Careers

"But what have you done for me lately?"-The Boss

The older engineer, outflanked by technology or undercut by mismanagement, faces special employment problems

"Technological obsolescence" used to be reserved for the chrome creations of Detroit and a host of house­hold wonders that managed to expire surprisingly soon after their warrantees ran out. Now it s eems that engineers themselves m a y be joining their handiwork on the road to short-term oblivion. And taking a few evening classes or reading current technical literature isn't going to keep the wolf from the door. About the best insurance is literally demanding challenging as­signments rather than accepting routine tasks. An­other alternative is changing careers. After all, a good engineering education can lead to a lot more than slide rules and solder.

Two trends in our society highlight the problem: (1) scientific knowledge is being generated and then converted into applied products, instruments, and processes at an accelerating rate; (2) the average age of scientists and engineers is increasing.

But indications are t h a t recent findings on the rela­tionship between age and performance have been mis­applied. Incorrect interpretation implies that all older engineers are likely to become poor performers.

In an at tempt to restore some much-needed per­spective between age and job performance, our recent study collected data from six companies , each employing many engineers. Three of these organiza­tions were primarily in the aerospace industry; three were in other representative, technology-based com­mercial industries. The personnel studied in each of these companies were engaged primarily in design en­gineering. A total of 2500 engineers and managers in several disciplines are represented in our population, including electrical, mechanical , chemical, optical, and aeronautical specialt ies . The largest single group consisted of electrical engineers, but the other groups were numerically well represented. From company records, performance and salary information for near­ly everyone surveyed was collected. In addition, ques­tionnaires were completed by 730 engineers and per­sonal interviews were conducted with 110 engineers and engineering supervisors.

What your boss thinks We began by comparing management's perfor­

mance evaluations of des ign and development engi-

Paul Thompson, Gene Dalton Br igham Young Univers i ty

Richard Kopelman City Universi ty of New York

neers in different age groups. The managers' criteria for these evaluations can be described by the phrase, "contribution to the company during the past year." Looking at the data (Fig. lA) , it is obvious that aver­age performance rankings are indeed age-related.

In order to substantiate further the validity of this age-performance pattern, other measures were sought. While engineers and managers both agreed that patents and professional papers were not good performance measures, they did suggest that job as­signment would be an important indicator. Following this suggestion, we asked all of the engineering man­agers and supervisors to rank the jobs assigned to the people reporting to them. Managers were specifically asked to rate the job assignment given to each engi­neer during the past year, rather than the way it was performed.

These ratings, summarized by age (Fig. IB), show the most complex jobs went to individuals in their late twenties while those over 40 had jobs in the bot­tom half of the complexity scale!

Another yardstick related to performance is salary increase based on an annual merit review (Fig. IC). It is not surprising that these data closely match the curve relating age and performance, because manag­ers use accomplishment as a basis for determining promotions, salary increases, job ass ignments , etc.

But when absolute salary level is compared with age a very different relationship emerges (Fig, ID). While performance rankings begin to fall after the mid-thirties, the average annual salary rises dramatically with age until the early forties and then hits a pla­teau. This presents a serious problem to older engi­neers, particularly during t imes of tight budgets.

Hype, gripe, or stereotype? Are managers justified in considering their veteran

designers a liability? Do all older engineers earn uni­formly low ratings? If not, how many are rated highly and how do they differ from the less productive? Some interesting statistics arise when each age group is examined separately.

The engineers surveyed were separated into four age categories and then, within each age group, were subjectively ranked on the basis of job execution into three equal groups: the high, middle, and low per­formers (Fig. 2A). Note that the top senior engineers have a much higher average rating then anything at­tributed to more youthful middle and low performers! The differences in performance are greater witliin age groups than between them! Clearly, it is critical to

I E E E spectrum O C T O B E R 1974 8 5

avoid age-related stereotypes. This marked difference in rating within age groups

impelled us to probe the ways high-performing engi­neers differ from lower-rated associates. The important variables we identified include effort, education, and job assignment.

In the survey, high-rated engineers differed signifi­cantly from others their own age in the amount of t ime they reported spending at work. Interestingly, this dedication shows up mostly among men in their thirties, and the extra effort may be significant (Fig. 2B). For engineers in their forties, the trend is simi­lar, though less pronounced. But high performers over 50 report spending slightly less t ime than the middle performers (not a statistically significant difference, however). The drop-off in reported working hours ap­pears primarily among the highest-rated veteran engi­neers.

[1 ] Statist ical ly s p e a k i n g , most e n g i n e e r s f a c e a c a r e e r s l u m p past a g e 4 0 . J u s t w h e n they n e e d a l a r g e , s tab le in ­c o m e to m e e t m o u n t i n g personal ob l igat ions , o lder e n g i ­n e e r s find t h e m s e l v e s shunted to routine t a s k s . T h e result : r e d u c e d barga in ing p o w e r a n d a cei l ing o n s a l a r y .

^ 52 Ε i5

ΐ ! CO ο

11 2 Ε

&·!2

S o

8 6

1.2!

1.1

1.0

D

18

16

14

12

. . . \ , - ^ ^

X - - ^ ' . c \..'.7-

21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 Over 55

Age groups

Also under examination was the hypothesis that high-rated engineers sp(md more t ime reading jour­nals and relevant technical literature. Though high performers in their forties report spending a little more t ime reading than any of the other groups, the differences do not appear significant between any particular age group or performance level.

Always a student—never a sage Engineers are continually being encouraged to

"keep up to date" through various part-t ime study programs—the implicit assumption being that an en­gineer must maintain and, if possible, increase his performance level. With this in mind, we asked engi­neers how many company-sponsored courses they had taken during the past three years (Fig. 2C). Two things immediately stand out: there is l itt le differ­ence in the number of company courses taken by the different performance groups; in three of the four age groups, the high performers took the fewest company courses!

These results are potentially disturbing since some companies invest considerable t ime and money devel­oping programs for keeping engineers current. But before examining possible explanations, let us also con­sider the engineers' reported participation ffi college courses during the same three-year period (Fig. 2D) . Again, there is not much difference in the number of courses taken by the high, middle , and low performers. And in three of the four age groups, the high performers took the fewest courses. But there was a big difference in courses taken by each age group. Engineers under 30 took many college courses; the older groups attended very few. It seems likely that younger engineers work­ing toward master's degrees (or even finishing bache­lor's degrees) account for much of this trend.

But what is the relationship between educat ion per se and maintaining technical competence over the long haul of a technical career? W h e n we look at edu­cation level, it appears that an engineer's initial edu­cation (rather than subsequent courses) often distin­guishes between high and lower performers (Table I).

As a group, engineers with a master's degree have much higher salaries, performance ratings, and job complexity ratings than those with less education. But be it bachelor's or master's, the sooner the de­gree is granted, the better. Table I also tabulates the statistical relationship we discovered between three performance measures and graduating age for engi­neers awarded a bachelor's degree only, and makes a similar comparative summary among those who re­ceived master's degrees. In both cases, those who re­ceived their degree at a younger age had much higher performance ratings, salaries, and job complexity rat­ings (the only trend reversal is found among en­gineers receiving a master's between ages 30 and 34).

Since both the level and t iming of educat ion seem important in maintaining technical competence , why does the number of courses taken on a continuing basis—either in-house or at a local university—appear unrelated to performance? The most frequent reply from engineering managers indicated an all-too-com­mon scenario.

An engineer, usually over age 40, finds his annual review has fetched him a token salary increase and a reduced performance rating. Concerned, the engineer

I E E E spec trum O C T O B E R 1974

I. Education's impact on job performance (and reward): tiie earlier the better!

Average Average Per­ Job Com­

Average f o rmance plexi ty Group S a m p l e d * Salary Rat ing Rat ing

* Engineers of ail ages and educational backgrounds Education No degree 14 900 43.8 29.4 Bache lor 's degree 16 100 48.7 47.1 Mas te r ' s degree 17 900 62.1 58.9

^Engineers with a Bachelor's degree only Age when degree

wds granted 20-24 17 100 56.0 52.5 25-29 16 200 50.2 48.9 30-34 14 600 36.8 25.3 35 and over 13 800 34.9 33.1

^Engineers with a Master's degree Age when degree

was granted 20-24 19 300 73.1 60.3 25-29 18 100 60.4 57.2 30-34 17 900 66.5 67.3 35 and over 17 000 57.0 58.0

[2] An analysis of engineers grouped on a performance basis within four distinct age brackets shows that seniority in itself does not automatically indicate fading capability. Those veteran engineers rated highly by supervisors hold their own admirably against younger competition.

03 ^

^ Κ Ι­

Α

Β

ω α3

3 5

5 a Η

confronts his manager for an explanation. Since the supervisor does not want to defend the subjective rea­soning behind the lower rating, he summarizes the s ituation by telling the engineer he is "out of date ." Worried about his future, the engineer decides to take a course or two to correct the s i tuat ion. But by the t ime the engineer's rating has been officially cut, part-t ime study probably cannot remedy the situa­tion. Meanwhile , after completing one or two courses the engineer expects his rating to improve, but this usually does not happen.

Cultivate a challenge During our interviews with managers, they repeat­

edly indicated that the best engineers are given the interesting, challenging job ass ignments . This factor alone most effectively distinguishes between high- and low-performing engineers of all ages (Fig. 2E) . It is also significant that high performers in their forties and fifties have more complex jobs t h a n the middle per­formers in any age group.

There is much less difference between high and low performers in their twenties than is attributed to older engineers. For some reason, this reported spread in abilit ies increases significantly with age, and one very noticeable part of that increase is a rapid decline in the ratings of low performers. It appears that low performers start out with less complex jobs and then, spiraling rapidly downward, end up with the simplest tasks . Unfortunately, these data were collected at one point in t ime and do not permit such inferences di­rectly. However, this conclusion is quite consistent with other employment studies (Pelz and Andrews).

Scientists and engineers themselves also report that job ass ignment is most important. In another recent s tudy, Margulies and Raia asked research and devel­opment personnel: "What was the most fruitful learn­ing experience you have had in the past year or two?"

CUD

I f Ο C: ο QJ OS

D

Qi »-a. ω E-E

1.84

"1.45" 1.35

1.25 1.09- 1 1 2 - 1 . 0 8 ^

0.90 1.00

0.45

I L

6 ^ 6 . 1 5

4.75

2.24 -1.65-Γ 1.40

1.00 1.20

0.50 0.30 0-65

76.5 66.5

-58.5 .

44.0

21-30

60.0

-35 .0

72.0

51.5

25.0

62.5

- 3 7 . 5

20.0

31-40 41-50 over 50

Age groups

Manager's evaluation groups: J Bottom third I Middle third

JTop third

T h o m p s o n , Da l ton , K o p e l m a n — " B u i what h a v e y o u done for tne la te ly?"—The Boss 87

Getting out without going under Perhaps even more important than the skiiiful ma­neuvers that maintain and (hopefully) preserve a technical career is a flexible mental attitude that can accept and accommodate an uncertain future. Layoffs should not be automatical ly construed as ev­idence of poor performance, especially by those in search of work! Everything f rom office polit ics to Government cutbacks can adversely impact engi­neering employment. And whatever the combination of ill fortunes, individuals who have seen the demand for their expert ise evaporate should hardly burden themselves further with guilt.

Once you realize that few gold watches are given out in your engineering department, perhaps a ser i­ous evaluation of alternative careers is in order. One solut ion is self-employment. This doesn't necessarily mean gambl ing life savings or taking a second mort­gage to launch some speculative garage-shop ven­ture. But it does take planning. Older engineers can indeed take the initiative and prevai l .

A case in point is provided by veteran electronic design engineer, IEEE member, and successful can­didate for the Uniform CPA Examination, Bertram S. Jacobs. In recent correspondence with Spectrum touching several aspects of engineers' career plan­ning, Mr. Jacobs explains:

" I believe that the day a young person gets the in­spirat ion and decides to enter engineering is the day he or she should recognize its l imitations and also init iate plans to leave engineering. One can have a weal th of satisfaction and thril ls for 20 to 30 years; but never forget it is prudent to plan on getting out after 2δ years.

"The strategy is to be in a position ot sel f -employ­men t (or president of your own company) after the age of about 40. If you are not an employee, you can hardly be laid off. To fol low this strategy requires planning and training. The training may be self-taught, or formal ; but degrees are not worth much this t ime around so do not go overboard. In l ieu of *keeping-up' courses in engineering, consider other areas of study. Do not be stingy about spending money on courses or on a program. Expect to spend to enter a new field.

" I f the last paragraph sounds easy, I am mis lead­ing you. It can be most diff icult. The major problem is the determinat ion of what you would like to do after leaving engineering. Outside guidance may be a real help, for the outsider may see qualit ies and abil i t ies that you are too close to observe.

"Get started on your project as early as possible. You may have the opportunity to get in some m o o n ­l ighting and thus get a reading on how well you may do in your new f ield.

"Some may consider that the ideas discussed here have an element of defeatism and self-fulf i l l ing prophecy; if the boss is faced with a select ion of people to let go, he will l ikely select the person that he th inks will be best able to handle i t—the person with the alternate career plan. As for defeat ism, this is in the same vein as ships carrying l i feboats— just in case. The boss may wel l envy your opt ions, be­cause he too could easily be in a tight posit ion at lay-off t ime . "

Don !\/iennie, Ed.

The most frequent response (42 percent) was on-the-job problem solving. This was described as being as­signed to "interesting tasks," "broadening projects," and "writing proposals which force m e to dip into the literature and become current on everything con­nected with the project." But, as previously men­tioned, our data indicates that young engineers usually get the more challenging job assignments.

One engineer described the situation in extreme terms. In his organization, there were two general types of technical duties: developing state-of-the-art hardware and maintaining current equipment. A lin­ear, decreasing relationship was c la imed between ad­vancing age and the percentage of challenging assign­ments an individual received.

It was further suggested that management followed this practice because it was easily implemented. While experienced engineers could quickly trouble-shoot exist ing equipment, they would have to study and prepare themselves before starting on a new proj­ect. On the other hand, a new engineer may have the state-of-the-art concepts more clearly in mind having just finished college, but he cannot immediately debug unfamiliar systems. The logic seems perfectly reasonable—at least in the short run.

We discussed the subject with managers and they readily admitted that job assignments are often made in just th is way. Often these managers have deadlines to meet and want the most effective person available to help head off an immediate crisis. Apparently a 28-year-old engineer—with several years' experience and college not yet a dim memory—is the best choice

for the most challenging jobs. While such a strategy might make sense in a pinch, it will eventual ly de­plete and destroy the organization's technical talent .

Keeping your customer satisfied Once aware that maintaining technical competence

is a complex problem with no simple solution, each engineer needs to give careful thought to planning his career. We spoke with the vice president of a large re­search organization who uses a concept that has prov­en helpful to engineers and scientists in analyzing employment problems. He suggests that each engi­neer should consider himself a "one-man bus iness ," involved in selling professional services. There are three important questions relative to success that should be asked—and answered—on a continuing basis: • Will there be a continuing demand for the services which you, as a "business," have to offer? • Wil l your "business" be able to offer new services in case the demand for current capabilities decl ines? What kind of personal "research and deve lopment" effort is needed? • H a s your "firm" grown or declined in the past year in terms of marketable skills, as well as in income?

Of all these variables, marketability is probably the most crucial. When present assignments are com­pleted, how smooth will be your transition to another project? Are there several managers either inside or outs ide the company eagerly competing for your ser­vices? Any at tempt to insure long-run success should include a realistic appraisal of continued educat ion

88 I E E E spectrum O C T O B E R 1974

For more on career crises . . . Dalton. G. W., and Thompson, P. H., "Accelerat ing obsolescence of older engineers," Harvard Bus. Rev., p. 57. Sept . /Oc t . 1971. (An earlier study, which discusses the problem of obsolescence in six engineering organizations.)

Decker. W. E., and Van Atta. C. M.. "Control l ing staff age. and f lexible ret i rement p lans," Research Management, pp. 1 6 - 2 1 , Jan . 1973. (This study of 20 R&D laborator ies finds the average staff age to be about 40, and increasing. Early ret i rement is analyzed for coping with the situation.) Dubin, S., "Obsolescence or lifelong educat ion: a choice for the professional , " American Psychologist. vol. 27, no. 5, 1972. (A good review of the l i terature and research on professional obsolescence.)

Dubin, S., Shel ton, H., and fVlcConnel, J . (Editors), "Maintain ing professional and technical competence of the older engineer: engineering and psychological aspects." Amer ican Society for Engineering Educa­tion, Washington, D.C. (Topics such as measuring obsolescence, training and retraining, and motivation are d iscussed in this set of 21 recent papers.) f\/largulies, N.. and Raia, A. P., "Scient ists, engineers and technological obsolescence," California l\nan-agement Rev., pp. 43 -48 , Winter 1967. (A study of 290 scientists and engineers; their att itudes about obsolescence and how to prevent it.)

Pelz, D. C , and Andrews, F. M., Scientists in Orga­nizations: Productive Climates for Research and De­velopment. New York ; Wiley, 1966. (Here are the results of a major study on managing engineers, in­cluding two chapters on obsolescence problems.)

and an a lmost selfish concern for the implications of job ass ignment . Κ an engineer wakes up at age 50 and finds himself obsolete, it is probably too late t o save the situation.

Management's responsibility Even with foresight and the best of intentions, the

individual engineer is l imited in some aspects of ca­reer planning. Management has the important re­sponsibility of cooperating with technical people in two areas: job ass ignment and motivation.

If management focuses only on the short-run prob­lem of complet ing each project in a given amount of time, it is l ikely t o undermine the engineering re­sources of the firm seriously. When engineers in their forties are given routine jobs exclusively, it's a lmost certain they face early obsolescence. In the past, when engineering departments grew rapidly, it was possible to hire new people each year with whatever skills the organization needed. Today, comparatively few outsiders are being hired and new skills must be developed within the organization's existing engineer­ing department.

Performance is related to anticipation and com­panies create environments that result in higher or lower expectat ions . It is a mistake to promise what cannot be delivered, but individuals need incentives if they are to cont inue to contribute.

We have consistently noted a strong relationship between age and anticipated reward. Older engineers have almost given up hope that they will get promo­

tions or significant salary increases. Management could take the initiative and provide a wide range of rewards available to engineers of all ages, with perfor­mance the relevant criterion. Many older engineers would like more autonomy in managing their own work activities. But the most important incentive is a challenging job.

Young engineers already have high expectations of promotion, large salary increases, etc., so they are strongly mot ivated. Veteran engineers have very few incentives and probably see little reason to invest extra effort in their work.

Bailing out? Do it early! Many professionals over 40 become disil lusioned

with their present situations and would be more pro­ductive if they moved to another organization or changed to a different career. Low-rated engineers in their thirties may be well advised to seek employ­ment in another field. Our preliminary findings indi­cate that low performers in the 31-40 age group will also be the low performers in the over-50 age group. As many engineers learned during the 1969-1972 layoffs, it is very difficult for an engineer to change careers in his fifties. While we are not advocating that all low-performing engineers in their thirties should leave engineering, our interviews indicated that many such individuals were dissatisfied with their work and might welcome some decent alternatives.

In the past, we have argued that corporations and society should make such moves easier by adopting portable pensions and making low-cost education loans available in preparation for changing careers. These recommendat ions seem even more important now, a t i m e of less-than-booming growth in engineer­ing organizations.

Paul Thompson is an associate professor of organi­zational behavior at Brigham Young University, and has been involved with research on engineering ca­reers for several years. A more detailed biography of Dr. Thompson appears in the December 1973 issue of Spectrum, page 75.

Gene Dalton received the B.S. degree in account ing from the University of Utah and his doctorate in busi­ness administrat ion f rom Harvard University in 1962. He is professor of organizat ional behavior at Brig­ham Young University and has published several books on problems of mot ivat ion, career develop­ment, and change in engineering organizations.

Richard Kopelman received the B.S. degree in eco­nomics f rom the University of Pennsylvania in 1969 and a doctorate in business administration f rom Har­vard University In 1974. Since 1970. he has been in­volved in research on engineering careers and mot i ­vation theory. He is presently assistant professor, Baruch Col lege. City University of New York.

Reprints of this article (No. X74-102) are available at $1.50 for the first copy and $0.50 for each additional copy. Please send remittance and request, stating article num­ber, to IEEE, 345 E. 47 St., New York, N. Y. 10017, Att: SPSU. (Reprints are available up to 12 months from date of publication.)

Thompson, D a l t o n , K o p e h n a n — " B u t what have you done for me la te ly?"—The Boss 89