leading and managing engineering and technology book 2

8/10/2019 Leading and Managing Engineering and Technology Book 2

1/33

IEEE-USA E-Books

Leading and ManagingEngineering and Technology

Book 2

BOOK1Perspectives onLeading and Managing

BOOK3

Building a Culture that Develops Leaders

and Managers

BOOK4What It TakesTo Be a Manager-Leader

BOOK2 Developing Leadersand Managers

By Gerard H. (Gus) GaynorIEEE Life Fellow

3M Director of Engineering, Retired


2/33

Published and Hosted by IEEE-USA.

Copyright 2011 by IEEE-USA. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Edited by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager, [email protected]

Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design

This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding provided by a special dues assessment of IEEE

members residing in the United States.

Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from the IEEE.


3/33

LEADING AND MANAGING ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY: DEVELOPING LEADERS AND MANAGERS BOOK 2

Table Of Contents

Leading and Managing Engineering and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Book 2: Developing Leaders and Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Managing and Leading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Managing and Leading Four Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Leading by Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Managing by Individual Professional Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Leading by the Individual Professional Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Dealing with the Manager Leader Dichotomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Appendix I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


4/33

4


Leading and Managing Engineering

and Technology

Leading and Managing Engineering and Technologyincludes four E-Books: Book 1,Perspectives on Leading and Managing;Book 2, Developing Managers and Leaders;Book 3, Building a Culture that Develops Leaders and Managers; and Book 4, What It Takes

To Be a Manager-Leader.

Book 1 Summary

Book 1 of this series provided some basic background related to a critical leadership issue

technology drives business performance, yet too few engineers and their managers aspire to

take on major leadership roles. Book 1 included a discussion of:

Changing Social Paradigm The view of the engineer has changed from the agricultural,

to the industrial, to the information age were now invisible.

Role of Scientific Management Frederick Winslow Taylors Principles of Scientific

Managementprovides no guidance in an environment populated predominantly with

knowledge workers.

A Few Caveats Management is not a bag of techniques and tricks (Drucker) no job

is more important to our society than that of the manager (Mintzberg) leadership is not

limited to executives and managers: it crosscuts the organization. (Gaynor)

Leaderships Historical Perspective The public press and management books herald the

leadership of statesmen, generals and industry executives. Our focus is tapping all theleadership resources of the individual professional contributors.

Results from Leadership Research Ten percent of managers move an organization

forward: these are the managers who are purposeful, highly energetic, highly focused

they spend their time on value-adding activities.

Leadership Styles Command and control doesnt work with autocratic leaders. A melt-

down may be required. Charisma is not essential, but communication is. With General Co-

lin Powells 18 leadership principles: the goal authentic leaders be yourself, empower

people to make a difference, be consistent and self-disciplined lead with purpose, mean-

ing, and values.

Leader, Manager, or Manager-Leader From academics and the world of the practitioner

subject of Book 2.


5/33


Managing You dont manage people, you manage their activities; managing involves

performing the administrative duties(you cant avoid them); providing direction to your

group. and by leading going beyond whats expected, and being the pathfinder to the

future.

Expectations from Individual Professional Contributors (IPCs) Take your place in the orga-

nizations decision-making process you may not know it, but you do have a responsibility

to provide your expertise in the organizations decision-making process.

Leader Training Becoming a leader involves a journey that builds on every experience,

good or bad.


6/33

6


Book 2: Developing Leaders and Managers

Book 2 builds on the perspectives presented in Book 1 and examines managing and leading

by: 1) managers at all levels, and 2) the Individual Professional Contributor/knowledge work-

ers. Your success in either of these two options depends on being authentic, being yourself,

and recognizing your capabilities and limitations. Book 2 includes a discussion of:

Managing and Leading

Managing and Leading Four Generations

Managing by Managers

Leading by Managers

Managing by the Individual Professional Contributor

Leading by the Individual Professional Contributor

Dealing with the Manager Leader Dichotomy

Commentary


7/33


Managing and Leading

The majority of research on leadership focuses on the executive levels: chief executive of-

ficers, presidents, and the array of highest level executives in the various staff and operat-

ing units. While I may refer to these top level executives occasionally, I consider managing

and leading by Managersand the Individual Professional ContributorsIPCs). Each of these two

groups fulfills different managing and leading purposes.

Warren Bennis, Peter Drucker and John Kotter have researched and discussed the topic of

leadership for many years and recognize that its the most studied and least understood topic

in the social sciences. Warren Bennis emphasizes that leadership must be endemic to the

organization. He went on to cite a series differences between leaders and managers placing

managers at one end of a continuum, and leaders at the other end of the continuum. As an

example: In On Becoming a Manager, Bennis1provided twelve specific differences between

the manager and the leader. These were cited in Book 1 of this series, and are restated inAppendix I of Book 2. Lets consider several of these differences:

The manager administers; the leader innovates.

The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

The manager maintains; the leader develops.

According to Bennis, managersadminister; they fulfill the role of the administrators. Adminis-

trators move the paperwork; they move the product to the customers. Leaders do the vision

thing; they identify the organizational or organizational unit vision. Leaders do the innovating.

Identifying the functions of managing and leading at the extreme ends of the managing-leading

continuum leads us to believe that the functions of managing and leading are totally indepen-dent. I doubt that effective managingcan exist without some level of leading: neither mechani-

cal nor human processes operate with perfect precision, and require someone to take action,

when the system no longer meets requirements. Leadership is not this thingwe assign to the

organizations executives: it must take place throughout the whole organization. If managing is

limited solely to meeting the prescribed requirements with specific resources and organization-

al infrastructure, do we need human interaction?

The distinctions for the second bullet present similar results not all managers copy, and not

all managers are original thinkers. No one thinks original thoughts 24/7. For the third bullet,

managers who only maintaineventually fail; managers who only develop also fail, except pos-

sibly in the very short term. So, working at each of the extreme ends of these continuums andmaking such distinctions, as cited in bullets 1 to 3, does not reflect the practitioners world of

organizational management. The actions of managing and leading interact like the ingredients in

a bowl of salad: they are co-dependent and need the oil and vinegar as the integrating lubricant.

Bennis is a well-known and respected researcher; his thinking may be more appropriate for the

academic researcher than the practitioner.


8/33

8


Peter Drucker2suggests that an organizations managers collectively represent the leadership of

the organization both individually and collectively. The leadership group represents the authority

of the organization and has certain responsibilities related to the organization. He also counsels

that its futile to expect every manager to be a leader. Drucker3also notes that managers in the

traditional sense now find themselves in situations where they are not the superiors, and they

become the juniors to the Individual Professional Contributors (IPCs). The IPCs in our complextechnology-based worldwide economy play a major role in managing and leading because

of their specialized knowledge and competence. So, Drucker stresses that managing is not

command over people, but responsibility for contribution.

John P. Kotter4proposes that managing and leading are distinctive and complementary activi-

ties. He considers managing as coping with complexity,and leadership as coping with change.

Complexity arises from the emergence of large organizations and expansion into a worldwide

economy: it encompasses those time tested requirements of defining, planning, scheduling,

controlling, staffing, budgeting, and the specialingsrequired in every organization. Managing

this organizational complexity provides consistency in promoting the organizations objectives.

In essence, managing involves fulfilling the actions and activities in meeting current commit-

mentsto the organizations stakeholders.

Bennis, Drucker, and Kotter present somewhat different views on the relationship between the

manager and leader activities. Bennis focuses on rather severe distinctions between the roles

of the manager and the leader. Drucker considers all managers, both individually and collec-

tively, the leadership of the organization. Kotter considers managing and leading as distinctive,

yet complementary, actions and activities; managing concentrating on complexity, andleading

concentrating on change.

Our current milieu tends to glamorize leading, and somehow denigrates managing to some

lower position. How many times have you heard, do you want to be a leader or a manager,

as if being a leader was the preferred state? I propose that effectivemanaging and leading

cannot be separated. One cannot manage 24/7, and if one attempted to lead 24/7, chaos

would dominate the environment. Changes would be proposed daily. A manager, who only

manages, without appropriately leading when necessary, fails to meet the requirements to be

a competent and effective manager. Likewise a leader, who only identifies the vision, without

appropriately managing the vision (making it happen), provides limited value to the organization.


9/33


Managing and Leading Four Generations

At the beginning of the second decade of the 21stCentury, managing and leading present

additional complications for the leader. The current worldwide workforce5includes a mix of

four generations: Traditionalists, born pre-1945; Baby Boomers, 1945-1964; Generation X (GEN

X), 1965-1980; and Generation Y (GEN Y), 1980 to the present. This confluence has direct con-

sequences for managers and the vast number of IPCs. The Great Depression and World War II

formed the Traditionalists post-World War II prosperity matured the Baby Boomers; GEN X was

groomed under globalization, downsizing and the technology boom; and GEN Y is living through

transitions of prosperity, uncertainty, violence, terrorism, outsourcing, under-employment, and a

worldwide economic downturn.

The Traditionalists are being retired and their wisdom, experience and perseverance is dif-

ficult to replace. The Baby Boomers, children of the Traditionalists, believed in growth, change,

expansion, working long hours, and redefined social norms. GEN X brought technological skillsin many disciplines, entrepreneurship, education, desire for a fast-track to management, and

the first generation to focus on balancing personal life and work. GEN Y is socialized in the

digital world, technically literate, and the most ethnically diverse generation; pursues intellectual

challenges; desires immediate feedback; wishes to make a difference; believes it can do any-

thing; is impatient for promotion; and favors an inclusive style of management. While these are

generalizations of complex issues, the four generations display different work ethic levels. GEN

X and GEN Y participated in differently structured engineering curricula than the Traditionalists

and Baby Boomers experienced.

Engineering education of the Traditionalist was based on breadth of engineering principles. As

an example, the electrical engineering curriculum included grounding in mathematics through

differential equation; thermodynamics or heat transfer; individual courses in statics, dynamics,

strength of materials, and fluid mechanics; electromagnetic theory; general physics; the core

courses in AC and DC stationary and rotating machinery; plus, the electives from the three

options communications, power, or industrial electronics. Many of these courses no longer

exist, since the curricula now focus on courses related to digital techniques. While the general

philosophy of Traditionalist engineering focused on providing the basic tools with which to do

engineering in its broadest sense, it has now become very specialized. Traditionalist engineers

were educated to have an understanding of the fundamentals, applying those fundamentals,

and finding the talent to identify and solve problems. This type of education brought engineers

into the business of the organization. I mention this situation, because specialization affects the

managing and leading functions. As an example, the most knowledgeable computer engineercannot develop the software for a control system without some knowledge and understanding

of the system dynamics which usually involve translation into some form of motion. That

may also require knowledge of sensors, measurements, and fluid dynamics. Competency in

software development now requires the manager to provide these technical competencies

through other people; this requirement not only complicates the development process, extends

schedules, and adds cost, but also generates communication problems. Every discipline

appears to have its own language. Im not suggesting that the programmer be thoroughly


10/33

10


competent in each of the technologies mentioned, or that the control systems engineer

be a competent programmer, but both require some general knowledge in each others

technologies. As an example, rotating machinery doesnt stop or start in zero time. An

automated assembly system doesnt stop and then come up to speed when the start button

is activated: it isnt restarted without a loss of product. If designers do not understand such

machine system dynamics, they cannot possibly develop a workable control system program.Managing these four generations requires a significant amount of tolerance from all involved.

Each generation comes with its own baggage, which can cause significant conflicts. The Tradi-

tionalists believe that there is a clock a meeting set for 10:00 a.m. begins at 10:00 a.m., and

not when Gen Y decides to arrive. The Traditionalists may be continually promoting how we

did it in the good old days, and such comments may antagonize Gen Y. Gen Y may not appre-

ciate being under a Traditionalist manager, and Traditionalists may not give due credit to a Gen

X manager. I do not want to exaggerate the differences; but they do exist, and managers and

leaders must deal with both.

Managing by Managers

How do we describe the function of managing? At one time, the description was very simple,

someone who is responsible for the work of others.That description fits the days of Frederick

Winslow Taylor. His principles of scientific management that morphed into industrial engineer-

ing and the psychology related to maximizing worker output: command and control dominated

management practice. But who are these others for whose work managers are responsible?

These others, specifically for our discussions, are engineers who apply what scientists create;

develop new products and services; convert engineering principles into processes and sys-

tems; innovate; and build the international social infrastructure. They work with the PTCs from

many other organizational disciplines to meet the organizations objectives.

Our 21stCentury economy depends less and less on manual labor. As an example, Hon Hai

Precision Machinery Industries Inc. of Taiwan is expanding its workforce in China at its Foxconn

operations. Foxconn, a design and contract manufacturer produces the iPhone, iPad, and other

electronic equipment for major U.S companies. It currently employs about one million work-

ers, and it uses approximately 10,000 robots; by 2013 the production plants will be equipped

with one million robots. This type of automation goes well beyond the effort required to build

the first Ford automobile assembly line in Hamtramck, Michigan in 1913. Managing the out-

put of Hon Hai today and Ford Motor Company in 1913 is very different; Ford required hands

with some support from the mind, Hon Hai requires more intellectual competence with fewer

hands. Arguments can be made both pro and con regarding automation, but in the digital

businesses where quality becomes the product differentiator, automation provides significant

benefits.

Managing, as a concept, embraces all organizational functions in three major categories:

1) Genesis, 2) Distribution, and 3) Services. Genesis includes research, development and

production. Distribution involves marketing, sales, physical distribution and customer service.

Services include financial, procurement, patent and legal, human resources, public relations,

and general administration. Each of these three categories can be further subdivided, but

provide no value for our purposes. Where does the engineering manager fit into the scheme

of organizational functions?


11/33

1


Figure 1 shows the potential interactions between engineering and other organizational

functions within its business unit, and to other organizational business units. Managing

engineering involves more than being responsible for engineeringwith a lower case e;

it means managing Engineering with an upper case E, and its relationships with all other

organizational functions and organizational business units. I have not included the linkages

among these various entities, or any functions under each category, because it would onlyconfuse the diagram. But, consider them in your minds eye, and you quickly recognize the

number of interactions, most of which must be satisfied to the required extent to build and

maintain a sustainable organization.

Figure 1

Interaction of engineering with its organizational functions, and other organizational units.

DISTRIBUTIONMarketing

Sales

Physical Distribution

Customer Service

GENESIS

Research

Development

Production

ENGINEERING

Other Organizational

Business Units

SERVICES

Financial

Information

Procurement

Patent / Legal

Human Resources

Public Relations

General

Administration

Engineering managers do not live solely within the organizations technology functions, or in

isolation from other organizational functions. Engineering managers may be involved in some

manner and form in research, development, and production.

They may be involved with marketing, sales, physical distribution and customer service. The

distribution function represents challenges for many engineering managers, because for them,

its not engineering; its that other stuff thats not engineering, and therefore not important. But

thats a form of engineering myopia; its disregarding what engineering involves.


12/33

12


Knowledge of the organizations services is a vital component in the managers knowledge

base. Some knowledge of the financial issues regarding budgeting, estimating, ability to read

and analyze financial reports, justify investments and expenses, and proposing new projects,

requires an understanding of financial principles, and how theyre applied in your organization.

Managers depend on information to manage their operations, and often treat those

information sources as gospel. Databases are only as good as the quality and legitimacyof the original documents. Absolute dependence on the data in those black boxes, without

adequate understanding of applicability to the issues being investigated, often leads to

catastrophic results. While a totally independent group within an organization generally

manages information, managers cannot depend totally on what is provided. The information is

about the past, developing the future falls to the manager. Followingbest practicesmay not be

the best way to move forward; it may be more appropriate to become the new best practice.

Procurement of materials, components, and assemblies cannot be left to the procurement

department; its part of engineerings responsibility, at least the preliminary investigation.

Waiting for the procurement function to identify potential suppliers capable of fulfilling the

requirements usually leads to major problems. Procurement officers will probably not evenbe able to discuss requirements adequately in many cases, theyre not technically qualified.

But, thats not a reason to disregard their guidance and recommendations; they bring particular

negotiating skills that the average manager does not in his box of competencies.

Do engineering managers need an understanding patent and contract law? My response

would be a very definite, yes not that they become lawyers, but they should be able to

comprehend some of the legal sensitivities that cause organizations a great deal of grief. Here

are a couple of examples: Patent rules and regulations are very strict in regard to disclosure.

Deviation from those rules and regulations can lead to rejection of the claim. Managers are

usually involved in dealing with formally written contracts that provide for certain obligations

to be fulfilled by the parties. Deviations from those terms and conditions can lead to extensive

court battles.

Dealing with the Human Resources department will challenge the patience of every manager,

whether it relates to salaries, promotions, hiring practices, people appraisal, or education. HR

works by the book usually, one-size-fits-all. However, finding a colleague in HR whos willing

to buck the system can ease the way considerably. As a manager, you cant buy everything

that HR presents, you need to be selective and have the courage to make your case, if whats

proposed affects your group negatively in an important way.

You may think you have no need for the public relations department (PR), but think about what

the PR group offers. PR usually offers communication services, and engineering managers

normally do not meet the requirements of excellent communicators. Some costs may be

associated with PR services, but you may have a better chance of making the sale.

Lastly, those general administration services that include communication, travel, maintenance,

transportation, facilities planning, meeting arrangements, and the like need your support.

You cant function, unless theyre performed effectively and efficiently. Dont demean them

in any way; some day they may be more important to you than your colleagues or the

organizations executives.


13/33

1


Application of all of the foregoing commentary affects managers in different ways, depending

on where they stand on the management ladder. The newly appointed manager is essentially

at the bottom of the learning curve. The qualified senior manager, with years of experience, sits

at the top of the managers ladder but also needs to continue learning to move to an executive

position. The newly appointed manager needs formal and informal education, coaching from

a senior competent manager, and opportunities to make decisions independently. These earlyyears are crucial, because young managers develop their personal philosophy regarding the

managing function early on. Well coached, they become excellent managers: poorly coached,

they eventually join the ranks of the disengaged. However, in spite of education and coach-

ing, managers must understand how to deal with risk and uncertainties; they learn to deal with

issues by making small mistakes. Lew Lehr6, 3M CEO from 1978 to 1996, in a presentation at

the University of Pennsylvania in 1979, noted:

As befits a company that was founded on a mistake, we have continued to

accept mistakes as a normal part of running a business. Every single one of my

colleagues in senior management has backed a few losers along the way. Its

important to add, however, we expect our mistakes to have originality. We can

afford almost any mistake once.

Mr. Lehrs statement should be taken seriously by all managers and executives. It may

sound absurd to suggest that the only way we learn to manage is by making mistakes, but

unfortunately, thats the real situation. As Lehr points out though, the mistakes cannot be

made because of a lack of due diligence in performing any activity, such mistakes cannot be

tolerated. While I include this comment from a 3M CEO, it applies at all professional levels

in 3M.

The managing part of managing involves pursuing the foregoing list of activities, at some level

and regardless of the function, that keep the business doors open and allow an organization

to meet current requirements of its stakeholders. We could call these routine activities that

have been performed many times, and are pursued as part of the idea-to-customer process.

The risk is low because process standards are available, work methods have been established,

and everyone involved knows the limits of their authority. As long as the results meet the

expectations, and are according to schedule and cost, the managers work involves managing. I

use the word routineadvisedly, because I do not want to minimize, in any way, the effort by the

manager and the team involved in meeting the requirements. That describes the managing by

managing. Once any action deviates from the required operational tolerances, whether related

to purposes, people, and processes, someone must take the lead: taking that lead to go beyond

the accepted criteria to bring the situation under control requires leading.


14/33

14


Leading by Managers

What do we mean by providing leadership? Following the process and hoping it produces

the expected results is not leadership, it is managing. Leadership involves going beyondmeeting current requirements. It involves reaching beyond the current body of knowledge

or accepted facts, processes, and rituals and having the courage to move beyond the status

quo. Leading involves producing change: taking advantage of new technologies; pursuing new

demographic and market opportunities; appraising new organizational structures for improved

alignment among organizational units; finding and developing the next generation of specialists

and managers; setting future directions; and creating a vision, and the strategies to fulfill the

vision. In essence, leading involves describing the future directions of an organizational unit,

identifying the requirements, providing the required resources, developing a workable imple-

mentation plan, and being closely involved in assuring performance.

The academic and business press devotes an excessive amount of space in describing theleaders responsibility of providing a visionfor the organization. In our current international

economic environment, we continually hear about a lack of leadership; political, economic,

financial, industry, and academia. The press also promotes the idea that leadership starts and

stops in the executive suites. While leadership may involve promoting a vision to the specific

community of people, management involves more than visioning. Eventually, vision must be

defined in specific terms, whether related to academia, business, or government. The vision

must ultimately be fulfilled.

Leading requires providing the resources and infrastructure for today and the future. Its about

creating change. It involves thinking about the imaginable and the unimaginable. As noted in

Gaynor7:

The whole concept of leadership means creating change as contrasted to main-

taining the status quo. It implies thinking of the future, influencing, persuading,

changing minds, doing what those above and below may consider unaccept-

able, sticking your neck out, taking calculated risks, risking yourself as a person

in championing a controversial point of view or approach, and having the confi-

dence and ability to speak out and support unpopular but necessary issues.

Badawy8, in the preface of Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientistsempha-

sized the need for managerial knowledge, skills, and attitude in achieving managerial compe-

tence. Badawy says:

Like engineering and medicine, effective management requires both knowl-edge and practice. Knowledge without practice breeds a blue sky theorist. Prac-

tice without knowledge breeds a trial-and-error layman. Knowledge and practice

breed a well-grounded, competent practitioner.


15/33

1


The following examples provide a guide to what I refer to as taking on leadership

responsibilities.

Case 1 Leadership responsibilities:After some discussion and many interviews, an electrical

engineering department manager was assigned as a director of a laboratory that primarily dealt

in polymer chemistry. Can you imagine what this group of polymer scientists and engineers

thought about this electrical engineering manager being given responsibility for managing theactivities of a group of dedicated polymer researchers? There must have been many discus-

sions around the water cooler and the coffee machines about upper managements insensitivity

and stupidity in making such an appointment. The directors knowledge of polymers was limited

to what he learned during his college days, plus what he read in the public press as polymers

began to impact daily lives. He was asked to provide leadership to the group.

Under these circumstances, the director considered himself as a generalist, having a great deal

of knowledge in related technologies that began with a solid grounding in general engineering

principles, management, and business credentials. While he brought many years of engineering

and management practice in problem-solving and problem-finding competencies, his electrical

engineering background was of minimum value. Yes, he knew more than anyone in this groupabout sensors, instrumentation, and control systems, but that wasnt going to provide much

guidance in dealing with polymer scientists and engineers. He also made the decision not to

try and compete on polymer knowledge with a group of capable professionals. His overarching

role was to sort out the various opinions and facts about where this group was going, what has

been accomplished over the years, and how what is being developed fits into the current and

future strategic directions of the organization. The researchers were interested in why things

happen, rightly so, and not necessarily how the results would lead to their application in devel-

oping new products. His opportunity was to see what could be done with what they discovered

in their research. The researchers were developing information, he was asked to see how that

information could be used to promote the strategic directions of the organization.

The director had individual discussions with the managers and some of the principal scientists

in the group to gain an understanding of any major issues, a general review of the major proj-

ects, and future directions. The discussions involved both an attempt to gain some insight into

the work effort of the individual and the human side as to expectations and satisfaction. The

time came to ask for a semi-formal review of all projects within the department. A meeting was

scheduled for the full review with the stipulation that progress on all projects would need to

be identified with target dates and associated costs. The goals were to determine if resources

were being distributed adequately based on the significance of the project; decide if there were

too many projects and none were receiving adequate funding; make an attempt at finding any

synergy between projects; and having the peripheral discussions that involve any review. The

director asked questions such as 1) Why are we doing this?; 2) Are competitors doing the same

research?; 3) Should the work involve joint research with outside sources?; 4) Is the work origi-

nal and will the result be patentable?; 5) Why is this research important to the organization?;

6) What is the impact on the organization, if the project is canceled?; 7) Is the project being

funded at the correct level?; 8) What is the time frame for reaching a conclusion?; 9) Identify

new substitute researchthe more important; and 10) Rank order all projects in importance to

the organization. Not once did the director question the technologies; the focus was directed


16/33

16


to the value of the research to the organization. The meeting had a few stressful moments as

participants began to realize that some projects may be discontinued and replaced with others;

the stress was prominent among the participants who questioned the value of a colleagues

research effort as not being related to the organization strategic direction.

After several months of effort to examine each project more closely, based on some definitive

guidelines but also with knowledge of the potential downside, some projects were canceled

and some new ones added. In such a situation, the director gained the confidence of the re-

searchers by not questioning their research competencies. He focused on results.

Case 2 Leadership Responsibilities: Case 2 involves the process engineering and the plant

engineering groups in a major manufacturing facility involved in producing complex assemblies.

While the reports indicated adequate performance, there were signs that the plant was not

keeping up with the required changes to improve long-term productivity improvements. This

was a situation where the plant management involved a group of practitioners who grew with

the technology over many years, but as more sophisticated technologies were introduced by

competitors, did not have the technical background to grasp the new concepts. It appeared,

at first sight, that while the plant made progress in its early days of operation, its managementand staff did not keep up in promoting new technologies that afforded other opportunities.

Some younger engineers proposed process changes to improve not only the output, but also

reduce the waste and rework, but their proposals were disregarded. As time went on, they

became more vocal and approached the vice president of manufacturing at the home office.

Upper management listened to their proposals, their dissatisfaction with the plant management

team, and their threat to resign, but asked them to stay on subject to a review of the situation.

The organizations vice president of manufacturing put together a small team to visit the plant,

review all operations, and make recommendations. A team leader (TL) was assigned, plus two

process engineers familiar with similar operations. The TL, after some discussions with the

plant manager and key people, suggested a visit to the plant within one-week. The plant man-

ager objected to the scheduled date and insisted on postponing for at least three to four weeks.

The TL pressed the point for a meeting within one-week and suggested that no elaborate dog

and pony show was requiredno fancy slides, just a full and open discussion of operational

issues and future plans. Since the TL was an experienced plant auditor, he was aware of how

sanitized presentations often cover up the true conditions and how managers, as a rule, prefer

minimum involvement of their people with any home office review team.

The first three days involved individual and small group discussions regarding general plant

operations. These sessions were basically fact finding sessions that included not only the

formal plant data discussions, but also an opportunity to gain insight into the competencies of

the staffwho are these people, their motivation, their competencies and capabilities, their

concerns about the management, and other factors that affect current and future performance.The Team met and discussed their findings.

Plant and process engineering include two fairly distinct groups of people, the long-timers and

the newly-hired with three- to five-years of service with the organization. The long-timers came

up through the ranks over many years and learned by doing, but reached a point where they

were not capable of dealing with new and somewhat sophisticated technologies. There was no

explanation as to why the plant manager hired engineers, and then prevented them from using


17/33

1


their talentstheir proposals for making improvements were rejected as being too risky and

uncertain. However, the associated risks and uncertainties were well documented, and within

acceptable range based on prior proposals.

The review team found what review teams generally find in such circumstances: a) an old-boys

network that resists change of any kind, because theyre not prepared to accept it; b) lack of

defined objectives; c) insufficient communication regarding strategy, operations, expectations,

and results; d) few, if any attempts to improve performance related to quality and cost; e) inad-

equate inventory control; f) no formal program for disposal of waste and scrap; g) inadequate

process flow diagrams and specifications; and h) a failed project management process. The

TL also reported the lack of attention given this organizational unit by the next higher level of

management.

A review of the project management process revealed a list of over 400 projects: some projects

remained on the list for four- to five-years without any action. Its difficult to comprehend why

a plant manager would allow projects to remain on the list for five years without any action.

After much discussion the TL suggested that, as a starting point, all projects more than

one-year on the list be removed. This list would be reviewed in detail as to importance, priori-tized, scheduled, and appropriate resources assigned. Many voices arose as to the impossibility

of removing them. When asked, how projects could remain on a list for five-years without

any action, the room was silent. This group of plant people evidently gained some unknown

satisfaction from this list of approximately 400 projects but no one could explain why they

remained on the list for five-years.

Over the years the plant manager failed to fulfill the leading part of the managing/leading

functionits questionable that he was even managing, but it was difficult to ascertain how

this plant manager defined the managingfunction. Instead, the young engineers took the lead,

by proposing improvements that required application of new technologies. Such situations are

normal and not exceptions: managers fail to keep up with the improved technologies, and the

organizations executive management fails to either provide the essential education, or take

appropriate and timely action.

If you believe these two examples are extreme cases, I suggest that you review your own

organizational unit and your organization. You will be surprised what you find.

The following examples of other types of actions managers from various engineering functions

take, demonstrates leadership in managing/leading:

On a new product development program, an engineering project manager takes the initia-

tive to work closely with the manufacturing group that has responsibility for producing the

productbuilds manufacturing into the design. Thats taking the leadleadership.

An engineering manager recognizes the role of a new technology in providing a significant

benefit to the organizations future and begins an educational program to make sure the

competencies are available when needed. Thats taking the leadleadership.

An engineering manager takes over a group with seven supervisors and recognizes the total

lack of supervisory competence. Presents a proposal using some university professors to


18/33

18


begin an educational program, and the proposal was rejected because of economic condi-

tions. Managers solution: Purchase seven basic management books related to supervision,

each covering a different topic: assign each supervisor one book with responsibility to give

a book review to the group on management principles, and then carry on a discussion as

to how the principles apply to the specific organizational unit; the sessions are scheduled

30 days in the future for every Monday morning from 7:30 AM to 10:00 AM; attendance

mandatory, no excuses. Within 12 months there were seven supervisors that other orga-

nizational unit managers were trying to entice to join their departments. Thats taking the

leadleadership.

An engineering manager whos also knowledgeable about the organizations businesses

attends a conference and finds a technology that may be useful to a different organizational

unit. The information eventually led to an improved product. Thats what we call taking the

leadleadership.

An engineering managers team struggles with a particular knotty technical problem. Over

lunch in the cafeteria, the problem is discussed in detail with another manager. Manager,

through questioning, concludes that the team lacks the competency to resolve the problem.Manageroffers services of one of the groups professionals to assist in resolving the prob-

lem. Offer is accepted. Within a short time the problem is solved. Thats taking the lead

leadership.

An engineering manager is assigned to a group, where over many years the organization

has endured significant financial losses, even though the best and brightest were assigned

over a ten-year period. Multi-million dollar proposals were presented to tear down the

production facilities and start anew, but projects were never approved because they could

not be justified financially. A new engineering manager was appointed who recognized

what could be salvaged and rebuilt into world class manufacturing facilities, and what new

manufacturing technologies were needed. By putting together a program that integrated

research, product development, marketing and sales, and manufacturing, the organization

(with less than half the investment) became profitable within three years. The integrated

team took the leadthats leadership.


19/33

1


Managing by Individual Professional

Contributors

The Individual Professional Contributors (IPCs), as a group, include engineers, scientists, pro-grammers, and technicians in the many technology related disciplines. Seldom do the IPCsconsider themselves as performing managing duties. In our current organizational atmosphere,

managers and executives depend on the input from the IPCs, to make those macro investment

decisions. Therefore, the IPCs do manage the process to collect the information, categorize it,

and evaluate it in relation to defining requirements. They manage the process to integrate their

conclusions with other IPCs, who provide information from their particular discipline.

What does it mean to manage for the Individual Professional Contributor (IPC)? The IPCs re-

sponsibilities do not generally involve directly managing the activities of others, although there

are instances where an IPC may be supported by other IPCs. If we define managing as being

responsible for contributing to the results of the organization, then IPCs meet the requirements

for managing.

While IPCs may not be directly responsible for the work of others, they definitely contribute to

results. If IPCs are part of the organizations management, then they need to develop a philoso-

phy of managing. Why a managing philosophy? IPCs need to develop a managerial attitude, a

viewpoint, a mindset, and a perspective. In essence, what does it mean to perform the man-

aging function? How do you approach the task with your colleagues? Do you operate with a

consistent pattern of thought and action?

IPCs need to change their mindset from providing information to contributing to organizational

results.

Figure 2

Interactions of the Individual Professional Contributor with organizational functions and other

organizational units.

DISTRIBUTION

Marketing

Sales

Physical Distribution

Customer Service

GENESIS

Research

Development

Production

INDIVIDUAL

PROFESSIONAL

CONTRIBUTOR

Other Organizational

Business Units

SERVICES

Financial

Information

Procurement

Patent / Legal

Human Resources

Public Relations

General

Administration


20/33

20


There is a difference. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of the engineering IPC to IPCs in all

other organizational functions and organizational units. IPCs participate with other organizational

functions and associated organizational units and the organization. To fulfill the requirements

shown in Figure 2, engineers must begin functioning as ENGINEERS,rather than engineers.

How do I differentiate the engineerfrom the ENGINEER? The engineeroperates with a limited

vision of the job of engineering I did what I was asked to do to design that circuit board to develop that software program to run those tests to develop that process, solely as it

relates to engineering. Aspiring to be an ENGINEERrequires a change in mindset, to recognize

that engineering does not operate in isolation, but operates within the organizational system

it is but one part of the business process. To be successful, the ENGINEER understands

and recognizes the relationships of engineering work to all other organizational disciplines and

functions, and actively participates. Engineering work requires taking into consideration the

impact ones work on other organizational units and the greater business. It requires becoming

involved in the organization and its purpose. To become and ENGINEER, requires a change in

mindsetand expansion of the scope of engineering and its impact on business performance.

Some comments from Robert Lutz9, then former president and vice chair of Chrysler Corpo-

ration, and now retired General Motors vice chair, noted in an IEEE-USAs Todays Engineer

article, Robert Lutz Gives Engineers The Nod:

Engineers need to be, like anybody else in business, proactive and somewhat

outgoing. And they need to reach outside technical areas. Mainly, engineers

need to be good communicators, because there is no point in achieving an en-

gineering breakthrough, having a new idea, or coming up with a new material, if

you cant get your colleagues excited about it.

Peter Drucker10provides a favorite story that was used in management training programs at

one time, and illustrates what I mean by mindset.Three stonecutters were asked what they

were doing. The first replied: Im making a living. The second kept on hammering, while he

said: Im doing the best job of stonecutting in the entire country. The third stonecutter looked

up, with a visionary gleam in his eye, and said: Im building a cathedral.

Drucker noted: The third man is, of course, the true manager. The first man knows what he

wants to get out of the work and manages to do so. He is likely to give a fair days work for

a fair days pay. But he is not a manager and never will be. The second man has a problem.

Workmanship is essential; without it no work can flourish; in fact, an organization demoralizes,

if it does not demand of its members the most scrupulous workmanship they are capable of.

But there is always a danger that the true workers, the true professionals, will believe they are

accomplishing something when in effect they are just polishing stones or collecting footnotes.

Workmanship must be encouraged in the business enterprise. But it must always be related to

the needs of the whole.

IPCs have opportunities to make greater contributions to the organizations future, if their

mindset focuses on the impact of their activities on the business. Keep in mind: IPCs span a

continuum from the newly-minted to those with many years of experience. Their contributions

and insights span several orders of magnitude, but each has an opportunity to not only make a

greater contribution, but also gain a higher level of satisfaction from their work-effort.


21/33

2


Leading by the Individual Professional

Contributor

As noted previously we may want to focus on taking the lead, rather than on this ubiquitousword leadership,which currently dominates the world media. Lutz9also emphasized the need

for engineers to develop leadership skills.

As leaders, engineers will go beyond serving their organization as effective

original contributors. They will also play a vital role in leveraging the brainpower

of others in the organization.

Having taught in two graduate-level programs in management of technologyfor several years,

that involved managers and upper level IPCs, I was surprised that not a single person aspired

to any high-level leadership positionreaching a comfortable position at some level of manag-

ing, and not at too high a level, seemed to be the ultimate position. We know that IPCs, like all

others fall, into the typical bell-shaped curve: at one end, 10 percent are outstanding and makesignificant contributions; at the other end, 10 percent make questionable, if any, contributions;

and the center holds the 80 percent that conscientiously do a good days work for a good days

pay. Lets not in any way minimize the contributions of the middle 80 percentthey are the

workers who move the product from idea to the customer. We also need to recognize that if

100 percent of the employees were outstanding, an organization might experience significant

operational difficulties in meeting its objectiveschaos may reign, too many ideas, and few at-

tempts at implementation. But, IPCs need to remember that they are the source of fresh ideas,

and they need to exploit those competencies for the organization, as well as for their personal

satisfaction.

How do IPCs take the lead? It depends on where the IPC fits into the organization, and at what

level. The neophyte IPC faces significantly greater challenges than the experienced IPC, if for

no other reason than a lack of understanding of the organization. The following examples pro-

vide a random sample of opportunities for IPCs to take the lead.

Status Quo or ChangeI realize that the termsstatus quoand change generate various

degrees of anxiety depending on ones mindset. Status quo provides a comfort zone for some

and outrage for others; change generates uncertainty as to the future for some, and opportuni-

ties for others. The two are seldom rationalized. This mindset applies whether one is propos-

ing simple administrative changes, or introducing new technologies. However, maintaining the

status quo in light of competitive pressures eventually leads to unacceptable results, failure.

Espousing change requires operating in a culture filled with doubt as to the projected outcome;

one step forward and two steps back may be the rule of the day. However, espousing changemay be the better of the two options, if the future needs to be protected. Organizational IPCs,

in the final analysis, determine the choice ofstatus quo or change; their specific competencies

build organizational capabilities that provide decision-making guidance to managers and execu-

tives.


22/33

22


Changing the Mindset Every organizational unit somehow takes on the mindset of its

manager. As an IPC, how can you make progress in changing that mindset, if necessary? That

mindset might relate to managing projects, expanding operations in some way, introducing new

technology, promoting new product development, fostering innovation, supporting educational

programs, and other issues that any organizational unit might confront. You might ask, why

should I want to change the mindset? IPCs are expected to do whats assigned; IPCs are alsoprofessionals and need to act accordingly. How does it benefit your career? With IPC creden-

tials and experience, it demonstrates your willingness to use all your competencies to further

the organizations goals. Whether you attempt to change the mindset depends on several

factors: 1) your ability to recognize when changing the mindset will provide benefits; 2) your

insight in identifying what actions might be involved in changing the mindset; 3) your compe-

tence in evaluating your possibilities for success; and 4) your willingness to build support within

the organizational unit, one member at a time with small steps, no major theatrics, no magic

wand, just an understanding of the people involved and their sensitivities.

Building Team Competencies into Capability Its important to note the distinction

between competence and capability. As individuals, we develop certain competencies over

time. As we progress in our careers these competencies integrate into individual capabilities.As an example, an engineer may begin a career as a designer in some facet of engineering;

this activity builds a certain competency. If over time the engineer takes on responsibilities

in product design, which requires gaining some knowledge of manufacturing processes, and

customer needs, the engineer builds additional competencies. Acquiring these additional

competencies and integrating them in daily work begins the process of developing capability;

multiple competencies build capability. This engineer now provides considerably more value to

the company than during that position as a designer. Addinga business perspective to these

competencies develops a professional. Individual performance seldom demonstrates signifi-

cant results, except with the very exceptional people, of which there are very few. Few true

geniuses truly abound, and the wordbrilliant so common in todays commentary, it seldom lives

up to its meaning. Were basically all average, plus or minus a few points, and thats difficult to

admit. On occasion, we perform superbly. Taking individual capabilities and integrating them

into team capability provides a challenge to IPCs and team leaders; know what competencies

and capabilities exist within the team. As an IPC, you need to contribute more than your basic

competencies.

Project Reporting The reporting police have arrived. Sound familiar? With the development

of computerized reporting systems, reporting of all types should have been simplified. Not so!

The very fact that information systems provide so much flexibility, requests for irrelevant and

unnecessary data continue. Heres an excellent opportunity for IPCs to begin taking the lead.

When youre asked to provide a report begin asking why. When you see project budget figures

detailed to the last penny, ask why. If your manager requires such use of your time, it may beadvisable to seek a transfer. Ask what it costs to store all that information that no longer pro-

vides any value. Organizations pay little attention to the cost of digital storage, but investments

in storage continue to rise. The interchange of those twenty or more emails to reach a decision

does not provide any future benefit. Perhaps, a phone call would have solved the problem.


23/33

2


Recommending New Technologies or Processes As a new graduate (IPC), you enter the

workforce with some understanding of the latest technologies in your field, but also with little

if any actual experience. You will most likely encounter colleagues who have not kept up with

technological advances. Young engineers need to avoid adopting the attitude: Im the new kid

on the block. You may be the new kid on the block, but youre an employee of the organization,

and youre expected to make a contribution. Youre expected to be proactive. Youre expectedto do more than youre told to do. Youre expected to use your knowledge for the benefit of

the organization, as well as your personal satisfaction. Acceptance by your more experienced

colleagues, however, will depend on how you present your ideas. Adopting a know-it-all atti-

tude will turn off your colleagues, but demonstrating a bit of humility will begin the process of

gaining respect from your more experienced colleagues. You may be the new employee, but

you can take the lead. Experienced IPCs should be expected to take the lead in promoting new

technologies and processes, but at various levels; not everyone can accept the same amount of

risk, and promoting anything new involves a certain amount of risk.

Were all aware of the not-invented-heremindset that pervades every organization, so propos-

ing new approaches in any area of the organizations business requires a high level of persis-

tence. The technical community too often accepts no as the final answer; we proposed it,management rejected it, well go on to other things. Members of the technical community

need to consider just what theyre attempting to sell management. Management generally

is not interested in the technological details; theyre interested in what the technology will do

for the organization. Further, a no response from management should be a source of new

knowledge to revisit the proposal and go back as many times as necessary to gain approval.

Of course, how many times an engineer returns with a better defined proposal depends on

the level of commitment to the proposed recommendations.

Adopting a Business Approach What do I mean by the business approachfor IPCs?

Its easy for IPCs to live in the technology comfort zone; mostly exciting work, professional

colleagues, little concern about the rudiments of generating income; the next paycheck willarrive on time. But, more is really expected, as I noted in Book 1 of this series and paraphrase

here: Industry leaders want IPCs with technical competence, a creative and innovative spirit,

a breadth of vision, flexibility and adaptability, and a customer and market focus. Its not enough

to just do the techie stuff: techie stuff has to be done in the context of the business. As previ-

ously noted, IPCs are part of the organizations management team; they provide information

that upper management uses to fund research, to make capital investments, to expand world-

wide operations, and support organizational objectives. Even though the IPCs primary concerns

relate to their organizational units, their decisions impact other organizational units, and they

must take into account those other needs. To take a business perspective, IPCs need to have

some knowledge of the organization and its operations. It is interesting to note how little, not

only IPCs, but most people, know about their organizations.

Promote Discipline Integration Discipline integration involves two specific yet intercon-

nected areas; 1) integration of the engineering and related disciplines, and 2) integration of the

engineering related function of research, product development, manufacturing, and marketing.

First, lets consider the issues related to integration of the engineering disciplines. Over the


24/33

24


past decades, much engineering education has become more specialized. A cursory review

of engineering curricula shows that rather than providing a fundamental grounding in engi-

neering principles, education focuses on developing specialists. This focus on specialization

is particularly noted in the electrical engineering curricula that focuses significant attention on

information and related technologies. The engineering disciplines do not function in isolation.

Its difficult to identify any engineering discipline that functions in isolation of others. A circuitdesign by itself serves no purpose; it must do something, and usually translates to some form

of mechanical motion. A mechanical or chemical operation, even of the simplest form, will not

function without the electronic, pneumatic, or hydraulic control system. So, all of these designs

involve multiple disciplines. Success, in such projects, requires integration of disciplines. But,

integration of disciplines involves more than finding people with the right competencies. Over

time, IPCs must develop an understanding of other disciplines for the team to work effectively.

If chemical designers disregard the needs of the control system, and the associated operating

software that allows the system to meet requirements, the final assembly and checkout will

require considerable rework.

Integration of related function of research, product development, manufacturing, and market-

ing, all of which require input from the engineering IPCs, can provide added value. If, as anexample, research, development, manufacturing, marketing and finance were integrated on a

particular project and functioned as an integrated unit from the beginning of the project, rather

than as independent functions, certain benefits will accrue. Those benefits include: 1) a full un-

derstanding of the interactions of the four functions; 2) continual updating of events over time,

and their impact on each function; 3) each function being able to plan its activities to meet the

established final target date; 4) better use of all resources; 5) a continual focus on results;

6) revision of all plans; as required, in a timely manner; and 7) opportunities for participants

to develop greater understanding of each functions different needs. Over many years of ex-

perience with suchintegrated team effort, I have found a spirit of cooperation develops that

focuses on resolving inter-functional group issues, rather than any function taking a rigid and un-

compromising position that complicates the activities of the related functions. The IPCs quickly

come to understand not only their own requirements, but also those of their colleagues.

InnovationIPCs in all disciplines are the source of innovation. Innovation is not limited to

technology; it crosscuts the whole organization from the CEO, through all executive ranks, all

management, and everyone in the organization. But, when it comes to new products and pro-

cesses, IPCs will play the major role in the innovation process; IPCs are the innovators. Ideas

may come from others, but implementation falls in the hands of the IPCs. Whether innova-

tion is top-down or bottom-up, IPCs will play the major role. But, participating in the innova-

tion process requires a mindset of accepting change, pursuing an activity without concern for

the innovation prevention department, and accepting the defeats and successes with equal

grace. While innovation requires a mindset that continually searches for new perspectives, thatobserves the environment, and integrates information from diverse sources, it depends on the

support from many supportive IPCs. So, either take the lead as the innovator, or take the lead

in supporting the innovator with your specialized competencies. For a full discussion of inno-

vation, see IEEE USAs four-book series Doing Innovation: Creating Economic Value at http://

www.ieeeusa.org/communications/ebooks/.


25/33

2


Meeting Behavior Meetings provide an opportunity for all IPCs, regardless of level of ex-

perience, to take the lead. Consider two specific opportunities: 1) listening and speaking when

necessary; and 2) taking actions, if you disagree with a decision. Listening appears to be a ma-

jor problem in todays social environment. Its unfortunate that all the electronic toys cannot be

checked at the door before entering the meeting room. Im certainly not against all the digital

technology, but Id hope that we wouldnt need calculators to make the simple mathematicalcalculations that can and should be made with a simple mental exercise. You have participated

in meetings where its difficult to understand where the discussion is leading. Too often IPCs

fail to speak up when the discussions become somewhat inane: they appear to be disengaged,

as opinions are offered instead of facts. When opinions take precedence over facts, its a time

for IPCs, regardless of discipline, to take the lead and direct the conversation. Not easy, but

required. How many times have you left a meeting where nothing was accomplished, decisions

were delayed, participants failed to deal with the issues? The Boeing three-year delay in deliver-

ing its first 787 Dreamliner demonstrated how many meetings must have taken place without

their IPCs raising the critical questions, or if they did raise those critical questions, no actions

were taken to address the issues. The problems were solvable. The solution required IPCs to

push their management. That would have involved taking the lead.My second point, what do you do if you, as an IPC, do not agree with a decision? Can you take

the lead? The answer depends on the extent to which you disagree with the decision and your

level of commitment to reverse the decision. Any major decision involves more than one part.

A decision to make any major investment involves many elements. Dont expect any major

decision to meet 100 percent of your requirements, other participants are also involved who

also have justifiable requirements. If you manage to find 80 percent or more acceptable, go

with it and then find a way to negotiate your other needs; negotiate your other needs, not your

wants, there is a difference. If youre really passionate about some particular issue of the total

decision, are you sufficiently passionate about it to work through the night and bring an alter-

nate proposal for discussion the next morning? Are you willing to do an all-nighter to rethink the

particular issue? Thats what taking the lead involves.

Challenging the Managers Decision After several attempts to gain approval of a self-

directed proposal from the organizational units manager, and always ending with a rejection

for one reason or another, an IPC who feels deeply regarding the importance of the proposal to

the organizations future faces a serious dilemma. Does the IPC give up on the idea, or in some

way seek a hearing with the next level of management? If the IPC drops any further action

on the proposal, the organization may lose some significant competitive advantage. If the IPC

chooses to seek a hearing from someone in the next level of management, the IPC may not

only jeopardize future career opportunities, but also be relegated to rather unimportant tasks.

Yes, managers can be vindictive. This dilemma, however, provides an opportunity for the IPC to

take the lead, but with qualifications. Such actions are best approached indirectly, or through arelation with some other manager. In dealing with such matters, the shortest distance between

two points is not a straight line. Once again, it requires IPCs to develop a mindset that goes


26/33

26


beyond their immediate disciplinary expertise. Can a scientific or engineering IPC gain support

for a project from a marketing manager? Definitely yes. But, that IPC must know that marketing

manager, and look at the marketing efforts as a contributory benefit to the organization.

Followers or Colleague The management literature continues to describe the relationship

betweenleaders and followers. This anachronism in todays organizations includes a large

percentage of knowledge workers. IPCs who consider themselves as followers probably do notmerit to be referred to as IPCs. In all disciplines, IPCs provide direction, contribute to the results

of the enterprise, influence the wealth producing capabilities of the organization, and determine

the future of the organization. They are not followers, since they take the lead in their individual

disciplines. They provide their expertise to managers and executives in their decision-making

process. If IPCs follow the lead of the organizations executives without questioning, they fail

to fulfill their role as IPCs. IPCs cannot indiscriminately disregard the organizations strategic

or operational directions, but need to carefully explore the consequences of those directions,

and their impact on the needs of the various professional disciplines. Expanding the vision

of the IPCs requires a change in organizational and IPC mindset. Organizational functions

by themselves provide little benefit. Internal operations require the collaboration from many

functions. This collaboration is not anything new, but it has become more important as societyhas become more complex. In all disciplines, and in their coordinated activities in building

organizational capabilities, IPCs run the organization. However, to be effective, IPCs cannot

depend on disciplinary competence alone, they also require: 1) an understanding of systems

integration, 2) a facility with information technology, 3) decision-making skills pertaining to

their field of interest, 4) ability to advocate and influence, and 5) the competence to deal

with complexity and uncertainty. With these competencies, IPCs can take the lead.


27/33

2


Dealing with the Manager Leader Dichotomy

Over several decades General Motors (GM) has attempted to change its bureaucratic

culture through a succession of CEOs, without much success. Ms. Barra, head of VehicleDevelopment at GM, has a reputation of speaking her mind and moving the action forward.

After taking responsibility for GMs product development, Ms. Barra11eliminated a string of

executive positions that came between her and the top engineer responsible for product pro-

grams to speed decision-making. Here is an example from one of Mary Barras conversations:

Ms. Barra was meeting with 14 engineers and designers, when the discussion turned to

the problem the company faces: its stifling bureaucracy. A young engineer noted that

customers were complaining that GMs navigation systems use an alphabetical order rather

than the standard qwerty layout used on most computer related equipment. The engineers

higher-ups refused to address the issue. Ms. Barra, a 31-year GM veteran, instructed the young

engineer: You need to keep pushing until you understand why, she said, and directed theyoung engineer to notify a senior executive by email, adding, Dont stop until you have an

answer. Good advice, but what happens to the young engineer, when he goes over the heads

of his immediate manager? Who will protect him, if GM tolerates this bureaucracy?Ms. Barra

also heard complaints that GM is not sufficiently focused on quality, and too slow to adopt new

technologies: it didnt look outside the confines of GM, and was inwardly focused. One young

engineer responded to Ms. Barras questions by saying, You can get in trouble, if you push too

hard. The group joked that engineers join GM unaware of the lumbering, and are sapped of

enthusiasm after five years. The conversation ended when Ms. Barra approached the young

engineer, who was concerned about using the alphabetic keyboard in the navigation system,

and asked how long hed been with GM. Four years, the young man replied. Good, she

said, I have one year. You are my project. And, so it goes.

The verbal exchange between the young engineer and Ms. Barra is an example of a young IPC

attempting to take the lead outside his immediate job responsibility, and being thwarted by the

organizations bureaucracy. Its also an example of an executive deciding to take responsibility,

and attempt to correct the issue. When executives and managers take the time to leave their

offices and begin speaking to those responsible for moving the product out the door, they begin

to discover real problems, those seldom documented in those monthly reports.

John C. Redding12, 13presents the results of his doctoral dissertation to determine if; Teams

that follow a structured process provide better solutions. Here are the results. Team A was

asked to make a quick decision about accelerating a customers delivery schedule using

systematic risk analysis. The team involved highly skilled middle managers, with MBAsfrom the leading graduate business schools. They had a well-developed agenda, and met

in somewhat elegant surroundings, as one usually finds in major corporate headquarters.

Team A blindly accepted the problem as presented, and quickly reached a decision not to

accelerate the customers delivery schedule. It doesnt appear as though Team A took the

leadin any way. They fulfilled the managing function.


28/33

28


Team B was asked to recommend whether the organization should introduce a low-cost, off-

the-shelf product line. The team included machine operators and production supervisors; few

had college training, or any formal team training. Instead of meeting in the elegant headquarters

they met in the cramped lunchroom. There was no formal agenda. The team was entrenched

in two camps, disorganized, much talking and interrupting, and on occasion name-calling. The

team was stunned when one member not only walked out of the meeting, but threatened toleave the organization. Amongst the confusion, the team began discussing the possibility of

starting a new company for the low-end market. Team members explored ways to standardize

a low-cost product line and streamline production. Discussions became more positive, as the

meeting continued. They developed a sense of excitement among the group. They met again in

two weeks, and within six months the new company was launched. In spite of the somewhat

bizarre behavior in the beginning of the discussions, Team B not only demonstrated there com-

petence to manage, but also to lead.

What conclusions can we draw from this research? Team A involved a group of highly educated

and skilled managers, and lived up to the status quo; they considered no alternatives and oper-

ated by the book. Team B took an undisciplined approach and transformed the company. Do

we conclude that the Team B approach provides the best approach? Probably not! However,Reddings questions were reinforced from research by Laurel Jeris14. Jeris formed 80 five-

person teams and divided them in two-sets comparable to Reddings Team A and Team B. The

results: Teams trained to follow prescribed teamwork practices (like Team A) developed less

creative and innovative solutions. Teams operating under Team B, with freedom and no formal

structure, were twice as likely to develop innovative solutions. Jeris then set up a third group

of teams, asked them to separate facts from assumptions and not blindly accept the problem

as presented. These teams rephrased their problem statements three times as often as those

used by traditional problem-solving methods. The results suggest a new model for teamwork

that involves reexamining how problems are framed.

The results from Reddings research demonstrate the negative effects of depending solely onprocess. Process is important, but the major question; is the correct process being applied.

Perhaps free and open discussion for some period of time, followed by knowing the process

limitations, and based on experience and judgment, provides a better solution. We know that

structure inhibits creativity and innovation. We also know that innovation prospers when indi-

viduals have the courage to break the rules, but its also essential to know the limits of breaking

the rules. Jeris concluded that discussing how problems are framed may provide a new model;

that may be a good starting point when a problem is first presented. Have we framed the real

problem or the symptoms? Proposing such action will require someone to take the lead.


29/33

2


Commentary

Book 2 has provided background information to allow managers and IPCs to make their own

judgments regarding the linkage of managing and leading. I have not provided a seven-stepprocess to becoming a leader. Youll need to define the linkage between managing and leading

in the environment in which you operate. If the environment does not meet your requirements,

you may choose to leave the organization. The linkage of managing and leading will be quite

different in an organization that promotes innovation, from one focused only on todays per-

formance. That linkage will require a different approach in a bureaucratic organization, and one

that provides high levels of freedom to act with discipline. That linkage between managing and

leading may require that you modify your view of the linkage, depending on the circumstances.

An imminent crisis may force you to adopt either a managing or a leading role.

In the final analysis, only you can decide whether you meet requirements more effectively by

managing and leading simultaneously, or by considering managing and leading as two totallyindependent functions. The situation will determine the level of linkage. As managers and IPCs,

you do have a responsibility to lead and leading requires using the appropriate means.

Book 3 of this series will discuss Building a Culture that Develops Leaders and Managers;and

Book 4, What It Takes To Be a Manager-Leader.


30/33

30


References

1. Warren Bennis, On becoming a Leader, New York, Basic Books, 1989, pp. 44-45.

2. Peter F. Drucker, The Essential Drucker,New York, Harper-Collins, 2001, p. 65.

3. Peter F. Drucker,People and Performance, London, Heinemann, 1977, pp. 49-51.

4. John P. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business Review, December 2001,

Prod. #R00112F-PDF-ENG.

5. Susan P. Eisner, Managing Generation Y, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 39,

No 2, June 2011, pp. 6-18.

6. Lou Lehr, Dinner speech at the Wharton Entrepreneurial Center, University of Pennsylvania,

1979.

7. Gerard H. Gaynor, Exploiting Cycle Time in Technology Management,New York, McGraw-

Hill, 1993, p. 255.

8. Michael K. Badawy, Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists, Van Nostrand

Reinhold Company, New York. 1982.

9. Peter M. Tobia, Robert Lutz gives engineers the Nod, IEEE Todays Engineer, Volume 2,

Number 1, 1999, pp. 6-11.

10. Peter F. Drucker, People and Performance (London, Heinemann, 1977), p. 61.

11. Sharon Terlep, GMs Latest Change Agent Tackles Designs, Red Tape, WSJ, June 14,

2011.

12. John C. Redding, The Radical Team Handbook (San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 2000), pp. 5-12.

13. Gerard H. Gaynor, What Every New Manager Needs to Know(New York; Amacom, 2004),

pp. 80-82.

14. L. Jeris, An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Team Process Interventions and

Double-Loop Learning Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Leadership and

Educational Policy Studies, Northern Illinois University, 1997.


31/33


32/33

32

LEADING AND MANAGING ENGIN

leading and managing engineering and technology book 2

Documents