an atmosphere free from pressure, and an equal number said that they wanted freedom to work in their own way. Furthermore, a very large percentage of the group, 82%, feel that they make the great contribution and that management gets the reward and recognition while 67% agree that getting ahead in management is based more on politics than it is on knowledge.
AUTHOR Dr. Sidney M. Cantor is an independent consultant in Philadelphia, the head of Sidney M. Cantor Associates. He teas educated at Reed College and Northwestern University. His work in industry has included positions as research chemist and assistant director of research at Corn Products Refining, and director of research and development at American Sugar Refining. He has been chairman of the ACS Division of Carbohydrate Chemistry. JAN.
25,
I960
C&EN
7
Scientists and engineers feel generally that because of the lack of a "reasoned" approach, their opportunities for advancement are limited or they are "held down" by management. Despite some feelings of insecurity about his own professional status, the scientist in industry holds the manager in even lower regard in terms of a vaguely defined but readily accepted status symbols associated with the accolade, "professional." The scientist tends to associate things he regards as "good" with himself and things he regards as somewhat less than "good" with management. This is obvious from comparing the qualities which engineers and scientists attribute to themselves with those which are attributed primarily to the management group. The scientist is revealed in this comparison as having little appreciation for management methods and a considerable lack of respect for the relative contributions of management as against his technical group's. Furthermore, he accords to management a somewhat unrealistic desire for the independent status and the freedom from pressures which managers feel to be incompatible with the industrial structure.
Contrasting Qualities of Technical and Management Personnel Technical Management Study process intensely Interest in new information Push new developments Think confidently Good teachers Investigate thoroughly Measure results in $ $ Limited depth of knowledge Strive for power Oversimplify problems Manipulate people Short range concern
78 73 60 56 44 43 1 2 3 5 2 14
5 4 22 13 20 25 89 84 73 64 64 59
Source: Opinion Research Survey A comparable study conducted by Dr. M. I. Stein of the University of Chicago for the Industrial Research Institute relating to creativity and achievement was conducted on 67 carefully selected "high achievement" industrial chemists. These were asked to rate a group of 10 abilities and activities which should be rewarded "if creativity is to be promoted." In this instance, I think we can equate creativity with function. Here, as in the previous study, the abilities associated with having novel ideas and independence of activity, or in general, characteristics associated with an independent professional image, are held in considerably higher esteem than those abilities which are more commonly associated with management. This same group was asked to rate preferentially a list of rewards for increased activity. It may seem incongruous that financial reward and increased power are preferred over relatively greater independence and the status associated with communicating achievement to one's peers. It seems to me that these surveys point to conflicting values which in turn are probably a major if not the entire 8
C&EN
JAN.
25,
I960
source of the anxiety which emerges as concern over professional status. Personality Patterns It is important at this point to consider the generalizations which have been drawn with respect to the personality patterns displayed by scientifically oriented individuals. A limited amount of work has been done by clinical psychologists on the behavioral characteristics of scientists, including chemists; what has been done largely by Dr. M. L. Terman in a long range study of scientists in a group of 800 gifted men and by Dr. Anne Roe, condensed in a book entitled "The Making of a Scientist," was recently summarized by Dr. Marvin Siegelman in a paper soon to be published in C&EN. This work repeatedly confirms the identity of typical characteristics. Generally the physical scientist appears to have little need to help or nurture people, and practically no inclination to receive support or guidance from others. Rather, he reflects a desire to avoid close interpersonal relations, is not aggressively critical of others, and in most instances maintains a pronounced emotional reserve. His resistance to outer coercion or domination is particularly strong and characteristic, but the energy which he might use to resist is apparently more often expended in striving to understand, manipulate, and order his physical environment. The scientist attempts to control his feelings as well as his impulses through intellectual mastery and in dealing with people attempts to rule his actions by logic or reason. In this respect Dr. Siegelman points out that such control may help to prevent the scientist from being influenced or swayed by those who appeal to his emotions. What emotional investment the scientist does make is in the problems related to his work. Apparently his deepest feelings are directed toward his work rather than toward people. In this respect his concern for dramatic or idealistic social action is minimal. Further, as one interested in the manipulation of external objects rather than people the scientist enjoys disinterested intellectualism, analysis, abstraction, and synthesis for the sake of the concept itself rather than for the sake of action. His curiosity and his imagination are paramount and his creativity is expressed through independent discovery. In the process of such discovery, his reactions are deliberate and for the most part conservative. Discussion of the experimental details by which these conclusions have been reached is outside our particular purpose, but it is important to note that these characteristics have appeared repeatedly in carefully conducted clinical experiments on physical scientists. It is important to note also that the prevalence of these characteristics does not eliminate those associated more with social scientists, that is, a need for approval or an outstanding interest in developing strong interpersonal relations. We are stressing here maxima rather than absolutes. Thus it appears that the sciences attract people who are already equipped with the germs of the cited characteristics and that in the course of the education these characteristics are strengthened and accentuated. It is generally accepted, I think, that the distinguishing characteristics of individuals associated with commercial enterprises, particularly with management of these enterprises, are considerably different from those of scientists.
Certainly the emphasis is on action rather than on abstraction, and the focus is on practicality. The management approach is to oversimplify, and certainly there is often a need to make decisions on limited information. Furthermore, once control is established there is considerable evidence that the management line tends to be overconservative and demonstrates an unusual desire to maintain the status quo. The young chemist and, perhaps less often, the young chemical engineer coming into industry equipped to various degrees with the characteristics previously described come into immediate conflict with the strong controlling tendencies and necessarily limited point of view of the managerial mind. From this clash of motivating forces arise the conflicts previously noted: the conflict between academic and industrial objectives, the conflict between free choice and directed areas of investigation, the conflict between a cooperative or group approach to problems and an independent attack, and the conflict between free discussion of interests as opposed to limited discussion for the sake of industrial advantage. If these conflicts were not enough to create anxiety, there are others which arise from the rapid advance of science in our culture, as well as the degree to which the classic image of the independent professional, perhaps unrealistic at best, has been almost eliminated by the emphasis on specialization. Concern Over Status I stated above that the physical scientist characteristically avoids personal involvement in social action. Up to the end of World War II, the political scene would have supported this view. Since that time, however, the scene has changed. The public or, at least, modest segments of it, are more curious about science, and scientists, to an unprecedented extent, have emerged on a public level. The apparent lack of absolutes in science is puzzling to the layman, and more than ever scientists are subject to criticism on a political basis for some of their publicly stated views. The fallout problem is an example. It is evident that the more detached statistical view is not a popular one with many people, even though it may be national policy. At any rate, the controversial position is anxiety-producing for the scientist, but to an even greater extent the status conveyed by the current public approval of scientists may create anxiety for those technical people already concerned for other reasons about their status. Witness the New York Times report (June 20, 1959) of the 25th annual convention of the Society of Professional Engineers: "Engineers Fear Secondary Role. Relationship to Scientists Discussed at Meeting of National Society Here. Engineers yesterday sought a more appreciative evaluation of their technological role in the space age. They agreed, in a discussion here, that greater emphasis must be placed on the quality of engineers in their relationship with scientists and industrial managers. But some feared the loss of an individual status to burgeoning scientists." There is considerable evidence beside this that the term "scientist" is a status symbol rather than one defining a group of disciplines. As with the term "professional" a set of very poorly defined criteria determine who belongs. It is timely now to consider some aspects of the meaning of the term professional as they relate to attitudes. The
classic definition of a professional was provided by Mr. Justice Brandeis, who said, "A profession is an occupation requiring extensive preliminary intellectual training, pursued primarily for others and not merely one's self, and accepting as the measure of achievement one's contribution to society rather than individual financial reward." Is the Chemist a Professional? While the chemist conforms to this definition with respect to intellectual training, there is a good deal of question about the remainder. Certainly the industrial chemist is concerned about his financial reward, perhaps even putting contribution to society in a secondary position. And as for contribution to society, Dr. Siegelman points out that frequently the scientist does not have altruistic motives. His concern is with controlling the physical world. The end result may indeed be fortunate for humanity though a humanitarian motivation may not have been consciously present. Moreover, to the extent that the chemist as a scientist does not seek personal service involvement but rather "things," he misses the classic characteristic of the professional. However, it must be stressed that his basic orientation is toward the professional type of organization, and in this sense he is a professional. Some social scientists might classify the chemist as belonging to a "becoming" profession since segments of his occupational group from time to time feel enough of a sense of solidarity to try to claim a mandate to define conduct and regulate matters concerned with their work but perhaps do not quite achieve it. It is obvious also that in the broad design of chemistry such regulation has not been possible. Perhaps this is because among chemists, an interest in chemistry is only a common denominator, whereas the function in a professional sense may be almost anything—from teaching to operating a small business. So the chemist in industry tends to be regulated by industry. The academic chemist, on the other hand—a professional teacher perhaps—in most instances provides a maximum of his own regulation. It is interesting to speculate that the independent nature of the teacher's work along with the status offered by membership in a strongly selfregulating professional group—the American Association of University Professors—provides satisfaction adequate enough so that the academically employed chemist is not concerned about professional status. According to Dr. Bernard Ross, social scientists recognize two types of social organization which touch on our discussion. One of those is the "bureaucracy." The word is not used here in a critical sense but describes the principle of organization which produces stability in a large and complex social system such as an industry. The bureaucracy operates to emphasize the functions. The other type, the professional principle of organization, emphasizes the relationship of the individual to a specialized type of work. For example, a group of medical specialists or legal specialists or, in general, a group of individuals engaged in an activity requiring high skill where a major goal of the group is service. Relationship between individuals in a professional organization is based partly on a common tradition and partly on adherence to a code, written or unwritten but understood. Recognized membership of the individual in the professional organization is equivalent to recognition of responsibilities he assumes as well as ability to perform on his own. JAN.
25,
I960
C&EN
9
It is clear that the bureaucratic organization subordinates the individual by emphasizing the pattern while the professional organization subordinates the pattern in favor of the individual. In employing the chemist and engineer it is apparent that industry attempts to superimpose on these individuals a bureaucratic pattern when they are oriented to a professional pattern. The stress produced by the clash is predictable and demonstrated by the results of the survey cited earlier. I have previously used the term "self-image." This is a
psychological term describing a reasonably accurate picture of an individual in that individual's mind's eye. Dr. A. S. Watson points out that this self-portrait dictates how we behave, what we become, whom we will be like. He states "a comfortable, effective professional must achieve a self-image which not only includes the appropriate ethical standards but is essentially free of such internal conflicts which destroy efficiency, create anxiety, and ultimately result in loss of professional stature." A comfortably fitted professional self-image contains a (Continued on inside bock cover)
Increase Your Earning Power DR. JOHN O. PERCIVAL, now with Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.
F R O M : DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH T O : ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: INCREASE YOUR EARNING POWER SOME OF T H E MOST C R I T I C A L L Y IMPORTANT FACTORS CONTRIBUTORY T O T H E SUCCESS OF A F I R M PRODUCING TECHNICAL PRODUCTS ARE T H E KNOWLEDGE, I N I T I A T I V E , EFFICIENCY, AND I N G E N U I T Y OF ITS TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. HENCE, I T IS AS M U C H T O T H E ADVANTAGE OF A COMPANY AS I T IS T O T H E I N D I V I D U A L T H A T EACH ONE EARN— REALLY EARN—MORE MONEY. OBVIOUSLY, FOR A C O M PANY T O HAVE MORE MONEY T O DISTRIBUTE AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES, T H E Y MUST, T H R O U G H ASTUTE COOPERATIVE EFFORT, CREATE MORE PROFITABLE BUSINESS FOR T H E COMPANY. ATTACHED IS A BRIEF EXPOSITION E N T I T L E D "INCREASE YOUR EARNING POWER," W R I T T E N BY DR. JOHN O. PERCIVAL. I F FOLLOWED, T H I S SHOULD HELP T H E INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIST T O INCREASE AND IMPROVE HIS CONTRIBUTIONS T O T H E SUCCESS OF HIS COMPANY AND, HENCE, T O HIS OWN SUCCESS. WE H E A R T I L Y C O M M E N D THESE SUGGESTIONS T O YOUR CONSIDERATION.
10
C&EN JAN. 25.
I960
