DOCUMENT RESUME AUTHOR TITLE Managers. INSTITUTION · transition problems. Bench scientists and engineers, scientists and engineers at first and second levels of supervision and management,

ED 076 346

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 015 358

Bayton, James A.; Chapman, Fichard L.Transformation of Scientists and Engineers IntoManagers.National Academy of Public Administration,Washington, D.C.; National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Washington, D.C.

REPORT NO NASA-SP-291PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

72132p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock Number3300-0435 $1.50)

EDRS PRICE ?1F -$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS *Career Change; *Job Satisfaction; *Managerial

Occupations; Personnel Selection; Question AnswerInterviews; *Scientific Personnel; Skill Analysis;Task Analysis

IDENTIFIERS Research Reports

ABSTRACTCritical factors in the phenomenon of scientist's and

engineer's transition from working as specialists to working assupervisors or managers were studied among 489 employees of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration and the NationalInstitutes of Health to discover ways of avoiding or overcomingtransition problems. Bench scientists and engineers, scientists andengineers at first and second levels of supervision and management,and senior scientist-engineer managers were selected into the samplepopulation. Management was analyzed in three dimensions: thefunctions or tasks to be performed, the skills and abilities used inperforming tasks, and motivation which provided positive and negativemeaning in transition. An interview questionnaire was developed totest respondent reaction to categories used in management dimensionsand to explore their views about transition problems. Data resultingfrom 610 interviews showed that the sample population accepted suchfunctions in management as reporting, supervising, planning, andprograms assessment. However, personal skills were considered as asource of tension. Three types of scientists and engineers were foundin motivation analyses, and thpir identification might be used ascriteria for candidate selection. Major training needs weredetermined to fall in the areas of personal skills and oforganization processes and structures. (CC)

NASA SP-291

Transformation of

Scientists and Engineers

into Managers

Bayton and Chapman

NATIONAL. AERONAUTICS

AND SP40,APININISTRATION

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATINt, IT POINTS Oi VIEW OR OPINIONS SEATED 00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

NASA SP-291

Transformation of

Scientists and Engineers

into Managers

JAMES A. BAYTON AND RICHARD L. CHAPMAN

Prepared under contract for NASA by the NationalAcademy of Public Administration, Washington, D.C.

Scientific and Technical In Office 1972NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C.

Editor's Note

Dr. James A. Bayton isHoward University, and aAcademy of Public Administr

Dr. Richard L. ChapmanAcademy.

professor of psychology atconsultant to the Nationalation.

serves on the staff of the

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. D.C. 20402Price $1.50 Stock Number 3300-0435Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-186368

FOREWORD

This report is the result of research conducted under NASA Contract NSR 09-046-001.The research was conducted and the report was developed with the advice .,sndrecommendations of an ad hoc group, denoted in this book the "Advisory Panel",comprised of a distinguished membership from the National Academy of PublicAdministration.

The results of the study have been of interest to top-level NASA administrators andmanagers, and have already attracted the attention of and elicited inquiries from othermajor Federal agencies. Because the report deals with a subject that has considerableimpact on good management of public institutions, especially those in the research anddevelopment environment, NASA management is issuing it as a Special Publication toachieve wide distribution and availability.

De Marquis D. WyattAssistant Administrator for Policy

and University Affairs

iii

PREFACE

A function of the National Academy of Public Administration is to focus the expertjudgment of its members and associates upon critical problems in public administration.

The research described in the following report, and the report itself, benefitted fromthe continuing general guidance of the Advisory Panel. In periodic meetings the panelcritically reviewed the research plan, the development and test results of the interviewinstruments, the study progress, and the draft report. Following extensive discussion ofthe findings and their implications, the panel concluded its work by making specificrecommendations.

The Academy is indebted to the panel members for their very substantialcontributions to this research: Douglas W. Bray, Director of Personnel Research,American Telephone and Telegraph Company; William D. Carey, Senior Staff Consultant,Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Harold B. Finger, Assistant Secretary for Research andTechnology, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Franklin P. Kilpatrick,Dean, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Ohio State University; and John F.Sherman, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.

George A. GrahamExecutive Director

National Academy ofPublic Administration

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

Summary of Findings 1

Panel Recommendations 3

I Introduction 5

H The Problem of Transition 7

III Dimensions of Management 11

IV Research Design 17

V Description of the Samples 21

VI Management Functions 27

VII Management Skills 51

VIII Motivations 71

IX Training Needs 97

X Making Managers of Scientists and Engineers 103

Notes and References 107

Appendix: Principal Questionnaire 109

vii

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A critical problem facing every organization is howto make managers from people who are §pecialists.The vast majority of college-trained people joiningorganizations enter as specialists, or becomespecialists before taking positions of supervisory ormanagerial responsibilityattorneys, accountants,economists, scientists, engineers, doctors,. budget andpersonnel experts, and so on.

The purposes of this research were (1) to de-termine the principal problems and obstacles faced byspecialists during the transition period when they arebecoming managers, and (2) to discover ways bywhich their difficulties might be avoided or over-come.

It was found that senior management officials areunawareor tend to ignore the importanceof thetransition process and its problems, that little atten-tion has been given to developing managementtraining to overcome transition problems, and thatmuch of the training which is offered is largelyirrelevant to these problems.

The study was supported by, and conducted in,the National Institutes of Health and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration. Six hundredten interviews were conducted with scientists andengineers, ranging from those still working as spe-cialists through senior managers who had carriedpredominantly managerial responsibility for ten yearsor more.

In this study of the transition phenomenon,management was perceived as involving three dimen-sions: (1) the component functions or tasks to beperformed; (2) the skills and abilities used in per-forming the tasks; and (3) the motives which givepositive or negative meaning to participation in themanagerial role.

It also was assumed, and the study subsequentlydemonstrated, that the transformation from specialistto manager is a continuing process, not a suddenchange which occurs when a person moves into hisfirst management position.

What Changes Occur?

What principal changes occur along the threedimensions of managementfunctions, skills, andmotivationin the transition process?

1

There are two fundamental changes with respectto management functions. First, more of the func-tions are performed, and with greater frequency, asthe specialist moves into management than when heoperated solely as a specialist. (He performs somemanagement functions even as a specialist.) Second,the functions take on a broader scope in themanagement role than they had in the specialist role.For example, the specialist, when dealing with thebudgeting function, rarely goes beyond cost estimation and cost control. In the management role,however, he is more likely to be responsible forbudget development encompassing broader programareas, negotiation and liaison with related groups ororganizations, and program justification which goesbeyond technical program elements. This greaterbreadth carries with it the need to deal with a largernumber of people at higher levels of responsibilityand with a wider range of occupations.

The most striking change in the dimension ofmanagement skills is the shift in focus from task-centered skills to those skills needed to master theorganizational system. These skills fall into twocategories. First, the specialist must become more andmore skilled in coping with the organizational systemitselfits goals, procedures, and policies. Second, thespecialist must become skilled in working with peoplewho differ substantially in background and interestsfrom those with whom he associated as a specialist.

Our respondents associated a certain pattern ofmotivations with scientists and engineers (that is,

specialists). They associated a distinctly differentpattern of motivations with managers. To simplifythe text of this book, we shall refer to these patternsinformally as "motivational patterns of a specialist","managers' motivations", and so forth.

(This verbal shorthand should not be miscon-strued. We do not mean to imply any wider knownvalidity of the data than for those persons actuallyinterviewed. Nor did we try to determine clinicallythe basic motivational patterns of cur respondents.)

The study revealed a sharp division of opinionamong the participants as to the relative ease ordifficulty of satisfying "specialists' motivations"when one becomes a manager. A small number ofspecialists turned managers, who initially were neutral

TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

or somewhat negative about management, indicatedthat they grew to enjoy the changed role. Two-thirdsof those interviewed said that they responded posi-tively when first approached about the possibility ofbecoming managers. However, the transition can be adifficult problem for a specialist who tends to rejectmanagers' motivations, or who perceives great diffi-culty in satisfying specialists' motivations in a managerial position.

What are the Impact and Implicationsof the Changes?

The study revealed that the greatest problem inthe transition process relates to the organizationalsystem. Specialists consistently have difficulty acquir-ing the skills and understanding to cope with thesystem. This was viewed as a major Problem by allspecialists, ranging from those who had yet to assumemanagement responsibilities, through those in thetransition process at the time of the interviews, toindividuals holding senior management positions.

The extent of this problem was further revealed byinterviews with the immediate superiors of thoseinterviewed in the first and second levels of super-vision or management. These superiors consistentlyunderestimated the importance which their sub-ordinates assigned to being able to cope with theorganizational system. Thus the specialist in transi-tion faces a changed work environment where he hasinadequate skill, and where he finds minimal help ineither diagnosing his need or acquiring pertinentskills.

Much, if not most, of the management trainingoffered to specialists in transition discusses theorganizational system inadequately, treating ratherabstractly such topics as interpersonal relationships,decision-making, and problem-solving. All of thesetopics have value, but none of them directly addressesthe principal and specific needs of the man intransition.

The management functions presented no particulardifficulty, except as they related to skills necessaryfor their performance. Generally, specialists at allstages of transition held similar views as to therelative importance and difficulty of performing

management functions, either as specialists or man-agers. There were two important exceptions. First,those specialists who had not yet entered manage-ment considered management functions importantwhen performed in the specialist role, but wereskeptical of their importance in a managementsetting. This suggests a view commonly held byspecialists as to the general value of management perse. Second, the superiors consistently failed to under-stand (I) their subordinates' viewsnamely, that thesubordinates disliked certain management functions,and found certain functions difficult toTerformand(2) the intensity of those views.

The distinct difference in the patterns of motiva-tion for specialists (here scientists and engineers) andmanagers suggests that there may be three categoriesor types of specialists. First is the specialist whosemotivational pattern is essentially that of a manager,although he is working at the moment in hisspecialty. He does not hold a specialist's typicalmotivational pattern deeply, though the pattern mustbe operative to some degree. One could expect thistype of specialist to welcome a move into manage-ment.

Second is the specialist whose motivational patternis strongly that of a specialist, and who is somewhatreluctant to move into management. Once he hasmade the transition, however, he discovers that themotivational pattern and reward system of a managercan have meaning for him, furnishing satisfactionswhich had not been anticipated.

Third is the specialist for whom the motivationalpatterns of a manager have definite negative appeal. Ifone of these men were to go into management forfinancial advancement, or because he was "drafted"into management, he probably would find the experi-ence frustratingand possibly conducive to failure.The study results suggest that, to the extent possible,specialists of this third type should be identifiedwhen management candidates are screened. Thiswould help to determine those for whom the risk offailure is relatively high; those identified as high risksmight then be provided temporary or training assign-ments, through which management potential could bedetermined more clearly.

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Advisory Panel commends this report to theattention of senior executives in both governmentand industry. The study reveals that the problem oftransition is receiving inadequate attention and that,where the problem is addressed, too frequently theprograms leave critical needs untouched. Based uponthe report findings and their implications, the panelmakes the following 1z:commendations.

Management

I. The first and most important need is for agencyleadership to realize the importance and difficulty ofthe transition processand to deal effectively withthis process. Top management should take an activepart in selection procedures and training programs, toenhance the potential success of specialists movinginto management. Such active participation can helpassure realistic training, and will emphasize to transition employees the importance of this training.

2. The civil service system, as practiced in agencycentral personnel offices and within the Civil ServiceCommission, inhibits agencies' general capacity tomeet the problems of transition. This study showsthat from 32 to 55 percent of the scientists andengineers at the bench and the first two levels ofsupervision or management believe that tha only pathto salary advancement is through seeking managerialfunctions.

Both NASA and NIH nominally follow a "dualladder" system, which permits grade and salarypromotions to scientists and engineers of high techni-cal ability without their having to enter management.However, such opportunities appear to be severelylimited above grade GS -15. Personnel staffsat eitherthe agency central personnel office or the CivilService Commissioninsist on managerial duties asrequirements for higher grade classification. Thisoften results in promoting capable scientists andengineers into managerial positions for which they arepoorly prepared, and toward which they are notpositively motivated.

The relative rigidity of the personnel system; aspracticed, also tends to discourage agencies from

3

using new selection processes which have proveduseful for predicting success in management.

Selection

I. This study confirmed what has already beenshown elsewherethat the salient motivations ofmost scientists and engineers working as specialistsare substantially different from those of most man-agers. It also indicated that those individuals whoreject the managerial value system are likely to bepoor risks in managerial posts.

Therefore, agency procedures for selecting man-agement candidates should provide systematic, dis-criminating evaluation of motivations, as well as otherelements of management potential. Such an evalua-tion system not only would improve the selectionprocess, but also would provide more specific direc-tion to management development programs by reveal-ing individual training needs. Supervisors should bekept informed of the most recent techniques forselecting management candidates, and should beoffered training in these techniques.

2. Greater emphasis should be given to criteriaother than technical competence or prominence, inselecting candidates for managerial posts. This studyconfirmed the commonly accepted belief that techni-cal competence is the most frequent and mostimportant consideration in the selection of scientistsand engineers for management. The importance ofspecial or outstanding technical competence as afactor should be weighted relative to other factors ineach fob within management, and not accepteduncritically as the foremost criterion in every instance.

3. Selection of potential managers should beconsidered a continuing process. This selectionprocess can be facilitated by assigning potentialmanager candidates to ad hoc tasks which involve aheavy engagement in the management functions.Such assignments might be tours of limited durationon a task force, or assignment to a committee orsimilar activity. In such an assignment the individualmust work with a wide variety of people, in a context

4 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

which demands his participation as something morethan a technical specialist.

Training

I. One of the greatest unmet needs is for moreeffective orientation of new employees to the organi-zation environment and agency procedures. Thiscould be accomplished by a longer, more detailedorientation process, involving both (a) the centraltraining or employee-development organization and(b) the senior- and middle-line management of thedivision to which the employee is assigned.

The general orientation should be aimed at familia-rizing the new .employee with the formal organiza-tion, its goals and procedures.

A second- or third-level supervisor who is knowl-edgeable should introduce the new employee to thoseorganizational and operational subtleties which canmake him a more effective manager. This seniorsupervisor should serve also as an informal advisor towhom the new manager can turn. Not every super-visor can fill this demanding role, but those who arecapable should be identified and used in the orienta-tion process.

2. Supervisory training programs should be revisedto reflect: (a) greater attention to skills related to theorganizational system; (b) stronger emphasis upon the

development of subordinates' management capabilit) .

(c) improved sensitivity of supervisors to subordi-nates' views and problems (as revealed by this study):and (d) wider use of information generated in theprocess of systematic management evaluation. toassess individual training needs.

3. Agencies should examine the need for specialprogramsand if a need is found should sponsor suchprogramsto improve employee performance in themanagement functions found to be most difficult.Likely problem areas are budgeting, staffing (andother personnel operations), planning. program evalu-ation, and management reporting. Two categories oftraining should be distinguishedthat which al! newmanagers should receive, and that which specificindividuals should receive to meet specific, individu-alized net:ds.

4. Agencies should explore the wider use oflimited intern-type assignments for new or potentialmanagers. These posts should include some rotatingwork assignments, to put the new manager orcandidate into contact with a variety of managementfunctions and experiences. if special assignments arelised to select as well as to train specialists formanagement positions, the individual participating inthese assignments should be permitted to do so at nojeopardy to himselfshould he find that, uponexposure, he dislikes management.

I. INTRODUCTION

This study had its roots in the early attempts ofthe National Academy of Public Administration tohelp public officials grapple with important problemsof administration. In a series of more than 100interviews during 1967 with officials at all levels ofgovernmentlocal, state, and nationalthe executivedirector of the Academy, George Graham, found thatthe "problem" mentioned most frequently was howto make managers of specialists. Senior governmentolacials said that developing managers from theirprofessional employees (such as attorneys, scientists,engineers, accountants and economists) was a con-stant challenge, and one for which they knew of nosatisfactory solution.

The vast majority of those who now hold seniormanagerial and executive positions in the FederalGovernment begin their careers as specialists)Therefore, it is not surprising to find that conversion,or transition, from specialist to manager is wide.spread. Given the often striking differences betweenthe role of the professional (specialist) and theorganizational role of the manager, the transition canbe a difficult process.2

The goal of this research was to determine thecritical factors in the phenomenon of transition fromworking as a specialist to working as a manager. Wedecided to limit the study to the transition ofscientists and engineers because the substance ofscience and technology differs greatly from that ofmanagement, making it easier to identify change, andbecause the literature on the sociology of science is asrich asor richer thanthat of any other occupa-tional group.3

The study was supported by and conducted in twomajor Federal research agencies: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Aeronauticsan:! Space Administration (NASA).4 In order tocover the transition process thoroughly, it wasstudied from the perspectives of four groups: (I)bench scientists and engineers, (2) scientists andengineers at first or second ievels of supervision(generally section and branch chiefs), (3) scientists

and engineers at first and second levels of manage.ment, and (4) scientists and engineers who weresenior managers (supergrade or equivalent).

Supervisors and managers were kept distinct be-cause of the different contexts in which they operate."Supervisors" we define as those directly supervisingother professionals in technical work (for example, ina laboratory); and "managers" we define as thosehaving program responsibility but not directly super-vising other professionals in the conduct of laberatory or shop work. The former has a closer, personalcontact with technical work; he may be involved withtechnical details more than his colleague manager,who has a contract or grant program responsibility.

Much of the data collected in this research isapplicable to a variety of questions about scientistsand engineers in government or other large organiza-tions. However, we attempted to analyze the data foronly one purposeto seek the principal problemsinvolved in the specialist-to-manager transition proc-ess, their probable causes, and possible solutions.

We are indebted to the hundreds of NIH andNASA officials who participated in the study. Specialthanks are due to those in the personnel andmanagement offices who helped define the agencypopulations for sampling, and who made many of thearrangements for the interviews: Mel Bolster andDorothy Burns of NIH; William Williams at NASA'sLangley Research Center; Richard Stephens, CharlesBingman, Grove Webster, Owen Gallagher, JohnDuggan, and Ray Metcalfe of NASA Headquarters;William Henderson at NASA's Manned Si:acecraftCenter; Helen Davies and John Boyd at NASA's AmesResedich Center; Gervaise Wyss, William Hagen, andRobert Smith III of NASA's Marshall Space FlightCenter; Ernest Spivey and John Larowe of NASA'sKennedy Space Center; and Daniel Pilistine, JamesDennison, and Robert O'Neill of NASA's ElectronicResearch Center.

National Analysts, Incorporated, was especially.responsive in drawing the sample, conducting theinterviews, and coding and tabulating the data.

yu

r

II. THE PROBLEM OF TRANSITION

Many studies have described the value system ofthe scientist or engineer and its differnces fromthose of other occupational groups.5 The transitionfrom speciai.Ist to manager is a problem because ofthe fundamental conflict between science or engineer-ing and management as fields of professional en-deavor.

For example, the scientist seeks further knowledgethrough experimentation, attempting to control op-erational factors within specified limits. Ile measuresand observes according to recognized, objective pro-cedures. He refrains from conclusions uniil he iscomfortable with the amount and quality of accumu-lated data. On the other hand, the administratorfrequently must seek knowledge, primarily as a meansto action, through empirical evidence whose objec-tivity is clouded because the administrator is part ofthe system and not just an observer. The administra-tor finds little opportunity to control the factorsrelevant to his action or decision. And he must makeimportant decisions with only fragmentary data as anoperational way of life.

Few scientists or engineers, particularly if theyremain in technically-oriented organizations, seek toidentify themselves as either administrators or man-agers. Lewis Mainzer summarized this viewpoint:

Federal research administrators generallyhesitate to call themselves "administrator",dc, not become involved in public admin-istration as a discipline or a consciousprofession, and do not have great confidencein formal management training or theory.6

These differences stem from the value systems andways of thinking that are developed during educa-tional preparation for a career, and they are rein-forced by the system of reward and punishmentlegitimate to each community.

One factor which undoubtedly affects the transi-tion is "self-selection". Scientists and engineers whoview the value system of the manager with repug-nance probably tend to reject opportunities to entermanagement, leaving those who believe managementto be potentially satisfying or who have few, if any,strong negative feelings about it as principal candi-

dates.

During the transition process the scientist or

engineer must add a new combination of skills andknowledge to those he already possesses. lie mustmodify and broaden his perspective. so that hebecomes capable of interweaving technical and man-agerial criteria within an appropriate context.

Transition as an Evolutionary Process

The transition from scientist or engineer to man-ager is, usually. not a single step but an evolutionaryprocess.

Transition probably begins before the scientist orengineer enters his first position as a supervisor ormanager. In most instances, he directs the efforts ofothers such as laboratory assistants, technicians, orsmall temporary groups of his colleagues in a particu-lar task. He takes some part in the screening andselection of non-professional assistants, in planning orscheduling work layout and in developing cost esti-mates. Frequently. a scientist or engineer in his benchrole serves upon committees to review researchproposals or provide leadership for some professionalactivity. Such activities present opportunities forbrief participation in management-oriented tasks andthe exercise of skills related to them.

By the time a scientist or engineer steps into theposition of a section chief (the first permanentsupervisory role in both NASA and NIH), he has hadat least a fleeting acquaintance with a variety ofmanagement tasks; he probably has shown enoughinterest or competence in them to mark him forconsideration for a supervisory position.

This phenomenon of working into managementgradually, and moving into the first supervisory roleat least partly upon the basis of interest and successin smaller management tasks, may be less typical in abasic research laboratory. In such settings the princi-pal consideration almost surely is the individual'ssuccess and standing as a research scientist. Technicalcompetence usually is the first consideration. in thefilling of any supervisory or managerial position in atechnical agency.

There is a more drastic exception to this view ofthe transition process as a more-or-less gradual ratherthan a sharp change. This exception is the case of a

8 TRANSFORNIATION 01: SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

scientist or engineer who moves from a position inwhich he spends the bulk of his time in conductingresearch to one of program management. A strikingexample of this is the selection of a scientist from theworld of teaching and research, in a university. tolead a research grant program at NIH. Here thetransition can be traumatic, when the individualmoves from the less structured environment of theuniversity classroom and laboratory into the semi-bureaucratic government grant operation. N111 hasinitiated special intern-type training, the GrantsAssociates Program. specifically to soften this shockand to facilitate successful transition.

Research Related to the Transition

Little research has been conducted which focusesspecifically upon the transition process. In 1965,Robert Bailey and Barry Jensen reported the resultsof a survey made in two industrial organizations.'Their interviews of scientists and engineers (pre-dominantly engineers) suggest that the full impact oftransition from specialist to manager is not felt orapparent until a man moves to the second level ofsupervision or management. They ascribe this to thefact that the scientist or engineer in the first level ofsupervision is still heavily, if not predominantly,involved in technical detail. They believe that themove to the second level of supervision removes thesupervisor from first-hand involvement in technicaldetail 8

Bailey and Jensen conclude that there are sixreasons why the transition is difficult: (1) thespecialist must switch his prime loyalty from a

professional (and technical) orientation to a company(that is, management) orientation; (2) the specialistwants to be a "nice guy", but he tends to associatemanagement with hurting rather than helping people;(3) the specialist loses direct control over work andnow must work through others (neither can he bemore proficient than each of his subordinates in theirrespective tasks); (4) he spends less time on thingsthat are fun (that.is, technical) and must adjust to a

scale of values oriented toward management; (5) thespecialist feels trapped at having opted for manage-ment to obtain more money, having deserted his"technical birthright"; and (6) in contrast to engi-neering and physical science, there are few rules inmanagement to fall back upon.9

More recently, John Crockett completed a studyof the management development needs of NASAengineers at the Manned Spacecraft Center.' ° Thiswas a study of the perceptions of NASA R&Dengineers as to their own relative competence incertain management skillsspecifically, skills relatedto the NASA environment. The study also sought to

determine what training programs the engineersbelieved would be most helpfid. Crockett found thatthe engineers believed they were deficient in decision-making. planning and goal setting, human behavior inorganizations, conununications, and principles oforganization.

A more extensive study of NIII extramural sci-entist-administratorsprobing their characteristics.past experience, perceived roles, and attitudes aboutmanagementwas completed recently by MelBolster." (Bolster has also written an excellentreview of literature on the transition of scientists tomanagers in a research and development agency. Thisunpublished paper is titled "Extending ManagerialCompetence: Planning the Transition from Scientistto Manager in the Federal Government". datedJanuary 1968.) Bolster's work is a detailed study ofthe scientist as administrator in the NM grant andcontract programs. He was able to identify rolecategories of the NIH "scientist-administrators".which should prove helpful in planning training andother development programs for individuals movingtoward these specific NIH roles. He concluded thatone of the most difficult adjustments in the transitionis associated with "having to accept the relativelysluggish responses of bureaucracy", and "acceptingresponsibility for the work of other people."' 2

Harold Leich and Nicholas Oganovic of the CivilService Commission have discussed the developmentof human resources for science administration."Their work was directed at such questions as:

Where does the manager in a scientific andengineering organization come from?

How does he differ from the individualcontributor?

What does he typically do?

How can he be developed to a high degree ofeffectiveness?

Leich and Oganovic report the comments, experience,and observations of a wide variety of people in bothindustry and government on these questions. Theauthors also cite several surveys on the workingenvironment and motivations in a Federal scienceagency, the background of Federal science admin-istrators, and a survey of the kinds of tasks orresponsibilities (taken from official position descrip-tions) that senior Federal technical managers areexpected to handle. In addition the authors recom-mend nine ways in which the quality of scienceadministration can be enhanced. These range from (1)encouraging undergraduate and graduate students ofscience and engineering to take courses in manage-ment and behavioral sciences to (2) developing a

stimulating environment for creative work in techni-

THE PROBLEM OF TRANSITION

cal organization. However. Leich and Oganovic dinot offer new or supplementary research findings onthe transition process itself.

Attempts to Smooth the Transition

Both government and industry have recognized forsome time that the transition is difficult and chancy,and that organizations should provide some assistanceto individuals going through the process. Aside fromdiscussing the problem, most attention is devoted toproviding some type of training for new managers orsupervisors.

Beginning with the era of "scientific manage-ment", it was recognized that the role of supervisionwas distinct enough to call for some type of trainingor educational effort. Usually, it is the modernoffspring of such training that is offered to specialistsin their first managerial or supervisory positions.' 4These efforts will be described more thoroughly inchapter IX, Training Needs, but three closely relatedto this study deserve mention here:

(I) The U. S. Civil Service Commission conducts ahalf dozen interagency training programs directedtoward the scientist or engineer in government. Theseprograms include a three-day introduction for sci-entists or engineers new to government service;five-day supervisory programs; and planning, policy-

475.535 0 - 72 - 2

making. and issue-oriented programs of live days ormore. For some of these longer programs. the

commission provides away-from-home residentialarrangements.

(2) NASA has collaborated with LeadershipResources. Incorporated, in developing a series ofone-week programs in supervision and management.These programs concentrate upon small-groupbehavior, organization, planning, and problem-solving; and also on laws, regulations, policies andpractices relevant to first- and second-level super-visors.

(3) The principal NIH program directed towardthe transition process is the "Grants AssociatesProgram", which is analogous to the Federal manage-ment-intern program. It is a year-long program of"rotating" work assignments, each lasting from threeto six weeks, and a program of lectures, seminars,visits, and discussions dealing with management skills,other Federal science agencies, Federal Governmentoperations, science and public policy issues, and therole of NIH,

These training programs and their industrialcounterparts have been developed largely on the basisof management intuition and personal experienceparticularly the experience of those senior officialswho have a continuing interest in the problem oftransition.

III. DIMENSIONS OF MANAGEMENT

This research is based upon the thesis that manage-ment involves three dimensionsthe functions ortasks to be performed, the skills and other abilitiesused in performing the tasks, and the motivationswhich give positive or negative meaning to participa-tion in the managerial role. The particular form thisconcept takes in this research evolved from a varietyof sources such as Floyd Mann, L. F. Urwick andRensis Likert, and from discussions with members ofthe DuPont Corporation in the Employee RelationsDepartment.' 5

We recognize that there is some overlap of thefunctions performed by managers and specialists.There is also some overlap of skills required. Forexample, when an individual is working as a scientistor engineer, he has to perform many managementfunctions. He could very well have to preparebudgets; he could have to staff and to supervise; hecould have to participate in policy-making. Similarly,the skills and abilities used in performing as a

manager are those which must be drawn upon whenworking in other fields, such as being a scientist orengineer. The scientist or engineer is a problem-solverand decision-maker; he might have to demonstrateskill in coordinating group effort; he might have todevelop skill in operating within the organizationalsystem.

The third dimension of managementmotivationis intimately involved in a person's reac-tions to a given vocation. An individual with highneed for autonomy or independence might findworking as a scientist very fulfilling but might feelthat he could not obtain that type of satisfactionworking as a manager. In contrast, a person with highleadership needs might find operating in a manage-

11

ment role to be more satisfying than working as ascientist or engineer.

The general view in this research is that, when onemakes the transition from being a scientist orengineer to being a manager, changes occur in thesethree dimensions. These changes can produce positiveor negative reactions in managerial performance, orcan be neutral. It is the task of this research toidentify the changes which occur in each of thesethree dimensions, and to determine how they facili-tate or inhibit the transformation of scientists andengineers into managers.

For study purposes, listings of the pertinentfunctions, skills and motivations were formalized asdescribed in the following paragraphs.

Functions

Our categories of management functions werederived from some of the same sources mentionedabove, but Thomas Mahoney in Building the Execu-tive Team was particularly usefulespecially indescribing the Ohio State studies of Stogdill andShartle, and the University of Minnesota studiesrelating to functional categories of managerial respon-sibility.' 6

Beginning with nine functions, we combined twoand added two others (consulting, and programassessment and evaluation). These changes were basedupon field testsboth individual and group inter-views.

The resulting ten management functions werelisted on a card, with explanatory phrases. The studyrespondents, interviewed face-to-face, looked at thislist during the part of the interview dealing withmanagement functions. Figure I shows this card.

1? TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGIK:ERS INTO MANAGERS

CARD 1#1-009

a. Budgeting

-- budget preparation

-- justification of the budget- - living within budgetary constraints

b. Reporting

-- organizationally upward and down- to provide information- to elicit information- to get action

-- laterally and outside the organization

c. Staffing

- - personnel selections, training and retention

d. Supervising

-- directing work of others-- personal counseling of subordinates

-- coordinating efforts of those outside your authority

e. Planning

-- long range

- - scheduling and work layout

-- developing scheme to accomplish objective

f. Policy-Making

-- establishing policies and procedures

Representing the Organizationg.

- - at higher echelons

-- professional or public meetings-- liaison with other agencies or groups

h. Consulting

-- assisting other groups or organizations by virtueof technical or administrative knowledge

1. Program Assessment and Evaluation

- - critically reviewing projects and programs forultimate action by a higher authority

"Fire-Fighting"

-- meeting unexpeci.ed day-to-day problems

FIGURE I.card used in interview, enumerating management functions

DIMENSIONS OF MANAGEMENT 13

CARD 2 #1-009

a. Fundamental technology-- well founded in the fundamentals of his field.

b. Application of techniques-- capacity to apply techniques.

c. Knowledge in related areas-- professional knowledge in areas related to specialty.

d. Operatif ;9 within organizational system- - capacity to operate within the organization -- a knowledge of

organizational goals, structure, relationships and procedures.

e. Operating within financial system-- capacity to operate within the financial management system --

knowledge of relevant budgeting, cost estimating, and cost controltechniques or procedures.

f. Operating with personnel system-- capacity to operate within the personnel system -- the formal and

informal means (and restrictions) applicable to the full range ofpersonnel activites from recruitment through separation.

g. Recognizing, coping with environmental factors-- capacity to recognize and to cope with environmental factors --

e.g., constituent - professional -group interests, inter-agency

problems or relations, interested officials in other componentorganizations within your agency, organizational politics.

h. Communication of ideas-- ability to communicate ideas.

i. Working with diverse people-- capacity to work with people of diverse ability, style, and

temperament.

Coordinating, etc., group effort- - ability to coordinate; facilitating group efforts, negotiating.

k. Leadership style-- possessing a leadership style that draws positive responses from

subordinates.

1. Generation of confidence of superior-- capacity to generate the confidence of his superior in him.

m. Integrative ability

- - integrative ability, to perceive and assess relationships.

n. Problem-solving-- capacity to identify and to define critical issues, to develop

potential solutions.

o. Decision - making

-- possesses decision-making capacity.

p. Creative thinking-- capable of creative thinking.

j

NOT PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

FIGURE 2.Card used in interview, enumerating management skills


CARD 3 # 1 -005

a. Leadership

-- being the leader - directing others - being the one who establishespolicies.

b. Detailed planning

-- developing detailed plans - being neat and orderly in one's work.

c. Doing new, different things.

d. Direct attack on problems

-- engaging in direct attack on problems and obstacles.

e. Contributing to organization's goals

-- contributing to the advancement of the organization's goals.

f. Achieving through overcoming difficult obstacles.

g. Help to one's colleagues - assisting others.

h. Being independent

-- making own decisions doing as one wishes,

i. Seeking t!.e support of others

-- seeking assistance from others.

j, Being recognized

-- for one's accomplishments.

k. Being able to exercise authority.

1. Risk-taking in decisions

-- liking to be in a.job where one's decisions involve taking risks.

m. Associating with very congenial co-workers.

n. Associating with intellectually competent co-workers.

o. Using technical knowledge, skills.

LOW SATISFACTION HIGH SATISFACTION1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

FIGURE 3.Card used in interview, enumerating motivations

rDIMENSIONS OF MANAGENIENT

These management functions were studied both asthey relate to scientific or engineering work and asthey relate to managerial work. The aspects of thesefunctions which we studied were: frequency ofperformance, enjoyment or dislike, difficulty, timeconsumption, and importance. Also studied werequalitative changes in the character of each functionas one shifts, in performing it, from being a scientistor engineer to being a manager.

Skills

The skill categories had their roots in RobertKatz's seminal article depicting three basic skills:technical, human and conceptual.' 7

We separated Katz's category of "technical" into:

professional or specialist skills (here includ-ing those related to science and engineering"well founded in fundamentals", "capacityto apply techniques", and "knowledge inrelated areas"); and

skills more specifically related to manag-

ement or administration ("capacity to oper-ate within the organization", "capacity tooperate within the financial managementsystem", "capacity to operate within thepersonnel system", and "capacity to recog-nize and to cope with environmental fac-tors").

The human and conceptual categories were simi-larly subdivided to provide more specific meaning.

The four general category descriptions weredeleted from the list, leaving 16 skills. This was done

15%

to avoid prejudicing respondent selection on the basisof the broad categories rather than the more specificskills.

As in the case of the management functions, the16 listed skills were field-tested and adjusted.

The 16 skills or abilities listed on a card for therespondents appeared as shown in figure 2.

The 16 skills or abilities were studied as to theirimportance, both in scientific or engineering workand in managerial work. We also studied them as tothe likelihood of their being sources of difficulty fora scientist or engineer moving into management.

Motivations

Fifteen motivational categories were identified.The categories of motivations were adapted fromMurray's identification of basic psychological motiva-tionswith several additions based upon field trials(e.g., "risk-taking in decisions", "using one's technicalknowledge and skills", and "associating with con-genial co-workers"))8

The card with the 15 categories appeared as infigure 3.

Each category was assessed in terms of the degreeof satisfaction one could obtain when working as ascientist or engineer and when working as a manager.Each was evaluated, also, on the basis of its relativedifficulty or ease of satisfaction, when one movesfrom science or engineering to management. Finally,the respondents were asked to select those motiva-tional categories, of the set of 15, which best describea scientist or engineer and those which best describe amanager.

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN

This study was designed around the assumptionthat the period of greatest difficulty for a scientist orengineer in transition occurs during his first two jobsas a manager or supervisor.

The two principal problems we faced in pursuingthis research were (I) how to obtain relevant informa-tion about the transition process, and (2) how todefine and identify the "first two levels of manage-ment or supervision". Since no objective standardswere available, the best source of information aboutthe transition was judged to be those people whowere in the process or had apparently completed itsuccessfully.

Given the Ltailed nature of the informationsought (see chapter III, Dimensions of Management),we concluded that the most satisfactory means ofcollecting the data would be through a structuredpersonal interview.

Development of the Interview Instruments

On the basis of past experience in scienceorientedorganizations, a search of the literature bearing on thetransition process, and preliminary development ofthe dimensions of management, we conducted a seriesof exploratory interviews in both NIH and NASA.These interviews were conducted to test respondentreaction to the categories used in the dimensions ofmanagement, and to explore with respondents theirviews about the problems of the transition process.Both group interviews and individual interviews wereincluded.

Using this information and experience, we devel-oped a structured interview questionnaire, and fieldtested it using the principal categories of respondentsdescribed below. (See Appendix for the principalquestionnaire used in the interviews.)

Somewhat amended versions of this questionnairewere used for certain secondary groups of respon-dents (described in chapter V).

Sampling

Not all of the principal components of theNational Institutes of Health nor the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration were included inthe study.

17

Although NIH has most of its activities inBethesda, Maryland, there were a few small fieldactivities which were excluded because they werelocated outside the Washington, D. C. area, andrepresented only a small portion of the targetrespondents. Those included at NIH were: the Officeof the Director, Division of Research Grants, Bureauof Health Professions Education and ManpowerTraining, the Division of Biologics Standards, theNational Cancer Institute, the National Heart Insti-tute, the National Institute of Allergy and InfectiousDiseases, the National Institute of Arthritis andMetabolic Diseases, and National Institute of Neuro-logical DP.:ases and Stroke, the National Institute ofGeneral Medical Sciences, the National Institute ofDental Research, and the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development.

The NASA elements included within the studywere NASA Headquarters, Ames Research Center,Electronics Research Center, Langley ResearchGinter, Kennedy Space Center, Manned SpacecraftCenter, and the Marshall Space Flight Center. Fivefield installations were not included because two weretoo small and isolated for effective conduct of thestudy, two were not interested in participating, andone was a contractor-operated center outside of thecivil service personnel system.

In developing the sampling strategy, four consider-ations were considered paramount. First, the sampleshould be drawn to permit analysis on the basis ofdifferences between the two principal organiza-tions NIH and NASA.

Second, since literature on the sociology of scienceand engineering consistently ascribes noticeably dif-ferent motivations and interests to scientists andengineers, these two categories of respondents shouldbe kept separate.

Third, since the focus of the study was upon thetransition process, heaviest emphasis in samplingshould be given to those in their first or secondhierarchical positions in the transistion from specialistto manager. However, within this general group tworather different types of "management" were identi-fied: (1) the manager who directly supervises otherprofessionals (scientists or engineers) in research,


development, or similar activities; and (2) the man-ager who does not directly supervise other profes-sionals in the performance of research or relatedtasks, but who has program responsibility for acontract or grant program. or the like. These twocategories of "managers" were kept separate and weredesignated respectively "supervisors" and "man-age rs".

Finally, it was recognized that those who hadcompleted the transition process and those who hadnot yet entered it (in the formal sense of having takena management position) could offer differing perspec-tives, contributing to a fuller understanding of theprocess. Therefore, we decided to include (1) asmaller sample of scientists and engineers still work-ing as specialistsand designated "bench" scientistsor engineersand (2) a group of third- and fourth-level or above (hierarchically) managers, to describehow they viewed the transition in retrospect. Thislatter group were termed "senior managers".

The numbers of respondents in all these categoriesare given in table 1.

In addition, the immediate superiors of a sub-sample of 40 percent of the "supervisors" and the"managers" was taken both as (I) a check against theinformation provided by the primary respondents inthese two categories and as (2) a further set ofperspectives on the transition process. The number of

subordinates in the various agency groups in thissub-sampleand hence the number of their immedi-ate-superior respondentsare given in table 2.

A total of 610 interviews was obtained -20l inNIH and 409 in NASA. Table 3 gives the number ofNASA respondents in the principal sample groups byNASA locations.

Once the categories had been determined, it wasnecessary to develop the population lists from whichthe samples would be drawn in each agency. and todefine those categories in terms applicable to each ofthe two agencies.

The NIH population (978 scientists) was devel-oped by obtaining from the NIH central personneloffice a listing of all employees classified as "sci-entist". N111 bench scientists were defined as all ofthose in the participating organizations at gradesGS-13 and GS-14 or equivalent who were in directresearch, clinical research, or collaborative activities.Discussions with NIH officials had demonstrated thatthere were few bench scientists below grade GS-13.

First- and second-level supervisors in NIH weredefined as those scientists who were section, branchor laboratory chiefs in direct research, clinical re-search or collaborative research activities. Althoughlaboratory chiefs hierarchically constitute the thirdlevel of supervision, we decided to include thembecause (1) NH-I laboratory chiefs appear to be more

TABLE I.Number of respondents by agency group andcurrent function

Current functionof respondent

Number of respondents

NIHscientists

NASAengineers

NASAscientists Total

BenchSupervisorManagerSenior manager

3051

5030

31

4951

30

35495033

96149151

93

Total 161 161 167 489

TABLE 2.Number of subordinates in sub-sample (whosesuperiors were also interviewed), by subordinate's agencygroup and current function

Current functionof respondent NIH NASA NASAsubordinate scientists engineers scientists Total

Supervisor 20 20 '22 62

Manager 20 18 21 59

Total 40 38 43 121

RESEARCH DESIGN 19

directly involved in research details than is the casegenerally in NASA, and (2) we could not mechani-cally exclude all of them from the population lists(given the programming circumstances and availableassistance). This resulted in the NIH supervisorcategory having 28 percent third-level supervisors (labchiefs)a heavier proportion of senior supervisoryscientists than was included among either NIH orNASA managers or NASA supervisors.

First- and second-level managers at NIII weredefined as those scientists who were in grades GS-13through GS -15 or equivalent and were not engaged indirect, clinical or collaborative research except for theartificial heart, artificial kidney, perinatal. and tissuetransplant programs. This category was limited pri-marily to grant and contract program managers, headsof study sections, and assistant or deputy divisionchiefs. Senior managers were defined as (1) thosescientists at grade GS-16 (or equivalent) and above,who were not branch or laboratory chiefs; and (2)Public Health Service commissioned officers who heldpositions at the Institute or Division Program Direc-tor level or above.

The development of the population lists for NASAproved somewhat simpler since the Personnel Manage-ment Information System (PMIS) was capable ofindicating whether an individual was in a supervisory

or non-supervisory position. Discussions N,ith NASApersonnel officers and field center officials revealedthat NASA bench scientists or engineers rarely heldgrades above GS-13. With this as the division point,the bench population was defined as NASA scientistsand engineers in the non-supervisory category atGS-13 or below.

Supervisors were GS-I4 and GS -I5 (first andsecond levels) in the supervisory category. Managerswere defined as non-supervisory NASA scientists andengineers at grades GS-14 and GS-15. The managercategory was refined at each field center by knowl-edgeable people who reviewed the lists, excludingindividuals who performed essentially technical ratherthan managerial functions. Senior managers weredefined as all NASA scientists and engineers at thegrade GS -I6 or equivalent and above.

An expanded random sample of approximately 15percent more than the target number of respondentsin each category was drawn by the subcontractor.National Analysts. Incorporated, using the populationlists described above. Sampling was by categoryacross the two agencies and not by location or majorcomponent. organization.

The sample of immediate superiors was actuallydeveloped from lists of superiors of those respondentsdrawn in the main sample.

TABLE 3.Number of NASA respondents by location and sample group (excludingimmediate-superior sub-sample)

NASAlocation

Number of NASA respondents

Engineers ScientistsTotal

Bench Spvr. Mgr.Seniormgr.

Sub-total Bench Spvr. Mgr.

Seniormgr.

Sub-total

Ileadquarters(Washington, D. C.) 4 21 7 31 26 7 35 67

Ames Research Center

lilectronic Research

5 4 1 3 13 5 1 4 15 28

Center* 2 3 3 1 2 9 11

Kennedy Space Center 4 6 16 28 I 5 10 2 18 46

Langley Research Center 10 9 2 9 30 7 5 2 14 44

Manned SpacecraftCenter 7 9 5 3 24 9 14 10 7 40 64

Marshall Space FlightCenter 5 16 5 6 32 10 15 2 9 36 68

Totals 31 49 51 30 161 35 49 50 33 167 328

*Transferred from NASA to the Department of Transportation, July I, 1970.

20 TRANSFORMATION O1' SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

Conduct of the Interviewing

One week to ten days before interviews were tocommence at any given location. interviewers re-ceived a fullday's training conducted jointly by theproject directors and National Analysts' field super-visor. The training consisted of discussing the objec-tives of the study, the questionnaire, and the generalenvironment of the agency involved. Each majorcategory of questions in the questionnaire wasdemonstrated, and expected problem areas werediscussed. Each interviewer then conducted a full-scale interview with a test subject from the agency,

following which the interviewers convened for adebriefing and discussion of the interview.

A letter jointly signed by the executive director ofthe National Academy of Public Administration and asenior agency official was sent to each respondent.before an interviewer contacted that respondent foran appointment. The letter described the study andits purpose, and solicited the respondent's coopera-lion.

The interviews ranged in duration from an hourand a half to two and a half hours. The bulk of theinterviews was conducted in September, October andNovember 1969.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLES

About 90 percent of the respondents at NW werein fields that represented the life sciences; approxi-mately 10 percent were in the physical sciences. Aswould be expected, 95 percent of the sample ofNASA engineers had a background in engineering,with the remainder in the physical sciences. Amongthe respondents in the sample of NASA scientists,about one-half had backgrounds in the physicalsciences and approximately 40 percent were in

engineering, with a few in the life sciences.

Education

In the NIH sample, nearly all of the respondentshad doctoral degreeseither an academic degree, thePh. D., or a medical-practice degree such as M.D. orD.D.S. For the "bench" and manager samples at NIH,Ph. D.'s greatly outnumbered M.D.'s and othermedical-practice degrees. For the supervisory andsenior manager levels, however, medical-practicedegrees outnumbered Ph. D.'s.

In the NASA-engineers sample, approximately 70percent had only the B.A. or B.S. degree, with mostof the remainder having either an M.A. or an M.S. anda few holding the Ph. D. Among NASA scientists,about 60 percent had only the B.A. or BS.; the resthad the M.A., M.S. or Ph. D.

Publications

Professional activity as reflected by the productionof professional papers or publications was muchgreater at NIH than at NASA. Within NASA, papersor publications were somewhat more frequentlyreported by the scientists than by the engineers(table 4).

Experience

In each of the samples at NIH and NASA, therespondents had acquired most of their professionalor managerial experience while working for govern-ment agencies. This is seen in the medians for jobtenure in various situations (tables 5 through 7).

TABLE 4.Number of professional papers or publicationsauthored or co-authored

Median number of publications

Croup NIH NASA NASAscientists engineers scientists

Bench 12 2 3(number of persons in sample) (30) (31) (35)

Supervisors 60 2 7(number of persons in sample) (51) (49) (49)

Managers 11 0 4(number of persons in sample) (50) (51) (50)

Senior managers 28 6 10(number of persons in sample) (30) (30) (33)

21

1 1 1 RANSFORMATION OP SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

TABLE S.Length of experience, hr ype (NM)

Length of experience (median months)

Type of experience Bench Seniorscientists Supervisors Managers managers

'leaching or research incuilege or university 6 12 46 60

Working in scientific orprofessional field inbusiness, industry, ornonprofit organization 0 0 0 0

Working in scientific orprofessional field ingovernment 73 156 84 48

Primarily managerialposition in business,industry. or non-profitorganizations 0 0 0 0

Primarily managerialpositions ingovernment 0 48 71 84

(number of persons in sample) (30) (51) (50) (30)

TABLE 6.Length of experience, by type (NASA scientists)

Type of experience


Bench Seniorscientists Supervisors Managers managers

Teaching or research incollege or university 0 0 0 20

Working in scientific orprofessional field inbusiness, industry, ornonprofit organization 0 18 45 30


Primarily managerialposition in business,industry, or non-profitorganizations 0 0 0 12


(number of persons in sample) (35) (49) (50) (33)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLES

Generally, in the NI1-1 sample, respondents hadspent most of their time working in their respectivescientific or professional fields in government. Anexception to this was found among NIll seniormanagersin their case, they had spent most of theirtime primarily in managerial positions in government.When there had been experience outside of govern-ment, it usually had been in teaching or research at acollege or universityi.e., academic work. This wasparticularly true for managers and senior managers, inNII-I. In terms of median reported tenure, generallyless than half of the NIll samples had done scientific,professional or managerial work in business, industryor non-profit organizationsi.e., in the private sector.

In NASA, also, experience fell rather heavily ingovernmental activity, much of the time having been

");

spent in scientific or professional fields. There had/been considerable experience, however, working inmanagerial positions in government. As was true atNI1-1, senior managers reported more experience inmanagement than in scientific or professional activi-ties. In contrast to the proportions at NIH, generallyless than half of the NASA personnel had doneacademic work. The NASA respondents, however,were more likely than the NI1-1 respondents to havehad extended experience in their scientific or pro-fessional fields in the private sector. Very few of theNASA personnel had occupied managerial positionsin the private sector.

Number of SubordinatesEach respondent was asked to state the largest

number of employees which he had "ever had direct

TABLE 7.Length of experience, by type (NASA engineers)


Type of experience Benchscientists Supervisors Managers

Seniormanagers

Teaching or research incollege or university 0 0 0 0

Working in scientific orprofessional field inbusiness, industry, ornon-profit organization 9 28 35 0


Primarily managerialposition in business,industry, or non-profitorganizations 0 0 0 0


(number of persons in sample) (31) (49) 51) (30)


responsibility for supervising." Senior managers atboth NIH and NASA reported the highest numbers ofsubordinates. The median reported by NASA seniormanagers was 105; for NIH senior managers, 172. Ineach agency, managers reported direct responsibilityfor supervising fewer employees (median about 10)than supervisors reported (median approximately 18)."Bench" respondents had supervised a median ofabout two employees (table 8). ,

Civil Service Grade Levels

For supervisors and managers at NIH and NASA,the grade levels of the respondents' first administra-tive positions tended to be GS-13 or GS-14. Forsenior managers, the first administrative positiontended to be GS-15. (The respondents in all samplesaveraged 30 to 34 years of age when they enteredtheir first managerial positions.)

Current levels (at the time of the interviews) forsupervisors and managers, at NIH and NASA, tended

to be grades GS-I4 and GS-I5. For senior managers,the current grade level tended to be grade GS-I6. AtNIH, "bench" respondents tended to be in gradesGS-I3 or GS-I4; at NASA they tended to be in gradeGS-I3, with quite a few in grade GS-I2.

When the interviews were conducted, the respon-dents held a variety of positionsincluding laboratorychief, section chief. branch chief. program manager,grant administrator (NIH), staff specialist, and

bureau director (senior managers).

Tenure in Current Agency

In terms of median months reported, the respon-dents had worked in their respective agencies forperiods ranging from 60 months, for NIH "bench"respondents, through 144 months for senior managersamong NASA engineers, to 168 months for NIHsupervisors (table 9).

TABLE 8. Largest number of employees ever directly super-vised

Median number of people supervised

Group NIH NASA NASAscientists engineers scientists

Bench I(number of persons in sample) (30) (31) (35)


Managers 10 12 10

(number of persons in sample) (50) (51) (50)

Senior managers 172 ISO 105(number of persons in sample) (30) (30) (33)

TABLE 9.Tenure in respective agencies

Tenure in agency (median months)

Group NIH NASA NASAscientists engineers scient;Us

Bench 60 76 81

(number of persons in sample) (30) (31) (35)


Managers 82 84 85(number of persons in sample) (50) (51) (50)

Senior managers 84 144 103(number of persons in sample) (30) (30) (33)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLES

Reversal of Transition

Only about 25 percent of the management respon-dents at NIH or NASA said that they had occupied anon-managerial, solely scientific or professional posi-tion after their first administrative position. Whenthis had happened, it was associated usually with achange of job or employer, or a move into a new ordifferent field.

Fraction of Time Spent Managing

Most of the scientists and engineers in the sample,working as managers, said they did not spend all oftheir time in management or supervision. Most,however, did say that they spent at least 50 percentof their time in management or supervision. Ap-parently, most of these respondents still are able to

475-535 0 - 72 - 3

25/6

and do spend some of their time in the technicaldetails of their professional specialties.

Extracurricular Leadership Activities

The average respondent at NIH and NASA has notbeen very active in holding office in organizationsoutside of his work. In general, the median number ofoffices reported held for activities outside of work,across the various groups of respondents, was be-tween zero and one. For the great majority of theserespondents, managerial experience has been confinedto their governmental work.

Correlations

The sizes of the samples, by agency and by level ofposition, were too small to permit analysis of the databy the characteristics discussed in this chapter.

VI. MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Management functions are those tasksincludingbudgeting, reporting, policy-making and programassessmentwhich are performed in the administra-tive role. This role can be assumed when one isworking as a scientist or engineer. The scientist orengineer, in addition to performing the tasks whichare specific to his specialty, can still be called upon todo budgeting, reporting, policy-making and programassessment.

Thus the transition from being a scientist orengineer can involve not only doing or not doing agiven function, per se, but changes of the followingsix kinds:

1. changes in the frequency with which oneperforms given management functions

2. changes in enjoyment or dislike of the manage-ment functions (Certain management tasks mighthave been disliked when the respondent did them as ascientist or an engineer, but became enjoyable whenhe did them as a managerand vice versa.)

3. changes in difficulty of performance (A particu-lar management function might become moreorlessdifficult to perform when one does it as amanager than when one did it as a scientist orengineer.)

4. changes in time consumption (Managementfunctions can be perceived as taking moreor lesstime when one performs them as a manager thanwhen one did them as a scientist or engineer.)

5. changes in importance (Given managementfunctions can be perceived as being moreor lessimportant when one performs them as a managerthan when one did them as a scientist or engineer.)

6. qualitative changes in character (The nature ofgiven management functions can change when one

27

performs them as a manager, relative to their naturewhen one performed them as a scientist or engineer.)

The various management functions were studied todetermine how transition from scientist or engineerto manager was reflected in changes of the above sixkinds.

Frequency of Performance

In terms of management functions, managerialwork brings into play a more comprehensive set ofoperations than science or engineering work. This isdemonstrated in the respondents' reports of doing therespective management functions "frequently":

Functions generally said to be performed frequently

As a scientist or engineer As a manager

Reporting

Planning

"Fire-fighting"

ReportingSupervisingPlanningRepresenting the

organizationProgram assessment"Fire-fighting"

There were two principal exceptions to thispattern. At least half of the NIH respondents saidthat they did supervising frequently when working asscientists, but not "fire-fighting". Among NASAscientists, the majority did not say that they didreporting or planning frequently when working asscientists. NASA engineers, when considering theirwork as engineers, reflected the general pattern citedabove (tables 10 through 12).


TABLE I0. Percentages of NIH scientist-managers frequently engaged in various management functions

Percentage reporting frequent performance of each function

Managementfunction

Supervisors Managers Senior managers

as ascientist(N=49*)

as amanager(N=51*)


as amanager(N=50*)


as amanager(N=30*)

Budgeting 6% 2874 24% 30% 27% 7474Reporting 76 82 61 74 67 87fStaffing 35 61t 25 24 40 69tSupervising 67 86 78 70 63 93tPlanning 80 86 79 80 67 97fPolicy-making 18 49f 18 26 30 83tRepresenting the

organization 43 71t 43 62 50 80fConsulting 29 61t 39 54 50 43Program

assessment 22 58t 37 60t 33 90t"Fire-fighting" 39 69f 37 48 53 90t

TABLE 11.Percentages of NASA scientist-managers frequently engaged in various management functions


Managementfunction



as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=50*)


as amanager(N=32*)

Budgeting 15% 53 %t 14% 54 %t 12% 72 %t

Reporting 81 86 70 88 61 97f

Staffing 2 23t 12 12 15 47f

Supervising 38 98t 34 54t 43 81t

Planning 51 88t 42 88t 67 84

Policy-making 4 29f 8 35t 6 63t

Representing theorganization 41 57 28 68t 19 84t

Consulting 55 49 28 44 24 53t

Programassessment 32 51 18 64t 18 66t

" Fire-ugh ting" 64 65 60 70 61 78

*N=number of individuals in sample NOTE: Percentages add to more than 100 because of multiple answers.

tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as Pr.0.05 or less.

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Each of the management functions was reported asdone frequently, when the respondent was working asa scientist or engineer, by some proportion of therespondentswith one exception. The exceptionoccurred among NASA engineers now working asmanagers: none of them reported having done policy-making frequently when they worked as engineers.

Certain of the management functions were saidnot to have been done at all, when the respondentwas working as a scientist or engineer, by rathersubstantial proportions (generally over 30 percent) ofthe respondents. In NIH, these functions were bud-geting and policy-making. In NASA, the range offunctions not done at all, as a scientist or engineer,was greater than at NIH: generally over 30 percentsaid they had never done budgeting, staffing, policy-making or program assessment.

Respondents were asked to identify the manage-ment functions which they performed frequently,when working as managers and when working as

19

specialists. Consistently higher percentages were re-ported for managerial positions, for six tasks:

BudgetingStaffingSupervisingPolicy-makingRepresenting the organizationProgram assessment

Definite increase in doing frequent planning wasfound at NASA (scientists and engineers). By con-trast, increase in doing frequent "fire-fighting" oc-curred at NIH but not at NASA ("fire-fighting" as ascientist or engineer was reported by relatively highproportions at NASA). Increase in doing frequentreporting was declared by NIH senior managers andNASA scientist-senior managers. Increase in doingfrequent consulting was reported for NIH supervisors,NASA scientist-senior managers and NASA engineer-supervisors.

TABLE 12.Percentages of NASA engineer-managers frequently engaged in various management functions

Managementfunction


Supervisors

as anengineer(N =49 *)

Budgeting

Reporting

Staffing

Supervishig 29

Planning 50

Policy-making 6

Representing theorganization 27

Consulting 43

Programassessment 18

"Fire-fighting" 53

16%

82

8

Managers Senior managers

as amanager

as anengineer

as amanager

(N=49*) (N=50*) (N-=51*)

31% 8% 47 %f

80 82 82

22 4 10

92f 32 59f

88f 50 80f

25 26f

59f 22 65f

63f 34 4?

59f 10 59f

53 70 78

as anengineer(N=30s)

as amanager(N=30*)

13% 74%

70 80

7 33f

43 77f

60 87f

10 50f

40 70f

47

27 87f

63 60

*N=nuMber of individuals in sample

(This entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.

NOTE: Percentages add to more than 100 because of multiple answers.


Enjoyment

There was a pattern of particularly enjoyablemanagement functions, so reported by relatively highproportions of all respondents. This pattern wasfound when discussing science or engineering workand when discussing management work (tables 13through 15).

Functions most often said to be particularly enjoyable

PlanningReportingSupervisingRepresenting the organizationConsultingProgram assessment

Another general pattern was that relatively few ofthe respondents selected budgeting and staffing asenjoyable management function

At NIH, relatively few respondents said theyparticularly enjoyed "fire-fighting" when working asscientists. Somewhat higher proportions amongNASA scientists and engineers reported particularenjoyment of "fire-fighting" in their work as special.ists.

The pattern of management functions cited asparticularly enjoyable in specialist work was generallysimilar to the pattern of enjoyable functions inmanagement work.

For some functions there were exceptionsthat is.shifts in the number of respondents reporting particti-

TABLE 13.Percentages of NIII scientist-managers particularly enjoying various manage-ment functions

Managementfunction

Percentage reporting particular enjoyment of each function


as ascientist(N=51 *)

as amanager(N=51*)

as a

scientist(N=50*)

as amanager(N=50*)


as a

manager(N=30*)

Budgeting 2% 4% 6% 3% 13%

Reporting 35% 24 34 20 23 7

Staffing 8 I0 10 6 7 10

Supervising 31 28 28 20 23 23

Planning 49 57 66 50 63 73

Policy-making 12 14 12 16 27 57f

Representing theorganization 24 20 28 28 23 10

Consulting 33 33 28 34 43 31.

Programassessment 10 22 26 36 30 33

"Fire-fighting" 6 12 2 8 20 10

Like all of these 4 6 3

Like none of these 4 4 1 2 7 3

*N=number of individuals in sample

fills entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.



lar enjoyability, correlated with the transition fromspecialist to manager. These were as follows: (I) forconsulting, a decrease among N1H senior managers.NASA scientist-supervisors and -managers, and NASAengineer-supervisors; (2) for supervising, an increase

31

among NASA supervisors (scientists and engineers):(3) for "fire-fighting", a decrease among NASAscientists and engineers, at all levels. This last prob-ably reflects the change in the substance of thefunction from technical to managerial.

TABLE 14.Percentages of NASA scientistmanagers particularly enjoying variousmanagement functions

Percentage reporting particular enjoyment of each function

Managementfunction



as a

manager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=50*)


as a

manager(N=33*)

Budgeting 17, 4% V 10%

Reporting 18 8 20 10 27% 15%

Staffing 4 2 6 3 9

Supervising 26 53t 42 36 36 46

Planning 43 51 44 52 30 54t

Policy-making 4 14 16 11 6 18


Consulting 49 29f 40 24 36 27


"Fire-fighting" 29 18 30 18 24 6

Like all of these 2 6 3

Like none of these 6 8 8 2 12

*N=nu mber of individuals in sample

frith entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.



DislikeWhen asked which of the management functions

were particularly disliked, from 30 percent (NASAengineer-senior managers) to 67 percent (NIH seniormanagers) of the respective groups of respondentsreplied that none were particularly disliked (tables 16through 18).

The one management function most consistentlydisliked was budgeting. A higher proportion of NASAengineers than of either other group reported particu-lar dislike of this function. Reporting and "fire-fighting" followed budgeting in unpopularity. Onlysmall proportions of the respondents said they

particularly disliked any of the other managementfunctions.

In comparing the selections made for managementfunctions particularly liked and disliked, we foundthat budgeting was much more frequently cited asdisliked. Seven functionsreporting, supervising,planning, policy-making, representing the organiza-tion, consulting and program assessmentwere moreoften said to be liked than disliked. Staffing tendedto receive about the same proportions of bothjudgments. In NIH, "fire-fighting" tended to be moredisliked than liked, but in NASA this tendency wasreversed.

TABLE 15.Percentages of NASA engineer-managers particularly enjoying variousmanagement functions

Percentage reporting particular enjoyment of each functior.

Managementfunction


as anengineer(N=49*)

as amanager(N=49*)

as anengineer(N =51 *)

as amanager(N=51*)


as amanager(N=30*)

Budgeting 6% 2% 6% 3%

Reporting 24 26% 12 18 30% 17

Staffing 6 4 8 1 13 17

Supervising 20 5 it 28 28 40 40

Planning 47 53 53 59 33 53



Consulting 53 33t 35 33 33 20

Programassessment 18 24 12 43t 13 23

'Tire- fighting" 26 20 39 18t 37 17

Like all of these3 3

Like none of these 6 2 4 10


tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as 11=0.05 or less.



TABLE 16. Percentages of NIH scientist-managers particularly disliking various management functions

Percentage reporting particular dislike of each function

Managementfunction


as ascientist(N=51')

as amanager(N=51")

as ascientist(N=50")

as amanager(N=50')

as ascientist(N=30')

as amanager(N=30")

Budgeting 29% 26% 24% 14% 10% 13%

Reportitr; 20 6 12 17 17 7

Staffing 8 14 4 8 3

Supervising 4 4 8 6

Planning

Policy- making 2 6 2 2

Representing theorganization 4 4 3

Consulting

Programassessment 2 4 4 3

"Firr.-fighting" 20 18 14 20 17 10

Dislike noneof these 39 45 48 44 57 67



33

34 TRANSFORMATION 011 SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

TABLE 17.Percentages of NASA scientist-managers particularly disliking variousmanagement functions


Managementfunction


as ascientist(N=49)

as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=50*)


as amanager(N=33*)

Budgeting 37% 29% 16% 22% 27% 33%

Repotting 18 12 20 8 12 15

Staffing 6 10 10 6 6 9

Supervising 2 4 2 2 3

Planning 2 4 8 6

Policy-making 4 2 4 3

Representing theorganization 4 2 4 3

Consulting 2 2 2

Programassessment 6 1 3

"Fire-fighting" 10 18 8 16 9 15





TABLE 18.Percentages of NASA engineermanagers particularly disliking variousmanagement functions


Managementfunction


as anengineer(N=499

as amanager(N=499

as anengineer(N=51

as amanager(N=519

as anengineer(N=30)

as amanager(N=33)

Budgeting 41% 41% 22% 29% 43% 40%

Reporting 8 6 22 14 17 20

Staffing 4 10 12 13 7

Supervising 4 6 2

Planning 6 4 2 3 7

Policy-making 8 6

Representing theorganization 6 4

Consulting 2 6 2

Programassessment 2 2 7

"Fire-fighting" 10 12 8 8 13 13


*N=nnniber of individuals in sample

NOTE: I'ercentages add to more than 100 because of multiple answers.

35


Difficulty

Most of the respondents said that they had notfound any of the management functions particularlydifficult to perform, either when working as ascientist or engineer or when working as a manager.The specific management functions most frequentlycited (but by relatively small proportions) as particu-

larly difficult were budgeting, reporting, and staffing(tables 19 through 21).

Senior managers at NASA in relatively high pro-portions (30 percent) said that budgeting was particu-larly difficult to perform in their work as managers.This was probably a reflection of the scope of thebudgeting activity involved at the senior levelsof NASA.

TABLE 19.Percentages of 1V1H scientist-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly difficult

Percentage reporting particular difficulty in each function

Managementfunction


cs ascientist(N=51*)

IS 2manager(N=51*)

2S 2scientist(N=50*)

as amanager(N=50*)

IS 2scientist(N=30)

as 2manager(N=30*)

Budgeting 6% 7% 18% 18% 20% 23%

Reporting 20 6 8 I0 10 3

Staffing 6 26t 6 12 7 17

Supervising 8 8 4 8 7 7

Planning 4 10 6 4 ....


Representing theorganization 2 2 2 3

Consulting


"Fire-figh ting" 2 8 4 2

None particularlydifficult 47 41 52 34 57 40

N=number of individuals in sample

tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the /elf. Level ofsignificance chosen as N0.05 or less.



TABLE 20.Percentages of NASA scientist-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly difficult


Managementfunction


as 2scientist(N=49)

asamanager(N=49

asascientist(N=50)

asamanager(N=50)

as ascientist(N=33

as 2manager(N=339

Budgeting 10% 12% 10% 8% 6% 30%i

Reporting 14 6 16 10 18 9

Staffing 2 20 6 6 12 9

Supervising 8 12 6 10 3

Planning 8 10 6 8 9 6


Representing theorganization 2 2 4

Consulting 2 2


"Fire-fighting" 6 4 4 4 9 3

None particularlydifficult 47 35 46 50 42 36


tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.


37


TABLE 21.Percentages of NASA engineer-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly difficult


Managementfunction

Supervisors


as amanager(N=49*)

Budgeting 14% 24%

Reporting 6 8

Staffing 2 10

Supervising 10 14

Planning 10 4

Policy-making 8 2

Representing theorganization 6 2

Consulting 2

Programassessment 2

"Fire-fighting" 4

None particularlydifficult 47 49

Managers Senior managers

as anengineer(N= 5 1*)

8%

10

2

6

10

8

4

4

6

8

41

as 3manager

as anengineer

as amanager

(t,1 =5 1*) (N=30) (N=30)

4% 30% 307

14 10 7

10 10 3

14 3 7

6 3 17

14 10 10

3 3

4

6 10 7

10 3 3

35 40 30



--a

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS 39

Time Consumption

Reporting was consistently said to be the mosttime-consuming management function. Supervising,planning, and "fire- fighting" were also selected fre-quently as being time-consuming.

In general, there were no striking differences in theproportions saying that given functions were time-consuming for persons working as scientists or engi-neers and those saying this for persons working asmanagers (tables 22 through 24).

TABLE 22.Percentages of NH scientist-managers considering various managementfunctions particularly time-consuming

Percentage reporting each function particularly time-consuming

Managementfunction


asascientist

as amanager

as ascientist

as amanager

as ascientist

as amanager

(N=48*) (N=49*) (N=48*) (N=50*) (N=30*) (N=30*)

Budgeting 6% 8% 12% 8% 17% 17%

Reporting 29 31 44 30 23 20

Staffing 6 6 6 2 13

Supervising 19 31 19 18 33 23

Planning 21 20 17 12 17 13


Representing theorganization 2 8 4 10 13

Consulting 6 4 2 18 10 7


"Fire- fighting" 10 16 6 24 13 37

None particularlylime-consuming 25 12 17 16 20 7




TABLE 23.Percentages of NASA scientist-managers considering various managementI functions to be particularly time-consuming


Managementfunction



as amanager(N=48*)


as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=32*)

Budgeting 10% 19% 10% 16% 6% 19%

Reporting 46 40 44 39 30 34

Staffing 2 2 2 6

Supervising 10 25 12 12 9 19

Planning 10 15 20 29 6 16

Policy-making 8 4 4 3 3




"Fire-fighting" 19 23 18 16 18 16

None particularlytime-consuming 19 19 22 26 36 22




TABLE 24.Percentages of NASA engineer-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly time-consuming


Managementfunction



as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=51*)


as amanager(N=30*)

Budgeting 16% 8% 22% '16% 14% 30%

Reporting 43 47 43 45 34 27

Staffing 4 4 3 3

Supervising 8 26 10 12 7 33t

Planning 10 16 24 20 24 23

Policy-making 2 2 8


Consulting 6 2 2 6 14

Programassessment 10 16 20 21 21

"Fire-fighting"

particularlyNone particularlytime-consuming

22

22

16

16

18

14

26

6

17

14

10

10


tills entry is significantly .lifferent from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.


475.635 0 - 72 - 4

41

42

Importance


Planning was the management function mostconsistently selected as being particularly important.This was true in reference to both work as a scientistor engineer and work as a manager. Reporting andsupervising were chosen fairly often as being particu-larly important management functions (tables 25through 27).

There were some instances of a sharp change inperception of a management function's importance,at transition. Many more NIH supervisors and senior

managers among NASA engineers regarded staffing asparticularly important to a person working as amanager than so regarded it to a person working as ascientist or engineer. Thirty percent of NASA engi-neer-senior managers said that budgeting was particu-larly important in one's work as a manager. whereasonly three percent of them said that budgeting wasparticularly important in one's work as a scientist orengineer. NASA engineers (supervisors and seniormanagers) and NASA scientist-supervisors more oftenjudged that supervising was particularly important formanagers than so judged it for specialists.

TABLE 25.Percentages of NIH scientist-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly important


Managementfunction


as ascientist(N=519

as amanager(N=51*)

Mascientist(N=509

as amanager(N=50*)

as ascientist(N=309

as amanager(N=309

Budgeting 10% 4% 8% 7% 20%

Reporting 37% 20 28 26 17 7

Staffing 12 35# 8 14 13 20

Supervising 33 41 26 36 40 33

Planning 55 49 66 44t 63 60

Policy-making 2 14 1 16 13 50#




"Fire-fighting" 14 2 8 7 7

All particularlyimportant 4 6 7

None particularlyimportant 6 2 1 2 7


fThis entry k significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.


'sr


TABLE 26.Percentages of NASA scientist-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly important

Percentage reporting each function particularly important

Managementfunction



as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=50*)


as amanager(N=33*)

Budgeting 4% 12% 4% 18% 9% 15%

Reporting 35 24 34 28 2I 12

Staffing 6 14 2 4 9 24

Supervising 16 59t 16 30 24 30

Planning 37 55 54 54 42 46


Representing theorganization 8 II 8 16 3 12

Consulting 22 10 12 4 18 6


"Fire-fighting" 10 8 20 6 18 12

All particularlyimportant 2 6 4 6 3 6

None particularlyimportant 10 4 6 9


tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P---0.05 or less.


43


TABLE 27.Percentages of NASA engineer-managers considering various managementfunctions to be particularly important

Percentage reporting each function particularly important

Managementfunction



as amanager(N=49*)


as amanager(N=51*)


as amanager(N=30*)

Budgeting 12% 4% 8% 16% 3% 3074

Reporting 43 33 39 31 37 27

Staffing 16 2 10 3 30;

Supervising 14 69; 22 39 20 47;

Planning 45 59 53 61 47 50



Consulting 22 22 16 14 27 iProgram

assessment 10 14 14 31 17 37

"Fire-fighting" 25 1=-1 14 18 23 3

All particularlyimportant 2 4 4 2 9 7

None particularlyimportant 2 2 3 7


;This entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.



Reasons for Opinions

The primary reasons given for particularly enjoy-ing given management functions and for thinkingthem to be particularly important were quite similar.The reasons were also quite similar for groupings ofthe management functions. The primary reasons givenwere also similar for work as a specialist and work asa manager.

Managementfunctions

BudgetingPlanningPolicy-makingProgram

assessment

ReportingRepresenting the

organizationConsulting

StaffingSupervision

"Fire-fighting"

Primary reasonsfor particular enjoymentand particular importance

Provides opportunity to estab-lish goals and methods of achiev-ing them; gives opportunity toprovide resources and facilities;can relate self and one's unit tothe organizational effort; can useone's technical skills; gives onecontrol and leadership; these arefundamental. basic operations.

Gives a sense of achievement andcontribution; can use your tech-nical skills; relates your work tothat of the scientific and organ-izational community; providesinterchange of ideas; can meet achallenge; helps you influenceothers.

Opportunity to work withpeople; opportunity to developan efficient staff; helps others tobe more productive; helpsachieve organizational goals; canuse your technical skills.

You face a challenge; it is anexciting intellectual exercise; canuse your technical skills.

Certain values or concepts run through theseprimary reasons for particularly enjoying the variousmanagement functions and for thinking them to beparticularly important: having an opportunity toestablish goals and to design methods for achievingthem; having opportunities to use one's technicalskills; being able to help others to become moreproductive; interchanging ideas and relating to thescientific and organizational communities.

The primary reasons given for particularly dislikingcertain management functions and for consideringthem particularly difficult were similar (both forwork as a scientist or engineer and for work as amanager). Again, sets of reasons applied to groupingsof the functions:

Managementfunctions

BudgetingReporting

StaffingSupervision

PlanningPolicy-makingProgram

assessment

Representing theorganization

Consulting

45

Primary reasons forparticular dislike

and particular difficulty

No aptitu le for the function; notraining for the function; notrelated to field of specialty;forces action within set limits; asource of anxiety and conflict;tedious. dull, routine and time-consuming; an exercise in fu-tility.Restrictive; forces action withinset limits; interpersonal relationsinvolved; bureaucratic proced-ures involved; subjective judg-ments necessary; uncertainty ofoutcomes.

Uncertainty of outcome; lack ofinformation needed; unknownfactors are involved; subjectivejudgments necessary; beyondlimits of authority set for myposition; requires great effort; anexercise in futility.

Not related to my technicalfield; source of anxiety; disrup-tive of work; waste of time;interpersonal relations involved.

Time-consuming; requires greateffort; uncertainty of outcome.

"Fire-fighting" Time-consuming; disruptive; pre-empts time from more worth-while activities; necessitates action without benefit of prepara-tion; indicates poor planning orpoor program assessment.

Values or concepts running through the reasonsfor particular dislike of management functions, andfor finding them particularly difficult, are: absence ofnecessary aptitude or training; irrelevance of thefunctions to one's field of specialization; generationof anxiety by the functions; the need to makesubjective judgments; interpersonal relations; disrup-tion of one's regular work; and uncertainty as tooutcome.

Qualitative Changes in theCharacter of Management Functions

The respondents were asked how each manage.ment function was different "in nature" when per-formed by a scientist or engineer in a purelyprofessional context and when performed in an

essentially managerial context.


TABLE 28.Percentages of bench scientists and engineers considering 1,arious manage-ment functions to be frequently, performed: comparison of specialists' experience withtheir perceptions of managerial work

Percentage reporting each function frequently performed

Managemen tfunction

NM bench scientists NASA bench scientist NASA bench engineers

Performfrequently

as a

scientist(N=30*)

Perceivefrequent

performanceas a manager

(N=30*)

Performfrequently

as ascientist(N=3S*)

Perceivefrequent


(N=35*)

Performfrequently


Perceivefrequent


(N=31*)

Budgeting 61%; 29% 54%; 10% 58%;

Reporting 60% 89; 71 89 77 78

Staffing 10 61; 8 34; 3 42;

Supervising 60 86; 40 80; 23 87;

Planning 84 83 54 80; 65 84

Policy-making 7 64; 9 51; 10 45;

Representing theorganization 17 64; 31 63; 16 74;

Consulting 16 47; 52 34 36 48

Programassessment 10 82f 29 63+ 29 74;

"Fire-fighting" 55 63 63 46 74 52


;This entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.



Certain perceptions of qualitative change emerged,regardless of the specific management function beingdiscussed. The scope of the functions is much broaderwhen they are done as a manager. The manager isresponsible for broad-based projects and policies. Alonger-range perspective is brought to bear on thesefunctions when they are performed as a manager.More information is available to the manager andthere is better coordination with the goals of theorganization. There are more diversified contacts withpersonnel, in general. There are more contacts withhigher level personnel in the organization. There is agreater degree of personal involvement in performingthese management functions.

A few respondents mentioned negative concepts.In a management position there is a greater demandfor subjective judgments. Political expediency is moresignificant when one performs management functionsas a manager. Performance of management functionsin a managerial position entails greater degrees ofconstraint and restriction.

Management Functionsas Viewed by Specialists at the Bench

One set of respondents in each of the threecategories (NIH, NASA scientists, and NASA engi-neers) consisted of individuals working as scientists orengineers at the time the research was being conducted. They were "bench" scientists, at civil servicegrade levels just below management. They representthe pool of specialists from which administrators maybe drawn.

The opinions and evaluations of these benchprofessionals were studied as to three characteristicsof management functionsfrequency, difficulty andimportance. For each characteristic, these respon-dents were asked to assess each management functionin terms of their current work as scientists orengineers. They were then asked to evaluate eachfunction as they thought it operated for a scientist orengineer with management responsibility, such as abranch or laboratory chief.

Most of the bench scientists and engineers thoughtthat all ten of the management functions would beperformed frequently by managers. In contrast, onlyreporting and planning were consistently cited asdone frequently by scientists and engineers. Rela-tively large proportions saying that a function wouldbe performed frequently as a manager, in comparisonto the proportions reporting frequent performance intheir work as scientists or engineers, occurred forbudgeting, staffing, supervising, policy-making, repre-senting the organization, and program assessment(tables 28 through 30).

Some views as to what happens in managementwere specific to particular sets of respondents. Sub.stantially more bench scientists at NIH said managersdid frequent reporting than said they themselves didit frequently as scientists. A substantially greaterproportion of NASA scientists working at the benchsaid that managers did frequent planning than saidthat they themselves did that particular functionfrequently as scientists at the bench. In shifting fromconsideration of their own work at the bench tospeculation about managers, definitely more NIHbench scientists said that consulting was done fre-quently.

The primary result of the analysis of the data ondifficulty of management functions is seen in thepattern of replies that "none is especially difficult."Higher proportions selected this response when thediscussion was about managers, than selected it inregard to specialists. This difference was especiallysharp for the respondents who were bench scientistsin NIH (response proportions respectively were 60and 17 percent). In other words, there was a sensethat management functions were generally moredifficult to perform when being done as part of amanager's duties.

An opposite pattern was found when the dis-

cussion turned to the importance of managementfunctions. In this case, the proportions saying thatnone is particularly important were greater whendescribing managers than when talking about work asa bench scientist or engineer. Less than 10 percent ofbench respondents said that none of the functionswas particularly important when working at thebench; approximately 40 percent said none wasparticularly important in the work of a manager. Thebench respondents may have been comparing the roleof the scientist to that of the manager, rather thanthe importance of management functions per se inthe two contexts. This result probably reflects a"jaundiced-eye" view of the managerial role, as heldby bench scientists and engineers.

Such a view has been described by Harvey Sher-man, past president of the American Society forPublic Administration,I9 in these words:

By and large, the scientist sees the manageras a bureaucrat, paper shuffler, a parasite; anuncreative and unoriginal hack who serves asan obstacle in the way of creative peopletrying to do a job, and a person moreinterested in dollars and power than inknowledge and innovation.

There were increases in the proportions sayingsome management functions were particularly impor-tant, when the discussion shifted from work at the

48 TRANSFORMATION OP SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

bench to work as a manager; there were decreases inthis regard for other managerial functions. Generalincreases in proportions occurred for staffing andsupervising. Decreases in proportions were found forconsulting (NASA), program assessment, "fire-fighting" (NASA engineers), and reporting (NIH).

These data strongly suggest that one of theproblems in the transition of scientists and engineersto managers rests in prejudiced opinions and negativeattitudes, as to the role of management functions, inthe pool of individuals from which the managers willbe drawn.

Management Functionsas Seen by Respondents' Superiors

From the supervisor and manager primary samplepopulations in this project, random subsamplings of

20 were drawn in each categoryN111 and NASAscientists and NASA engineers. The immediate su-periors of these particular respondents were theninterviewed. These interviews were intended to obtainfrom the superiors their assessments of their subordi-nates' jobsin terms of questions similar to thosewhich the subordinates had answered about them-selves.

The judgments of the superiors on the frequencywith which their subordinates performed manage-ment functions tended to support the responses givenby the subordinates. For example. in one set of 20respondents 15 had said that they did reportingfrequently; in speaking of these 15 respondents, 12 oftheir superiors independently agreed that reportingwas done frequently and only three said that report-ing was done occasionally. In another instance. 17 of

TABLE 29.Percentages of bench scientists and engineers considering various manage-ment functions to be particularly difficult: comparison of specialists' experience withtheir perceptions of managerial work

Percentage reporting each function to be particularly difficult

Managementfunction

NIH bench scientists NASA bench scientists NASA bench engineers

Findparticularlyimportant

as a scientist(N=30*)

Perceiveparticularlyimportant

for a manager(N=30*)









Budgeting 7% 3074 9% 26% 16% 13%

Reporting 10 3 17 11 19 6

Staffing 10 27 3 26f 3 16

Supervising 3 20 11 14 6 10

Planning 3 20 17 I I 13 3

Policy-making 3 20 9 II 16 16


Consulting 3 3 6

Programacsescmcnt 7 3 9 II 23

"Fire-fighting" 3 20 3 11 13

None particularlydifficult 60 l it 37 lit 39 19t


tThis entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.

NOTE: Percentages add to more than 100 because of mqltiplz answers.


the 20 respondents had S3 id they did supervisingfrequently; 16 of the superiors agreed that theserespondents did supervising frequently. There werefew cases where a respondent said he did somethingfrequently and his superior said that he did not do itat all. There were, however, some instances in whichthe subordinate had said he did not do a particularfunction but his superior said he did it frequently.

The superiors generally agreed with the statementsmade by the subordinates as to the managementfunctions the subordinates particularly liked. This isseen in the three functions most often chosen by therespondents as being liked and those selected by thesuperiors in talking about the subordinates. For

example, among the 20 subordinates who were NIIIsupervisors the three functions most often selectedwere planning, supervising, and consulting. The threemost often chosen by their superiors were alsoplanning, supervising, and consulting. Among the 20subordinates who were NASA engineersupervisors,the functions most frequently selected as particularlyenjoyable were supervising, consulting, and planning;their superiors also most frequently picked super-vising, consulting, and planning. When there was adifference, it generally was a matter of just one item.An example here is the 20 subordinates who wereNASA engineermanagers. They most frequentlychose supervising, planning, and representing the

TABLE 30.Percentages of bench scientists and engineers considering various ?mirage-ment functions to be particularly important: comparison of specialists' experience withtheir perceptions of managerial work

Percentage reporting each function to be particularly important

Managementfunction

Nil bench scientists NASA bench scientists NASA bench engineers

Considerparticularlyimportant




Considerpaiticularlyimportant




Considerparticularlyimportant



for a manager(N=3I*)

Budgeting 10% 17% 6% 2674 23%

Reporting 57 27t 37 31 32% 26

Staffing 7 sot 3 31; 261

Supervising 10 47t 17 66; 19 71;

Planning 60 50 46 51 39 55

Policpmaking 7 23 9 311 3 23

Representing theorganization 10 13 14 26; 13 13

Consulting 20 3 26 6t 29 6t

Programassessment 17 23 -1 16

"Fire-fighting" 23 7 14 II 26 6

All particularlyimportant 7 3 3

None particularlyimportant 7 37; 6 461 39;


tTlus entry is significantly different from the adjacent entry in the column immediately to the left. Level ofsignificance chosen as P=0.05 or less.


50 TRANSFORMATION 01: SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

organization; their superiors selected consulting, plan-ning, and representing the organization.

The agreement between subordinates and theirsuperiors generally was not as close when the dis-cussion had to do with management functions par-ticularly disliked. The main source of the difference isfound in the relatively large number of subordinatessaying that none of the functions was particularlydisliked. In no instance did a superior say that hissubordinate particularly disliked none of the manage-ment functions.

When particular functions were mentioned, bothgroups most often said that budgeting and "fire-fighting" were especially disliked.

In discussing the management functions whichwere particularly difficult for the subordinates toperform, the superiors were in agreement with thesubordinates in saying, most often, that none of themwas particularly difficult. When specific managementfunctions were cited, there tended to be disagree-ment. The specific functions mentioned most fre-quently by the 20 NW supervisors were staffing andplanning; the superiors gave "fire-fighting", budgetingand reporting (tied). For NASA scientist-supervisors,the respondents gave staffing and supervising; theirsuperiors cited reporting and program assessment asparticularly difficult for the subordinates.

There was a general tendency for the superiors andthe subordinates to agree on which of the manage-ment functions were particularly time-consuming (tothe subordinates). Generally, these were supervising,reporting, and "fire-fighting".

Finally, the superiors and the subordinates tendedto be in agreement when discussing the managementfunctions which were particularly important in doingthe supervisors' and managers' jobs. In general,planning and supervising were most often selected asparticularly important. The reasons given by thesuperiors for the particular importance of planningwere similar to those given by their subordinates:

It provides an opportunity to design goalsand methods for achieving them.It gives an opportunity to provide resourcesand facilities.It can relate the self to the organizationaleffort.

The reasons given by the superiors and their subordi-nates for the particular importance of supervisingwere also similar:

It helps others become more productive.I t helps achieve the organization's goals.It gives an opportunity to work with people.It gives an opportunity to develop an effi-cient staff.

Chapter Summary

The various management functions or tasks areperformed to some extent when one works as either ascientist or engineer. When a scientist or an engineermoves into management. primarily two kinds ofchanges occur - changes in frequency of performanceof the functions, and qualitative changes in theirnation:.

01 the ten management functions. seven showedrather consistent increases in the proportions of re-spondents saying that they were performed frequent-ly by managers, in contrast to the proportions sayingthey were performed frequently by scientists or en-gineers. These seven functions were: budgeting, staff-ing, supervision. policy-making, planning, programassessment, and representing the organization. Suchconsistent changes were not found for reporting, con-sulting, and "fire-fighting". As should be expected,then, management involves a much more comprehen-sive use of most management functions than work asa scientist or an engineer,

The kind of change which was consistently demon-strated, accompanying the move from science orengineering into management, was in the qualitativecharacter of the management functions. Performingthe management functions as a manager involvesincreased scope of operationone's concerns arebroader, there are longer-range perspectives, there aremore diversified contacts with personnel, and thereare more contacts with higher-level personnel. Thereis, in addition, a greater degree of personal involve-ment in performing the management tasks.

Scientists and engineers at NIII and NASA acceptthe importance of management functions. There islittle explicit expression of disliking performance ofmanagement functions or finding them difficult.Budgeting was the management function most oftendiscussed in negative terms.

Certain of the management functions are particu-larly enjoyableplanning, reporting, supervising, rep-resenting the organization, consulting, and programassessment. The enjoyment of reporting tends todecrease as personnel move from science or engi-neering into management. At NASA, there is aconsistent decrease in enjoyment of "fire-fighting" asthis transition is made. The decreased acceptance ofthese two functions probably is related to theirqualitative change from technical to management re-porting or problem-solving.

Superiors of supervisors and managers tend to sup-port the assessments made by those supervisors andmanagers with respect to the frequency, enjoymentand importance of management functions. There isless agreement as to dislike, difficulty, and time-consumption of the various functions.

VII, MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Management functions are the tasks which areperformed in the managerial role. Management skillsare the abilities and knowledge which can be involvedin performing the management functions.

These abilitiesincluding communication of ideas,problem-solving, and decision-makingobviously havewider applicability than to the performance ofmanagement functions. We refer to them in thisresearch as "management skills" to distinguish themfrom "specialty skills"science and engineering skills.

Sixteen management skills were defined in thisproject. Most of these were skills useful in performingmany, if not all, of the management functions. Thisapplies, for example, to the ability to communicateideas, skill in operating within the organizationalsystem, skill in working with diverse people, and skillin problem-solving.

Just as the management Jimetions can be per-formed by scientists and engineers, the managementskills can be used by scientists and engineers. Thespecialist may have to draw upon these skills in the"management" of his work as a specialist. The samequestion, therefore, can be raised with regard tomanagement skills as was put to the set of manage-ment functions: What is the nature of the changesinvolved when one makes the transition from being ascientist or engineer to being a manager?

For the management skills, two characteristicswere studied(1) the perceived relative importance ofgiven skills in performing as a specialist and as amanager, (2) and the identification of specific skills assources of difficulty when this transition is made.

Importance

The respondents rated 16 management skills as totheir importance "in a person performing yourprofessional specialty" (that is, as a scientist orengineer). The skills were then rated as to theirimportance "in performing as a manager". A nine-po:nt scale was used in making these ratings. I

51

representing "not particularly important" and 9representing "of critical importance". Just before arespondent gave his rating for a given skill as

performed by a manager, he was reminded of therating he had earlier given that skill as performed by aspecialist.

In general, a rather restricted set of the manage-ment skills received the highest importance ratings(7.33 or above), with respect to work as a scientist orengineer. These were:

Fundamental technologyApplication of techniquesCommunication of ideasProblem-solvingCreative thinking.

A wide range of management skills received thehighest importance ratings (7.00or above) when theframe of reference was work as a manager:

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the financial systemOperating within the personnel systemRecognizing and coping with

environmental factorsCommunication of ideasWorking with diverse peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership styleGenerating confidence of superiorIntegrative abilityProblem-solvingDecision-makingCreative thinking.

In fact, only three of the management skills failedto receive relatively high importance ratings for workas a managernamely, fundamental technology, °p-plication of techniques, and knowledge of relatedareas. This suggests a shifted emphasis in the man-agerial role.

The research design employed in the study permitsus to answer the following questions, on the basis of


TABLE 31. Importance of skills. as rated by NM supervisors / =notparticularly important: 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill

in science(arbitrar units. mean)

Importanceof skill

in management(arbitrary units, mean)

Fundamental technology 8.51 7.51*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)

Application of techniques 8.20 6.04*(number of persons in sample) (50) (50)

Knowledge in related areas 7.46 7.68(number of persons in sample) (50) (50)

Operating within organizationalsystem 4.84 7.57*

(number of persons in sample) (50) (51)

Operating within financialsystem 4.20 7.14*


Operating within personnelsystem 4.92 7.63*


Recognizing, coping withenvironmental factors 4.35 6.69*


Communication of ideas 8.04 8.20(number of persons in sample) (SO) (51)

Working with diverse people 6.26 7.98*(number of persons in sample) (50) (51)

Coordinating. etc..group effort 5.46 7.73*


Leadership style 6.02 7.73*(number of persons in sample) (49) (51)

Generation of confidenceof superior 7.14 7.75


Integrative ability 7.68 8.10*(number of persons in sample) (50) (51)

Problem-solving 8.47 8.42(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

Decision-making 7.16 8.33*(number of persons in sample) (5(;) (51)

Creative thinking 8.60 8.24'(number of persons in sample) (50) (50)

*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance :s chosen as P=0.05 or less.

NIANAGENIENT SKILLS 53

our data on the perceived importance of the manage-ment skills (tables 31 through 39).*

I. Do the basic agency groups studiedNM,NASA scientists, NASA engineersdiffer in theirassessments of the importance of the managementskills?

2. Do the respondents at different levelsbench,supervisor, manager, senior managerdiffer in theirassessments of the importance of the managementskills?

3. Are the assessments of the importance of themanagement skills related to the particular combina-tions (interactions) of agency groupings and levels?

4. Do any of the above patterns of differences varywhen the frame of reference shifts from work as ascientist or engineer to work as a manager?

Differences Among Respondent Job Levels.The agency groups differed in the degree of impor-tance they attached to the management skills. Themanagement skills were accorded greatest importanceat NIEL The NIII respondents gave the highestimportance to a greater number of the managementskills than did either NASA scientists or NASAengineers.

In evaluating the work of a scientist or engineer,WE respondents gave the significantly highest aver-age importance rating. in comparison to the othergroups, for six of the 16 skills assessed:

Operating within the personnel systemRecognizing and coping with

environmental factorsCommunication of ideasLeadership styleDecision-makingCreative thinking.

NASA engineers assigned the significantly highestimportance rating only for "operating within theorganizational system". There were no instances inwhich NASA scientists accounted for the highestimportance rating, for specialist work.

When the frame of reference shifted to managerialwork. the NIH respondents again gave the largestnumber of significantly highest importance ratings(three of the 16 possibilities):

*The following discussion is based upon a 3N4 analysis ofvariance of the importance ratings. The three agency groupswcrc NIII scientists, NASA scientists, and NASA engineers;the four job levels were bench, supervisor, manager, andsenior manager. The analysis of varince was appliedseparately to each management skill; h was also appliedseparately to the data for work as a scientitt or engineer andto that for work as a manager. The relationships cited arcbased upon the 17-tests, with level of significance chosen a:P=0.05 or less.

Fundamental technologyOperating within the personnel systemIntegrative ability.

There were no instances for which either NASAscientists or NASA engineers assigned the sig-

nificantly highest importance ratings, for managerialwork.

The above data indicate that respondents in NIIIwere somewhat more conditioned to regard certainmanagement skills as important than were the respon-dents from NASA (either scientists or engineers). Thisrelationship, however, tends to cover a more comprehensive pattern of management skills when the frameof reference is science or engineering work than itcovers with regard to managerial work. The NIHrespondents seem to regard six specific managementskills as particularly important for work in the role ofscientist or engineer. The data do not permit us todetermine whether this differential response on thepart of the NIH respondents is due to institutional orpersonal factors.

Differences Anzong Respondent Job Levels.Whenthe hierarchical positions of the respondents aretaken into consideration, for science or engineeringwork, the greatest number of significantly highestimportance ratings was produced by bench respon-dents. They accounted for six of the highest impor-tance ratings out of the 16 possibilities:

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the personnel systemLeadership styleIntegrative abilityProblem-solvingDecision-making.

Senior managers produced two skills with thesignificantly highest importance ratings:

Knowledge of related areasCreative thinking.

There were no instances in which either super-visors or managers produced the significantly highestimportance ratings, for science or engineering.

When the question focused upon managerial work,senior managers gave the significantly highest impor-tance rating for "operating within the personnelsystem"; supervisors gave the significantly highestimportance rating to "ckative thinking".

Apparently, the group (in terms of level) whichwas generally most conditioned to regard these skillsas important in science or engineering was the groupof bench respondents. This was so only for science orengineering. This could reflect the fact that the benchrespondents had had, as yet, no intensive expe-'encein management.


TABLE 32.Importance of skills, as rated byparticularly important; 9=of critical importance)

managers (! =not

Skill

Importanceof skill

In science(arbitrary units, mean)

Importanceof skill



Application of techniques 8.35 5.84*(number of persons in .ample) (49) (49)




Operating within financialsystem 5 22 7.67*






Communication of ideas 8.18 8.50(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)


Coordinating, etc.,group effort 5.90 8.36*



Generation of confidenceof superior 7.14 8.32*



Problem-solving 8.49 8.08*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

Decision-making 7.47 8.36*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

Creative thinking 8.67 7.74*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as P=0.05 or less.

MANAGEMENT SKI LLS

TABLE 33.Importance of skills. as rated by NIII senior managers (1=iwtparticularly important: 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill

in science(arbitrary units, mean)

Importanceof skill













Communication of ideas 7.87 8.67*(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)











*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cancejs chosen as P=0.05 or less.

55


TABLE 34. Importance of skills, as rated b: NASA scientist-supervisors(1=not particularly important: 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill


Fundamental technology 8.59 6.67(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)


Knowledge in related areas 6.69 7.45*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)
















Integrative ability 6.88 7.96(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)





NIANACFNIENT SKILLS

TABLE 35.Importance of skills, as rated by NASA scientist-managers( 1=not particularly important: 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill













Communication of ideas 7.96 8.50`(number of persons in sample) (50) (50)


Coordinating, etc..group effort 5.80 8.12*










475-535 0- 72 - 5

57


TABLE 36.Importance of skills, as rated by NASA scientist-seniormanagers I 1=not particularly important; 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill



Application of techniques 7.79 6.27(number of persons in sample) (33) (33)








Recognizing. coping withenvironmental factors 3.97 7.45*










Problemsolving 7.88 7.55(number of persons in sample) (33) (33)



*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as P.-0.05 or less.

:7

MANAGEMENT SKILLS 59

TABLE 37.Importance of skills, as rated by NASA engineer-v,en,isors(1=not particularly important; 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill







Operating within financialsystem 3./6 7.55*













Integrative ability 6.10 7.55*


Problem-solving 8.14 7.88



Creative thinking 7.41 7.35(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)



AISLE 3Simportance of skills, as rated by NASA engineer-managers1=not particularly important: 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill




Knowledge in related areas 6.38 7,35(number of persons in sample) (50) (51)


















Decision-making 6.68 8.29*(unnber of persons in sample) (50) (51)

Cleative thinking 7.68 7.33(number of persons in sample) (50) (51)


N1ANAGENIENT SKILLS 61

TABLE 39.Importance of skills, as rated by NASA engineer-seniormanagers ( 1=not particularly important; 9=of critical importance)

Skill

Importanceof skill


Importanceof skill





















Problem-solving 8.30 7.87(number of persons M sample) (30) (30)




62 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINFERS INTO MANAGERS

In each of the above analyses, differences in the ment skills for which the assessment of importanceresponses from different groups arose primarily in was correlated with particular combinations (inter-regard to work as a scientist or engineer. There was actions) of agency group and job level. Such correla-more similarity of opinion as to relative importance tions were found only with regard to managerialof skills with regard to work as a manager. work.

I. Operating within the organizational system:Differences Related to Combinations (Interactions) Among NIII and NASA scientists, the managers andof Respondent Groupings.There were four manage- senior managers gave the significantly highest impor-

TABLE 40.Percentages of NIII scientists regarding carious managementskills as most likely to be sources of difficulty, for a specialist moPhtg intomanagement

Skill

Percentage reporting each skillas a likely source of difficulty

Bench(N=30)

Supervisors(N=51*)

Managers(N=50)

Seniormanagers(N=30*)

Fundamental technology 2% 2% 3%

Application of techniques 3% 4 3

Knowledge in related areas 3 2 2

Operating within organizationalsystem 55 46 53 73

Operating within financialsystem' 38 40 35 73

Operating within personnelsystem 45 48 31 60

Recognizing, coping withenvironmental factors 38 26 31 53

Communication of ideas 3 2 6 7

Working with diverse people 21 16 27 30

Coordinating group effort 31 14 29 17

Leadership style 28 22 10 10

Generation of confidenceof superior 7 4 6

Integrative ability 6 4

Problem-solving 3 12 8

Decisionmaking 3 20 6 17

Creative thinking 3 4 4 3

None a source of difficulty 7 6 8

Depends on man replacedor position taken 7 2




tance ratings (in contrast to bench and supervisorrepondents). Among NASA engineers, the benchrespondents and senior managers gave the signifi-cantly highest importance ratings.

2. Recognizing and coping with environmentalfactors: At NH 1, the managers and senior managersgave the significantly highest importance ratings.Among NASA scientists, the bench respondents andmanagers gave the significantly highest importanceratings. Among NASA engineers, the senior managersgave the significantly highest importance ratings.

3. Communication of ideas: At NIII, the highestimportance ratings were given by senior managers.Among NASA scientists the highest importanceratings were given by supervisors. Among NASAengineers, the highest importance ratings were givenby bench respondents.

4. Coordinating group effort: At NIH, seniormanagers gave the significantly highest importanceratings. Among both NASA scientists and engineers,the supervisors gave the highest importance ratings.

All instances in which the data showed thesecombination or interaction effects occurred when theframe of reference was "working as a manager".Apparently, a joint perspective of agency group andjob level is operative when evaluating the role of theabove four skills for managers. Such joint perspectiveis not functional in assessing the various skills whenapplied to science or engineering work.

Differences Related to the Specialist-Manager Transi-tion.Ten of the 16 management skills showed asignificant increase in importance, when the studyfocus shifted from science or engineering to man-agerial work. This was generally true for the respon-dents in all three agency categories (NIH, NASAscientists, NASA engineers) and at all three manage-ment levels (supervisors, managers, senior managers(tables 31 through 39). These ten management skillswere:

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the financial systemOperating within the personnel systemRecognizing, coping with environmental factorsWorking with diverse peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership styleGeneration of confidence of superiorIntegrative abilityDecision-making.

Supervisors, managers, and senior managers,among both NASA scientists and NASA engineers,perceived communication of ideas as increasing inimportance. In NIH, only the senior managers sawthis particular skill as increasing in importance.

Knowledge of related areas was seen to increase inimportance by supervisors in NASA (scientists andengineers) and by senior managers among NASAengineers.

There was general agreement, among all categoriesof respondents, that fundamental technology andapplication of techniques decreased in importance inthe transition from specialist to manager. Except forsupervisors and managers among NASA engineers, therespondents also saw creative thinking as decreasingin importance. Problem-solving generally was not seento change in importanceexcept as reported bymanagers at NIH, who perceived problem-solving asdecreasing in importance in the transition.

Bolster's study of NW scientist-adminstrators inthe extramural and collaborative programs supportsthis same general conclusion that the skills related tothe organizational ,Invironment are most important tothe manager (or scientist administrator). Ile foundthat these men and women who manage predomi-nantly grant programs most frequently selected"knowledge of NIII and DIIEW [Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare] objectives. policies,organization, and procentazs", and "intimate associa-tion with universities and o:her grantee institutions'',as the most useful skills and knowledge in performingtheir primary tasks.2°

The same conclusion can be reached fromCrockett's data.2 l Of the management skills rated asthe most important, four of five are related to theorganization and its environment: working withsuperiors, motivating subordinates, establishing organ-izational structure, and knowledge of MSC organiza-tion.2 2

Difficulty

The respondents were asked, "Which of these skillsare most likely to be a source of difficulty for ascientist [or engineer] who moves into manage-ment?"

The skills cited by the highest proportions of therespondents in all three agency groups were (tables 40through 42):

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the financial systemOperating within the personnel systemRecognizing, coping with environmental factorsWorking with diverse peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership style.

In general, relatively small proportions of therespondents said that these skills would be likelysources of difficulty:

64 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO NIANAGERS

Fundamental technologyApplication of techniquesKnowledge in related areasCommunication of ideasGeneration of confidence of superiorIntegrative ability

Problem-solvingDecision-makingCreative thinkingFew of the key sources of difficulty. as seen by

the respondents. fall in the category of problem-centered aspects of management (problem-solving.

7ABLE 41. Percentages of NASA scientists regarding rarious managementskills as most likely to be sources of difficulty. for a specialist moving intomanagement

Skill


Bench(N=35)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N=501


Fundamental technology 3q 2% VI., 6%

Application of techniques .)

Knowledge in related areas 6 8 6 3

Operating within organizationalsystem 34 31 36 52

Operating within financialsystem 43 33 26 58


Recognizing. coping withenvironmental factors 29 31 34 48

Communication of ideas 6 16 16 9


Coordinating group effort 26 24 26 18


Generation of confidenceof superior 6 2 6 6

Integrative ability 6 2 2 9

Problem-solving 3 2

Deeision-making 23 12 18 6

Creative thinking 3

None a source of difficulty 6 2 1

Depends on man replacedor position taken i -

11=number of individuals in sample


NIANAGEMENT SKILLS 65

decision-making, creative thinking). Most key sourcesof difficulty were in the category of Loping with theorganizational environment (the organizational-financial-personnel system. working with diversepeople, etc.).

Senior managers at NW, and NASA scientist-senior-managers, produced the highest proportionssaying that operating within the organizational, fin-ancial and personnel systems were likely sources ofdifficulty at transition.

TAME 42. Percentages of NASA engineers regarding various managementskills as most likely to be sources of difficulty, for a specialist moping intomanagement

Skill


Bench(N=31*)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N1=51*)


Fundamental technology 1%

Application of techniques 4 3%

Knowledge in related areas 10% 4% 8 7

Operating withinorganizational system 26 29 37 37

Operating within financialsystem 32 24 41 37


Recognizing, coping withenvironmental factors 32 26 35 50

Communicatiol: of ideas 10 12 26 17


Coordinating group effort 19 16 22


Generation of confidenceof superior 6 3

Integrative ability 8 8 3

Problem-solving 4 2

Decisionmaking 13 16 14 17

Creative thinking 2 2 3

None a source of difficulty 8 3

Depends on man replacedor position taken 2



66 TRANSFORMATION' OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

TA BLE 43.hnportance of skills. as rated by iWII bench scientists

Skill Importance of skillto a scientist

(arbitrar units, mean)

Perceivedimportance of skill

to a manager(arbitrar units. mean)



Knowledge in related areas 7.14 '.38(number of persons in sample) (29) (29)

Operating within oreanirationalsystem 5.69 8.24*













Generation of confidenceof superior 6.97 7.86'







NIANAGOIENT SKILLS 67

Reasons for Ophtions on Skill Difficulty. A patternof reasons was given for judging skills to be likelysources of difficulty to specialists in transition. Thepattern emerged regardless of the particular skillsbeing discussed. The components in this patternwere:

New and different types of skills are re-quired; respondent has had no training in theskills required.

There is a need to define problems andsolutions within the organizational frame-work.

The scope of the work is broader and morediversified; there is responsibility for coordi-nation of programs.

New and different goals and objectives areinvolved; there can be a conflict of self-interest with organizational interests.

There is a change front an introspective.introverted climate to an extroverted one.

You are responsible for the production ofothers: you have to depend upon the skillsof others; need to motivate ethers: need toconsider employee rights and civil servicerules.

There are considerations of political ex-pediency.

The basic problems represented seem to be:increased breadth and diversity of responsibility (forprograms and for people): new and differeat sets ofgoals. These are accompanied by problems of politicalexpediency and.the need to acquire new skills.

Management Skills as Viewed bySpecialists at the Bench

All respondents currently working in theirspecialties ("at the F,e cll.') saw the following asincreasing in importance at transition front specialtyto management.

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the financial systemOperating within the personnel systemRecognizing, coping with environmental factorsWorking with diverse peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership styleDecision-making

Each of these had also been reported as increasingin importance by all respondents who actually were

in management. Among the latter. hmever. twoother skills were additionally reported as int.reasing inimportance. generation of confidence of superior.and integrative ability. NASA bench respondents alsojudged these two skills as increasing in importance.but NII1 bench respondents did not (tables 43through 45).

The bench respondents agreed with managementrespondents in perceiving decreased importance offundamental technology and applications of tech-niques. in the transition from specialist to manager.Bench respondents at NASA. but not at N111. feltthat problem-solving too would decrease in impor-tance in the transition.

No group of bench respondents saw a change inimportance for knowledge of related areas. or forcommunication of ideas.

Management Skills as Seen byRespondents' Superiors

The superiors of 20 respondent supervisors andmanagers were asked to rate. on the nine-point scaledescribed earlier, the importance of each managementskill "in a person performing 's job....Note that you are rating the job, not the man".

The most important management skills. as per-ceived by the total group of subordinates, are:operating within the organizational system. operatingwithin the financial system, and operating within thepersonnel system. For each of these skills, superiorsattach less importance than do the respondents theysupervise. This is true in both NIII and NASA. Thefollowing data are illustrative of his general result.

The superiors of the 20 NASA scientist-supervisorsgave an importance rating of 6.32 to operating withinthe organizational system, but the 20 subordinatesgave an importance rating of 8.23 to this skill. Thesuperiors of the 20 NIl I manager subordinates gave animportance rating of 6.30 to operating within thefinancial system, while the subordinates gave this skillan importance rating of 7.30. The superiors of theNASA scientist-managers gave operating within thepersonnel system an importance rating of only 4.24,yet their subordinates gave this skill an importancerating of 7.52.

Of the 16 management skills studied, eight tendedto be given lower importance ratings by superiorsthan were given by the managonent respondents theysupervised. There were no management skills forwhich the superiors tended consistently to give higherimportance ratings than did their subordinates. Thesuperiors do not agree, in general, with the relativeimportance that their subordinates in managementattach to some of the most critical skills.

68 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO NIANAGERS

TABLE 44. hnportance of skills. as rated by NASA bench scientists

Skill Importance of skillto a scientist

(arbitrary units, mean)


to a manager(arbitrary units. mean)














Coordinating. etc.,group effort 6.29 8.14*






Problem-solving 8.40 7.83'(number of persons in sar. :ple) (35) (35)


Creative thinking 8.14 7,66(num.,: of persons in sample) (35) (35)

'The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as P=0.05 or less.


TABLE 45. Importance of skills. as rated by NASA bench engineers

Skill Importance of skillto an engineer



to a manager(arbitrary units, mean)










Recoenizing, coping withenvironmental factors 5.39 7.35*





(number of persons in :ample) (31) (31)





Problemsolving 8.52 7.48*(number of persons in sample) (31) (31)


Creative thinking 7.65 7.00(number of persons in sample) (31) (31)



The superiors were asked, "Which of the skills doyou feel has been a source of difficulty for (thesubordinate)?" The subordinates said that their majorsources of difficulty were operating within theorganizational. financial and personnel systems. andrecognizing and coping with environmental factors.The superiors generally agreed only that their subord-inates had difficulty in operating within the organiza-tional system. The superiors tended to view workingwith diverse people. leadership style and generationof confidence of superiors as being sources ofdifficulty in their subordinates more frequently thandid the latter in describing themselves. These datasuggest that the superiors may not understand theattitudes and opinions of their subordinates withrespect to the management skills.

Chapter Summary

Management skills may be classified as thosefocusing upon the solution of highly specializedproblems (fundamental technology, application oftechniques, problem-solving. decision-making. crea-tive thinking) and those concerned with functioningin the management environment (operating withinthe organizational, financial and personnel systems;working with diverse people). The management skillsthought to be most important differ, depending onthe kind of work under considerationscience orengineering vs. management. For the former, themost important skills are "problem-centered"; for thelatter. the most important skills are "system-centered".

ilfost importalitAs a scientist or engineerFundamental technology

Application oftechniques

Problem-solving

Creative thinkingCommunication of ideas

management skillsAs a managerOperating within the

organizational systemOperating within the

financial systemOperating within the

personnel systemCommunication of ideasWorking with diverse

peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership styleIntegrative ability

The "system-centered" skills are not only seen asbeing most important, for performing the role ofmanager, they are also seen as being the main sourcesof difficulty. They present difficulty mainly becauseof the breadth and diversity of the responsibilities inmanagement, because new goals and objectives comeinto play. and because new skills must be developed.

The current bench scientists and engineers, whenthinking about management, anticipate that the"system-oriented" skills will increase in importanceand become sources of difficulty.

Superiors of respondents now in managementpositions differ with them about the relative impor-tance of those management skills most critical to thesubordinates' jobs. They also tend to underestimatethe degree to which their subordinates experiencedifficulty in scale of the most important "system-oriented" management skills.

VIII. MOTIVATIONS

The third aspect of involvement in the managerialrole, after management functions and skills, has to dowith motivationspsychological needs which an indi-vidual seeks to satisfy. and activities which areparticularly important to him.

An individual's occupation interacts, in eitherpositive or negative ways, with his psychologicalneeds and his feeling for what is particularly impor-tant in his life. Motivations can play a part inattracting an individual to an occupation in the firstplace. His continuing in an occupation can besustained by the degree to which his experiences in itsatisfy his motivations. If working in a given occupa-tion has served this reinforcing role, entrance into anynew occupation may be problematicalto the extentthat the new occupation is not perceived as producingthe satisfactions demanded by the individual's moti-vational systems. There is the possibility, of course,that a new occupation could actually do a better jobof satisfying the individual's motivations.

In this research, three aspects of 15 differentmotivations were studied, as these motivations relatedto science or engineering and to managerial work.First, we sought to determine how much satisfactionpotential the respondents would associate with eachof the motivationsfor scientists or engineers, and formanagers. Second, the respondents were asked whichof these motivations werc characteristic of or typifiedscientists or engineers on the one hand and managerson the other. This procedure produced stereotypes ofthe motivational patterns associated, respectively,with specialists and with managers. Both of theseapproaches served to establish how our respondentsperceived motivational patterns to vary between thetwo occupations. Finally, the question was raised asto how much difficulty would be encountered inattempting to satisfy the respective motivations, inmoving from specialist to manager. This approach

71

indicates the critical problem areas, in terms ofmotivations, which are encountered when the transition is made.

It must be noted that the questions nominallydealt with the associations between the motivationsand the fobs, not with the relative strengths of thevarious motivations in the respondents.

Satisfaction Potential

We investigated the degree to which the respectivemotivations might provide satisfaction, by asking aseries of questions which began as follows (therespondents were looking at a card on which the 15motivations were identified and described).

This is a list of psychological rewards thatmay or may not be involved in how muchsatisfaction a person obtains from his work.Take a moment to note each one of these.

Let's take the perspective of a person en-gaged primarily in scientific (or engineering)activities. How much satisfaction does ascientist tor engineer] normally get fromleadership while working as a scientist [ orengineer I?

The respondents replied using a nine-point scale, 1representing "low satisfaction" and 9 representing"high satisfaction". The last part of the question wasasked for each item.

After going through the list of 15 motivations, thenext question was:

Now let's move to the perspective of aperson in a management job. You gaveleadership a rating of for a scientist torengineer). )low would you rate the degreeof satisfaction which a manager normallygets from leadership?

The last part of this question was repeated foreach item. The respondents were always reminded of


TABLE 46. Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and values,as rated by NIII scientist-supervisors (1=low satisfaction; 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value

Degree of satisfaction from occupation


In management(arbitrary units, mean)

Leadership 5.19 7.35(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Detailed planning 5.73 6.00(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Doing new, different things 8.02 6.67*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Direct attack on problems 8.19 7.06*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Contributing to organization'sgoals 5.04 7.67


Achieving 7.92 7.61(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Help to one's colleagues 6.27 7.65*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Being independent 7.98 7.113*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Seeking support of others 4.65 5.90(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Being recognized 7.98 7.37*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Being able to exercise authority 4.88 6.59(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Risk-taking in decisions 4.72 533*(number of persons in sample) (47) (49)

Asseelating with verycongenial co-workers 6.17 6.39


Associating with intellectuallycompetent co-workers 8.17 7.80


Using technical knowledge, skills 7.81 6.33*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of s' ifi-cance is chosen as P=0.05 or less.

MOTIVATIONS 73

the ratings they had given with respect to science orengineering.

A set of five motivations consistently received highsatisfaction ratings when associated with science orengineering work; a set of three consistently receivedhigh ratings when associated with management (tables46 through 54):

Highest- satisfaction -rated motivationsAs a scientist or engineer As a manager

Making direct attack Being a leaderon problems

Achieving through Contributing toovercoming organization's goalsdifficult obstacles

Being recognized Achieving throughovercomingdifficult obstacles

Associating withintellectually competentco-workers

Using technicalknowledge and skills

These respondents see that both science or engi-neering work and managerial work can make strongcontributions to the satisfaction of one's need toachieve.

In science or engineering, high satisfaction poten-tial exists for problem-centered motivationsliking tomake direct attack on problems, and liking to useone's technical knowledge and skills. Also, working asa scientist or engineer has high potential for satisfyingone's need to be recognized for accomplishments, andone's desire to be associated with intellectuallycompetent co-workers.

In contrast, working as a manager has highpotential for satisfying one's need to be a leader (todirect others; to being the one who establishespolicies) and one's enjoyment of contributing to theorganizations's progress.

Science or Engineering WorkDifferences byAgency. The satisfaction ratings given to the respec-tive motivations varied with agency group (NIH,NASA scientists, NASA engineers) and with positionof the respondent (bench, supervisor, manager, seniormanager).*

In the satisfaction ratings given for work as ascientist, NIH gave the highest ratings on seven of the15 motivations:

Being a leaderLiking to do detailed planning

*The following discussion is based upon a 3x4 analysis ofvariance comparable to ti. t conducted for the managementskills (sec footnote in chapter VII).

475-535 0 72 - 6

Helping one's colleaguesBeing independentSeeking the support of othersBeing recognizedAssociating with intellectually competent

co-workers

NASA engineers produced the highest satisfactionratings on four of the 15 motivations:

Contributions to organization's goalsBeing able to exercise authorityRisk-taking in making decisionsAssociating with congenial co-workers

Note that these four motivations rated highest byNASA engineers are those usually associated withmanagementalthough it is engineering work which isunder consideration.

Science or Engineering Work: Differences by Agencyand Position.The satisfaction potential which wasperceived for the need to achieve varied by agencyand position. In NIH, the highest satisfaction ratingswere given by the senior managers; in NASA, thehighest ratings were given by the bench respondents.

Managerial WorkDifferences by Agency.When ref-erring to managerial work, the respondents at NASAproduced the highest satisfaction ratings for six of the15 motivations: four were produced by NASAengineers, two by NASA scientists. The motivationsgiven the highest satisfaction ratings by NASA engi-neers were:

Doing new and different thingsBeing recognizedBeing able to exercise authorityRisk-taking in decisions.

The two given highest satisfaction ratings byNASA scientists were:

Being a leaderMaking direct attack on problems

Overall Differences by Occupation. In summary,NIH respondents gave the highest satisfaction ratingsto motivations when they were referring to scientificwork; NASA respondents, especially the engineers,gave the highest satisfaction ratings in reference tomanagerial work. This suggests some predispositionby engineers, as compared with scientists, to favormanagement. (In each instance, the base-point is thelevel of ratings given by the other categories ofrespondents.)

The satisfaction potential which was perceived forenjoyment of detailed planning varied by agency andposition of respondent. At NIH, the senior managersgave the highest satisfaction ratings; among NASA


TABLE 47. -Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and values.as rated by NM scientist-managers (Mow satisfaction; 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value



la management(arbitrary units, mean)

Leadership 6.10 8.00*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)




Contributing to organization'sgoals 4.77 8.31*



I lelp to one's colleagues 6.75 7.73*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)


Seeking support of others 5.19 7.10*(number of persons in sample) (47) (49)


Being able to exercise authority 4.98 7.10*(number of persons in sample) (48) (49)

Risk-taking in decisions 5.64 6.33(number of persons in sample) (47) (49)

Associating with verycongenial co-workers 6.60 7.35*


Associating with intellectuallycompetent co-workers 8.40 7.73*




MOTIVATIONS

TABLE 48.Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and values,as rated by NIB scientist-senior managers (1=low satisfaction; 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value





Detailed planning 6.24 7,34*(number of persons in sample) (29) (29)

Doing new, different things 7.80 7.47(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)

Direct attack on problems 8.43 8.20(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)


Number of persons in sample) (30) (30)

Achieving 8.13 8.53*(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)

Help to one's colleagues 6.13 7.47(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)



Being recognized 8.33 7.97(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)


Risk-taking in decisions 4.77 7.07*(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)





Using technical know'r!dge, skills 8.47 5.83*(number of persons hi sample) (30) (30)

*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as 13.0.05 or less.

75


TABLE 49.Degree to which occupation satisfies motirations and mines.as rated by NASA scientist-superrisors (1=low satisfaction; 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value



1p management(arbitrary units, mean).


Detailed planning 5.45 7.00*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)






Ilelp to one's colleagues 5.96 7.59*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)

Being independent 7.43 6.90(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)




Risktaking in decisions 5.00 6.82*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)







MOTIVATIONS 77

scientists. the highest satisfaction rating was given bythe supervisors; and, among NASA engineers, thehighest rating was given by the managers.

Stereotypical Patterns

The above discussions were based only upon themotivations which received the highest mean satis-faction-potential ratings. Therefore the stereotypicalrole of each of the 15 motivations, as seen by therespondents, was not evaluated for science or engi-neering work as compared with managerial work. Thepatterns of motivations associated with the twooccupations are found in the answers to thesequestions:

Now, let's go over this list of rewards interms of those you think best describe aperson who is a scientist (or engineer) . Youmay select as many as you wish. Which onesbest describe a scientist [or engineer) ?

Now tell me which ones best describe amanager. Again, you may select as many asyou wish.

The replies to these questions produced stereotypepatterns of motivationsshowing those which ourrespondents associated with science or engineeringand with management. The following table is basedupon selection of each motivation by the greaterproportion of respondents as best describing a sci-entist or engineer or as best describing a manager.

Motivationsassociated with

science or engineering

Liking to do new anddifferent things

Making direct attackon problems

Being independentBeing recognized


Using technical knowledgeand skills


management

Beinga leader

Contributing toorganization's goals

Helping one's colleaguesSeeking the support

of othersExercising authority

Risk-taking in decisions

Except for managers in NIH and managers amongNASA engineers, the groups of respondents mostoften associated the enjoyment of detailed planningwith managers. The NIH managers tended to associateenjoyment of detailed planning with scientists ratherthan managers. Among NASA engineer-managers,about the same proportions associated this motiva-tion with engineers as with managers.

The perception of the need to achieve throughovercoming difficult obstacles varied. All bench re-spondents associated this motivation with scientistsor engineers. NASA scientistsupervisors agreed.Among all other categories of respondents, however.the largest proportions said that the need to achievedescribes both specialists and managers.

Perception of "associating with very congenialco-workers" varied, as shown in the accompanyinglist.

Respondent groupslinking desire for

"congenial co-workers"& science or engineering

Senior managersN111NASA engineers

ManagersNASA scientists

Respondent groupslinking desire for

"congenial co-workers"management

Senior managersNASA scientists

ManagersN11 I

Supervisors

NASA scientists

BenchNIIINASA scientistsNASA engineers

Differences Related to the Specialist-Manager Transi-tion. When one moves from science or engineeringinto management, the potential for satisfying thefollowing motivations tends to increase (based uponthe satisfaction ratings, tables 46 through 54).

Being a leaderLiking to do detailed planningContributing to the organization's goalsHelping one's colleaguesSeeking the support of othersExercising authorityrisk-taking in decision-making.

In the transition to management, the potential forsatisfying these motivations tends to decrease:

Making direct attack on problemsBeing independentBeing recognized for accomplishmentsUsing technical knowledge and skills.

Generally, satisfaction potential for the need toachieve, and for associating with very congenialcoworkers, tended to increase in the transition, butmost of the differences involved were not significant.There was a general tendency toward decrease ofsatisfaction potential, in the transition, for enjoymentof new and different things and for association with

78 TRANSEORNIATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO NIANAGERS

TABLE 50. -Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and values.as rated by NASA scientist-managers (s=low satisfaction; 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value


In science(arbitrary units. mean)














Risk-takipg in decisions 5.24 6.94*(number of persons in sample) (49) (48)

Associating with verycongenial co-workers 6.90 7.16





*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as P.-11.05 or less.

MOTIVATIONS 79

TABLE 51. Degree to which occupation satisfies motiratious and ralues,as rated by NASA scientist-senior managers (Mow satisfaction: 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivationor value







Direct attack on problems 7.73 7.09*(number of person, :n Qmple) (33) (33)




I lelp to one's colleagues 5.73 7.36*(number of persons in smnple) (33) (33)

Being independent 7.82 6.19*(number 01' persons in sample) (33) (32)




Itisktaking in decisions 4.58 6.61*(number of persons in sample) (33) (33)

Associating with verycongenial coworkers 5.79 6.45


Associating with intellectuallycompetent coworkers 7.97 7.39*




80 TRANSFORMATION OE SCIENTISTS AND !ENGINEERS INFO MANAGERS

7:1 BL L' 52. Degree to which occupation satisfies nwtiations and values.as rates by NASA engineer-superisors (1=low satisfaction: 9=highsatisf'ac'tion)

Motivationor value


In science(arbitrar units, mean)




Doing new. different things 7.67 7.41(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)





!kip to one's colleagues 5.88 7.51*(number of persons in sample) (49) (49)


Seeking support of others 4.48 5.92*(nUmber of persons in sample) (49) (48)




Associating with verycongenial coworkers 6.55 7.10*


Associating with intellectuallycompetent coworkers 7.82 7.65



*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as I>=0.05 or less.

MOTIVATIONS

TABLE 53. - Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and ratites.as rated by NASA engineer-managers ( 1=low satisfaction: 9=highsatisfaction)

MotivationDegree of satisfaction from occupation

In science In managementor value(arbitrary units, mean) (arbitrary units. mean)


Detailed planning 6.57 6.74(number of persoas in sample) (49) (50)

Doing new. different things 7.65 7.78(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

Direct attack on problems S.02 7.52*(nunt!"...!r of persons in sample) (49) (50)

Contributing to organization'scoals 5.45 8.00*


Achieving 7.80 8.12*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)




!Icing recognized 8.04 7.98(number of persons M sample) (49) (50)

Beirut able to exercise authority 5.88 7.70*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)






Using technical knowledge. skills 8.35 6.54*(number of persons in sample) (49) (50)

*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as 1)=0.05 or less.

SI

82 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND (ENGINEERS wro mANAGERs

TABLE 54.Degree to which occupation satisfies motirations and rabies.as rated by NASA engineer-senior managers f 1=low satisfaction; 9-,highsatisfaction

Motivationor value


In science(arbitrary units. mean)

In management(arbitrary units. mean)



Doing new, different thine..< 8.00 7.97(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)


Contributing to organization'scoals 5.80 8.10*


Achieving 8.10 8.03(number of persons in sample) (3(1) (30)




[Icing recognized 7.77 7.47(number of persons in sample) (30) (30)








*The two mean ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as Pr-'0.05 or less.

MOTIV1\TIO'S 83

intellectually competent co-workersbut, again. mostof the differences involved were not significant.

Difficulty of Satisfying Motivations, in Transition

The respondents were asked whether they thoughteach of the respective motivations "would be rela-tively difficult to satisfy, relatively easy to satisfy. ormake no difference. when a person moves from beinga scientist for engineer] to being a supervisor ormanager.

There were four motivations for which the repliesconsistently indicated relative ease of satisfaction. inthe transition:

Being a leaderContributing to the organization's goalshelping one's colleaguesExercising authority.

There were just two motivations for which thereplies consistently indicated relative difficulty ofsatisfaction, at transition:

Being independentUsing technical knowledge and skills.

"Associating with intellectually competent co-workers was an item with high satisfaction potentialfor work as a scientist or engineer. Most respondentssaid that there would be no difference in ability tosatisy this motive, in the shift to management.

For each of the other eight motivations the dataproduced no consistent direction in terms of relativedifficulty.

For example. "being recognized" was perceived ashaving high satisfaction potential for scientists orengineers. but not for managers. A scientist orengineer with a high need to be recognized would beexpected to maintain that high degree of need if hebecame a manager. Yet the respondents were notconsistent in what they thought would happen tosuch a person. in terms of relative difficulty ofsatisfying that need. In several groups. roughly equalproportions saw, respectively, relative ease and rela-tive difficulty of satisfying this particular need. Thesegroups were Nil I supervisors. managers, and seniormanagers. NASA engineer-managers, NASA scientist-managers and scientist-senior managers more oftensaid that the need for recognition would be relativelydifficult to satisfy. In contrast, NASA engineer-seniormanagers more often said this need would be rela-tively easy to satisfy, under the circumstancesdescribed.

The remaining motivations for which there wereno consistent judgments on relative difficulty, attransition, were:

Liking to do detailed planningLiking to do new and different thingsMaking direct attack on problemsAchieving through overcoming difficult obstaclesSeeking the support of othe,Risk-taking in decisionsAssociating with very congenial co-workers.

Six motivations had been identified as beingassociated with science or engineering work namely.liking to do new and different things, making directattack on problems. being independent, being recog-nized. associating with intellectually competent co-workers and using technical knowledge and skills. Ofthese, two were consistently seen as relatively diffi-cult to satisfy. in shifting to managerial worknamely. being independent. and using technicalknowledge and skills. It was generally said that therewould be no difference in ability to satisfy the needfor "associating with intellectually competent co-workers. No consistent patterns were found withrespect to the othc three motivationsliking to donew and different things. making direct attack onproblems. and being recognized.

Risk-taking in decisions was perceived as beingmore characteristic of managers than of scientists orengineers. Scientists and engineers, however, do en-gage in sonic degree of risk-taking in decisions. Therespondents were asked how risk-taking is differentfor managers vs. scientists or engineers. Most of thereplies stressed the increased scope of the problemsencountered by managers. and the implications of thedecisions for the outcome of the broader programsand policies. There were frequent comments that thedecision consequences involved greater numbers ofpeople and considerable financial risk.

Motivations as Viewed by Specialists at the Bench

Taking into consideration the satisfaction ratingsgiven by the toench respondents (tables 55 through57), and their selections of certain motivations as bestdescribing specialists and managers. respectively, thefollowing patterns emerged.


science or engineering

Liking to donew and different things

Making direct attackon problems

Achieving throughovercomingdifficult obstacles

Being independent


management

Being a leader

Doing detailed planning

Contributing toorganizatio't s goals

I lelping one's colleagues

84 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ino MANAGERS

TABLE 55. -Degree to Mich occupation satisfies motirations and rahu:s,as rated hr NIII bench scientists ( 1=low satisfaction: 9= /nigh satisfaction)

Motivation

or value


Receivedby scientist


Perceivedfor manager


Leadership 5.63 839*(number of persons in sample) (27) (28)

Detailed planning 5.82 7.11*(number of persons in sample) (2S) (27)

Doing new. different things 8.00 6.14*(number of persons in sample) (27) (28)

Direct attack on problems 8.19 7.1i*(number of persons in sample) (27) (28)

Contributing to organization'sgoals .

i(number of persons in sample)5.33(27)

8.18*(28)



Being independent 8.00 6.86*(number of persons ir. sample) (27) (28)











Being recognized


Using technical knowledgeand skills

N1OTIVATIONS

Seeking the supportof others

Exercising authority

Risk-takingin decisions

Associating with verycongenial co-workers

These data support. in general. the results obtainedfrom the respondents who actually were in manage-ment. There are some exceptions. however. Thebench respondents associated the need to achievewith science or engineering work; there were differ-ences of opinion among the various groups ofmanagement respondents as to whether this item hadmore satisfaction potential among specialists or man-agers. The bench linked enjoyment of detailed plan-ning. and association with very congenial co-workers.with managerial work; the management respondentswere not in general agreement on these items.

Motivations as Seen by Respondents' Superiors

The superiors were asked to rate the amount ofsatisfaction (using the nine-point saile describedearlier) to be obtained from their subordinates' jobs.Here again, the focus was upon the jobs, not upon thesubordinates.

The overall pattern was for the superiors toperceive less satisfaction potential in the subordi-nates' jobs than did the respective subordinates. Wediscuss below two examples of motivations receivingthis pattern of responsesbeing a leader. and contrib-uting to organization's goals:

I. Being a leaderAmong NASA scientists themean satisfaction rating given by the 20 superiors ofmanagers was 5.85; the mean given by their 20subordinates was 8.50. Among NASA engineers, the20 superiors of managers gave a mean satisfactionrating of 5.77; their subordinates gave a meanof 8.22.

2. Contrib ting to organization's goalsFor the 20superiors of N!H supervisors, the mean satisfactionrating was 6.37; the mean for their subordinates was8.11. Among NASA superiors of scientist-supervisors,the mean was 7.27; the mean for their subordinateswas 8.45. Among NASA superiors of enginzer-supervis).3, the mean was 6.90; the mean for theirsubordinates was 7.90.

For 13 of the 15 motivations under study, themean satisfaction ratings given by the superiors weresignificantly lower than those given by subordinates:

Being a leaderLiking to do detailed planning

85

Making direct attack on problemsContributing to the organization's goalsAchieving through

overcoming difficult obstaclesHelping one's colleaguesBeing independentSeeking the support of othersBeing recognizedExercising authorityRisk-taking in decisionsAssociating with very congenial co-workersAssociating with

intellectually competent co-workers

For each of these 13 motivations. data on thesuperiors' views were kept segregated by positions ofthe subordinatessupervisors rs. managers. Thismeans that there were 26 opportunities for significantdifference between opinion of supervisor and subordi-nate, in each agency groupNIH, NASA scientists.and NASA engineers.

It developed that NASA engineers and theirsuperiors produced significant differences of opinionin response to 19 of the 26 opportunities: in each ofthese cases the superiors gave lower mean satisfactionratings than their subordinates gave. NASA scientistssimilarly disagreed in 16 of the 26 cases. In contrast,at NIH significantly lower mean satisfaction ratingswere given by superiors in only eight of the 26 cases.

There was a general tendency for superiors toassign lower satisfaction potential to motivations thantheir subordinates assignedbut this tendency wasmuch more characteristic of 'NASA than of NIH.

There were three motivations for which somegroups of superiors gave higher satisfaction ratingsthan did their subordinates:

Motivations to which superiors assignedhigher satisfaction ratings than did their subordinates,

by agency and position of subordinate

(1) Being recognizedNIH supervisors

(2) Liking to do new and different thingsNIH supervisorsNIH managers

(3) Using technical knowledge and skillsNIH supervisors

NIH managersNASA engineer supervisors

NASA scientist managersNASA engineer managers

One of these was "being recognized". Superiors ofNASA scientist- and engineer-managers assigned thisitem lower satisfaction potential than their subordi-nates assigned. In NIH, however, superior,. of super-


TABLE 56.Degree to whic!. occupation satisfies motivations and values.as rated Iv NASA bench scientists (1=low satisfaction: 9=highsatisfaction)

MotivationDegree of satisfaction from occupation

Received Perceivedor value by scientist for manager

(arbitrary units, mean) (arbitrary units, mean)




Direct attack on problems 7.91 731(number of persons in sample) (35) (35)

Contributing to organization'sgoals 6.37 8.20"



!kip to one's colleagues 6.57 7.26(number of persons in mmplc) (35) (35)





Risk taking in decisions 5.71 6.69*(number of persons in sample) (35) (35)





Using wchnical knowledge, skills 8.14 6.60*(number of persons in sample) (35) (35)


MOTIVATIONS

TABLE 57Degree to which occupation satisfies motivations and ',dues.as rated by NASA bench engineers Mow satisfaction: 9=highsatisfaction)

Motivation

or value


Receivedby engineer


Perceivedfor manager


Leadership 5.77 8,03'(number of persons in sample) (31) (31)



Direct attack on problems 7.87 6.87*(number of persons sample) (31) (31)




1101p to one's colleagues 6.32 7.19*(number of persons in sample) (31) (31)






Associating with verycongenial co-worker.: 6.13 6.42





*'lire two ole,1 ratings given for this skill differ significantly. The level of signifi-cance is chosen as P=0.05 or less.

87


visors gave "being recognized" a higher satisfactionrating than their subordinates gave. For "liking to donew and different things", NIII superiors of super-visors and of managers gave higher satisfaction ratingsthan their subordinates gave. For the motivation"using technical knowledge and skills", superiors ofNIH supervisors and NASA engineer-supervisors gave

higher satisfaction ratings than their subordinatesgave: the same pattern occurred with respect tomanagers in all three agency groups (NHL NASAscientists and NASA engineers).

The superiors were asked whether each of themotivations would be "relatively difficult to satisfy,relatively easy to satisfy. or would make no diffei-

TABLE 58.Percentages of NM scientists judging the systemof rewards which operates for a manager to be dissimilarand similar to that which operates for a scientist

Judgment of tworewards systems

Perc.-mtage reporting each judgment

Bench(N=30*)

Supervisors Managers(N=50*) (N=50*1

Quite different 77%

Quite alike 20

seniormanagers(N=30*)

58% 68% 67%

38 32 33

TABLE 59. Percentages of NASA specialists judging the system of rewards whichoperates for a manager to be dissimilar and similar to that which operates for aspecialist

Judgment of two

rewards systems

Percentage reporting each judgment

Engineers Scicn tists

Bench(N=31*)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N=51*)


Bench(N=35*)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N=50*)


Quite different

Quite alike

58%

39

41%

59

41%

57

60%

40

57%

40

53%

45

50%

48

58%

39

TABLE 60.Percentages of Nill scientists holding various views con-cerning "managemen't as the only path to salary advancement"

View

Percentage holding each view

Bench(N=30*)

Supervisors(N=51*)

Managers(N=50*)


Management is the only pathto salary advancement 33% 32% 32% 7%

Management is not the onlypath 47 58 44 86

Management most likely, butnot the only path 10 10 10

Don't know 10 14

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

*N=nuntber of individuals in sample

MOTIVATIONS

ence when a person moves from being a scientist orengineer to being a supervisor or manager." Althoughthe numbers involved are small, there were fivemotivations which the data suggest that the superiorsperceive differently from their subordinates, as regards difficulty of satisfaction. There were: risk-taking in making decisions, using technical knowledgeand skills, making direct attack on problems, con-tributing to the organization's goals, and exercisingauthority.

I. Risk-taking in making decisionsOf the 20superiors of NW supervisors, 11 said this would berelatively difficult, on moving into management: ofthe 20 subordinates, four said this would be relativelydifficult.

2. Using technical knowledge and skillsOf the 20superiors of managers in the NASA scientist group,14 of- the superiors said this would be relativelydifficult; only six of the subordinates said it would berelatively difficult. Of the 20 superiors of managers inthe NASA engineer group, 12 said this would berelatively difficult; only five of the subordinates saidit would be relatively difficult.

3. Making direct attack on problemsOf the 20NIH superiors of supervisors, I I said that this wouldbe relatively difficult in the transition; only five ofthe subordinates agreed.

4. Contributing to the organization's goalsOf the20 superiors of managers in the NASA scientistgroup, only two of the superiors said this would berelatively difficult in the transition; I I of therespondents said it would be relatively difficult.

5. Exercising authorityOf the 20 superiors ofmanagers in the NASA scientist group, only three ofthe superiors said this would be relatively difficult tosatisfy in the transition; II of the subordinates said itwould be difficult to satisfy.'

Systems of Rewards, for Specialists and Managers

Most of the respondents thought that the systemof rewards that operated for managers was quitedifferent from that which operated for scientists orengineers. The only exceptions to this were foundamong NASA engineer-supervisors and -managers. Inthese latte'r cases, most said that the two systems ofrewards were quite alike (tables 58 and 59).

The system of rewards which operated for ascientist or engineer was said to be:

Achievement of goals and objectives; suc-cessful job performance

Recognition among peers and colleagues

Awards and other acknowledgments of out-standing job performance

475-535 0 - 72 - 7

Satisfaction of solving problems: of meetinga challenge

Status; pride in position attained

Independence of action

Making contributions to the advancement ofscience: making new discoveries

Interchange of professional information atmeetings, through papers

Utilization of personal abilities; creative useof one's abilities

Financial advancement

The system of rewards said to operate formanager included:

Financial advancement (mentioned more fre-quently as a reward for managers than as areward for scientists or engineers)

Advancement or promotion in grade orposition

Satisfaction from directing others; increasedauthority

Enabling others to make a contribution

Wider scope and involvement in policy deci-sions

Status; pride in position attained

Achievement of goals and objectives; suc-cessful job performance

Both systems of rewards were said to containachievement satisfactions and status satisfactions. Thecontext was different, however. The system ofrewards for scientists and engineers is mainlyspecialty-oriented: the system for managers is pri-marily oriented toward scope of operation andexercise of authority. There also seemed to be moreemphasis upon financial reward in the system formanagers.

89

a

Management as the Only Pathto Financial Advancement

In NIH, about 30 percent of the respondentscurrently working at the bench,. and about the sameproportion among supervisors and managers, said thatif a scientist wanted to advance in salary, the onlypath open to him would be to go into management.Only seven percent of N1H senior managers said this.The largest proportions of each group of N1Hrespondents stated that this was not true. Approxi-mately 10 percent, however, gave the qualifiedresponse that although it was not the only path,management was the most likely one (table 60).


Among NASA supervisors and managers, one -halesaid that the only path to salary advancement wasthrough management. About 45 percent of managersin NASA said this. In contrast, only 23 percent ofsenior managers said that management was the onlypath to salary advancement (tables 61 and 62).Among the lower-job-level respondents there was nowidespread confidence that salary advancement couldbe attained without going into management.

Those who said that the only path to salaryadvancement was through management reacted un-favorably to this perceived circumstance. The view

was that skill in a scientific or engineering specialtyshould carry with it financial reward.

Circumstances of First Managerial Position

A variety of factors was cited when the respon-dents were asked. "Wh Lt factors or circumstancescaused you to enter your first managerial or super-visory position?" Many said that their promotionshad been offered or initiated by management. Otherssaid that they had possessed the necessary qualifica-tions. Still others said that the openings had beencreated by advancement of their immediate superiors.

TABLE 61.Percentages of NASA scientists holding various viewsconcerning "management as the only path to salary advancement"

View


Bench(N=35*)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N=50*)




Management most likely, butnot the only path I I 12 2 12

Don't know 6 2

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

TABLE 62Percentages of NASA engineers holding various viewsconcerning "management as the only path to salary advancement"

View


Bench(N=31*)

Supervisors(N=49*)

Managers(N=51*)




Management most likely, butnot the only path 10 8 7

Don't know 2

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%


MOTIVATIONS 91

Some said that openings had been created by theexpansion of programs. Among respondents workingas bench scientists or engineers, about 40 percent saidthat the acquisition of their own businesses mightcause them to enter management (tables 63through 65).

Thoughts on Approaching M:mmzement

Perceptions of the motivations and the system ofrewards associated with management can influencethe scientist or engineer, as he considers shifting intomanagement. The respondents were asked:

In the last position in which you worked, asa scientist I or engineer) , what were yourthoughts when you considered the possi-bility that you might go into a managerialposition?

Approximately 65 percent of all of the respon-dents gave answers which indicated they had reactedfavorably to the possibility of going into manage-ment; about 45 percent had reacted unfavorably.Some had reacted both favorably and unfavorably.There was no sharp variation, in this respect, byagency group (NIII, NASA scientists, NASA engi-neers),

Among the favorable reactions were:

Management involves broader or wider scopeof work in the organization.

Management brings a change of emphasisand a change of pace.

There was a desire to change roles.

Management gives an opportunity to initiateor influence policies, programs, methods.

TABLE 63.percentages of NM scientists citing various factors or circumstances ashaving caused initial entry into management (ten most frequent responses)

Factor or circumstance

Percentage reporting each factoror circumstance as entry cause(ten most frequent responses)

Bench*(N =30t)

Supervisors(N=491-)

Managers(N=50-1)

Seniormanagers(N?-30t)

Opening created by program expansion 7% 10% 270 3%

Acquisition of own business 40

Unplanned circumstance, availability attime opening was created 10 18 17

Promotion was offered or initiated bymanagement 3 26 22 27

Ability possessed necessaryqualifications of knowledge or aptitude 7 22 20 7

Personal ambition 17 6 3

Opportunity or desire for leadership duties,direction, policy-making, or exercise of power 17 4 8 3

Opportunity or desire for advancement inposition, level, or grade, or a larger potentialfoi advancement 10 14 3

Opportunity or desire for personalrelationships at a higher level 3 2 4

Opportunity or desire for more interesting,enjoyable work 3 4 18 17

*Bench respondents were asked, "What factors or circumstances might cause youto enter a managerial p ition?"

fll=number of individuals in sample

92 TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO :TANAGERS

TABLE 64.Percentages of NASA engineers citing various factors or circumstances ashaving caused initial entry into management (ten most frequent responses)


Percentage reporting each factoror circumstance as entry cause(ten most frequmt responses)

Bench*(N=31t)

Supervisors(11=49t)

Managers(111=-50T)

Seniormanagers(Is4=29t)

Opening created by program expansion 10% 26% 16% 31%

Acquisition of own business 52 4

Unplanned circumstance, availability attime opening was created 10 8 12 3

Promotion was offered or initiated bymanagement 33 26 38

Abilitypossessed necessaryqualifications of knowledge or aptitude I0 12 22 24

Personal ambition 19 6 10 3

Opportunity or desire for leadership duties,direction, policy-making, or exercise of power 3 10 7

Opportunity or desire for advancement inposition, level, or grade, or a larger potentialfor advancement 16 22 10

Opportunity or desire for personalrelationships at a higher level 19

Opportunity or desire for more interesting,enjoyable work 7 4 8 7

*Bench respondents were asked, "What factors or circumstances might cause youto enter a managerial position?"

tN=number of individuals in sample

It provides the possibility of fulfilling one'sown scientific goals through management.

This is an opportunity to discharge anobligation to science; to advance the causeof science.

The work (management) is challenging and atest of one's ability.

There would be self-development in terms ofacquiring new knowledge, expertise, experi-ence.

There would be financial advancement.

There would be greater prestige.

Included in the unfavorable reactions wzre;

Management involves the loss of opportunityto work in one's field of specialization.

MOTIVATIONS 93

It involves the loss of opportunity to dowork which is enjoyable and interesting.

One is concerned whether the change of rolewould produce satisfaction or happiness.

There is question whether going into man-agement would justify moving from anestablished, successful work area to a newone.Wonder (or doubt) that one has the neededaptitudes or abilities.

The possibility of going into managementcreatedreluctance and apprehension.

The favorable reactions may be characterized byperceptions of management as a broadening ofopportunity and influence, as a challenge. and as apersonal advancement. The themes is the unfavorable

TABLE 65.Percentages of NASA scientists citing various factors or circumstances ashaving caused initial entry into management (ten most frequent responses)


Percentage reporting each factoror circumstance as entry cause(ten most frequent responses)

Bench*(s4=351')

Supervisors(N=49t)

Managers(N=49t)

Seniormanagers(IN=331')

Opening created by primant expansion 9% 26% 10% 18n,

Acquisition of own business 34

Unplanned circumstance, availability attime opening was created 11 10 8 12

Promotion was offered or initiated bymanagement 14 39 26 46

Abilitypossessed necessaryqualifications of knowledge or aptitude I I 39 22 24

Personal ambition I I 8 2 3

Opportunity or desire for leadership duties,direction, policy-making, or exercise of power 9 16 12 9

Opportunity or desire for advancement inposition, level, or grade, or a larger potentialfar advancement 8 13 12

Opportunity or desire for personalrelationships at a higher level 29 4

Opportunity or desire for more interesting,enjoyable work 4 10 3

*Bench respondents were asked, "What factors or circumstances might cause youto entrr a managerial position?"

tN= nuwber of individuals in sample


reactions are reluctance to leave one's specialty, andanxiety as to one's competence to perform effectivelyin the managerial role.

Differences between the Roles ofSpecialist and Administrator

Motivational potential is revealed in the answers tothe question:

Thinking back over this entire interview,what would you now say are the majordifferences between the scientist's [or engi-neer's) and the administrator's roles?

The key differences cited can be summarized asfollows:

The role ofscientist or engineer

Originates projects; cre-ates; develops research;seeks knowledge.

Is self-oriented; utilizesown skills; evaluatesown work.

Has a narrower perspec-tive; works on limitedpr Dgrams.

Has limited responsibili-ties.

Is technically oriented;specialized.

Is objective; factual.

Is independent in ac-tions.

The role ofadministrator

Has broad perspective.

Has full responsibility.

Sustains projects; pro-vides organization help-ing scientist to achieve.

People oriented; respon-sible for and responsiveto people on every level.

Utilizes and integratesskills of others; moti-vates, regulates others.

Concerned with limita-tions of budgets.

Again we see the themes of specialization andIndependence associated with being a scientist orengineer, and a broad scope of operations andexercise of authority associated wits being a manager.

Primary Adjustments Made by aSpecialist in Transition

The respondents were asked, "What would you sayarc the primary adjustments that a scientist [orengineer] has to make to become a successfulmanager?" The most frequently given replies were:

Relinquish one's own research activity.

Participate in interpersonal relationships atall levels.

Accept loss of independence of action.

Learn to operate width, the organizationalrestraint.

Acquire organizational skills.

Accept success of the organization ratherthan own success.

Delegate authority.

Utilization of skills of others.

Accept responsibility for the organization.

Relinquish concern with detailed operation;adjust to broader scope of operation.

Adopt subjective approach.

Develop qualities of leadership.

Criteria which Superiors Use to Select Managers

For each respondent group of supervisors andmanagers, (NIII, NASA scientists, NASA engineers).20 superiors were asked what specific criteria theyused in selecting candidates for a supervisory ormanagerial position. The highest proportions (about80 percent) said they used the criterion of technicalqualifications or competence. Approximately 70 per-cent said they used the criterion of ability to interactwith others (congeniality, "personality", ability toinspire confidence). About 30 percent said they usedas criteria the supervisory abilities, and leadershilcapacity to motivate others. Smaller proportions saidtheir criteria included organizational ability; ability toplan, make decisions, solve problems. and communi-cate; and willingness to support organizational goalsand policies.

Most superiors gave several criteria. They wereasked to rank them in order of importance. Thecriterion most frequently given the first rank wastechnical qualifications or competence. No othercriterion approached this one in being ranked first.

Superiors did not place nearly as much stress onmotivational criteria as they did upon technicalcompetence.

The degree to which the superiors have some senseof the motivations of their subordinates is seen intheir answers to the question, "Why should anengineer or scientist such as enter man-agement?" The main reasons given were:

To advance in position

To work on a broader scope

To do more interesting work; technical workis too routine

To contribute to the organization's goals

For prestige and status

Fo: achievement and recognition

Tr) make more money

MOTIVATIONS 95/ipt

To have a greater degree of responsibilityManagement is the ultimate level of advance-ment possible for a technical person.

Chapter SummaryQuite different patterns of motivation are associ

:tied with science or engineering work rs. managerialwork. Of the set of motivations associated with beinga scientist or engineer (that is. "specialists' motiva-tions). two were consistently seen as relativelydifficult to satisfy in the transition to manage-mentnamely, being independent. and using one'stechnical knowledge and skills. As to the relativedifficulty of satisfying the other specialist motiva-tions, at transition, there was considerable differenceof opinion.

There still remains the point that if an individual ishighly involved with specialists' motivations, and ifthe motivations associated with working as a manager(that is, "managers motivations") have little meaningor appeal for him, the transition can be a problem forthat individual.

Bench scientists and engineers generally made thesame distinctions about the motivational patterns ofspecialists and managers as did those respondents whowere in management.

Superiors of supervisors and managers consistentlydiffered with their subordinates over the degree ofsatisfaction to be obtained in their subordinates' jobsas managers. Superiors may tend to underrate the roleof motivations in their subordinates' approach totheir work as managers. For three motivations (risk-taking in decisions, using technical knowledge andskills, and making direct attack on problems),superiors perceived greater difficulty in obtainingsatisfaction in transition than their subordinatesperceived. They saw two motivations (contributing tothe organization's goals. and being able to exerciseauthority) as significantly easier to satisfy than thesubordinates saw them. These differences may arisefrom the difference in hierarchical perspectives andexpectations. or they may reflect a lack of under-standing by the superior about the motivationalproblems facing the subordinate in transition.

IX. TRAINING NEEDS

The respondents were asked. "What kind of helpshould be provided to the scientist for engineer] whois moving into his first managerial position?" Themost frequently given replies centered upon threethemes.

The first was definition of the organization. interms of lines of authority and duties and responsi-bilities. This reflects the concern shown previouslywith learning how to operate within the organiza-tional system.

Fiedler and Nee ley. in a review of secondlevelmanagement for the U.S. Civil Service Commission.concluded that these were the principal areas withinwhich the manager must become skilled:23

The secondlevel manager must ... becomean expert in organizational procedure. Ilemust learn how to get what from whom, andhe must maintain the pipeline of his sub-organization to other components of theorganization. Ile must know the informal aswell as the formal channels, zu,d he mustlearn when it is safe and proper to useinformal rather than formal methods foraccomplishing his ends.

The second theme concerned the acquisition ofsupport from the individual's supervisor. This wouldinclude advice, counseling and evaluation of per-formance.

The third theme related to training in basicmanagement and management techniques. When spe-cific training needs were mentioned, those mostfrequently cited were training in personnel adminis-tration and training in organization and policy.Budgeting was also mentioned. Some of the respon-dents said there should be internships or periods ofobservation before the actual duties are assumed.

When the 20 superiors of each sub-sample ofsupervisors and managers were asked the same ques-tion, they most often said that the help needed was

97

support. counseling and advice by the individual'ssupervisor. They also frequently mentioned trainingin the fundamentals of management. managementtechniques, and definition of the organization's linesof authority and responsibility. Some of the superiorsadvocated internships or periods of observationbefore the individual assumed his managerial duties.

These findings are consistent with the results ofCrockett's study of NASA engineers at the MannedSpacecraft Center. In that study the engineersselected five areas of training as most needed:decision-making (particularly in the non-technicalcontext), planning and goal setting. human behaviorin organizations, principles of organization, and com-munications (oral and written)."

In a similar vein Leich and Oganovic reported theresults of a survey of 193 administrators of Federaltechnical programs (scientists and engineers), whowere asked, "What courses at graduate level wouldyou recommend be made available to prepare peopleof scientific backgrounds for more responsible posi-tions in science administration or management policyformulation?" Nearly three-fourths suggested titles(or disciplines) related to the organization and itsenvironment, or to management techniques.25

Concein for the Transition,as Shown by NIH and NASA

Respondents were asked nil; question:

flow does NII-1 [or NASA show that it isconcerned about the transition of scientists(or engineers) into managers?

As many as 46 percent of the respondents (thispercentage was observed among NIII supervisors)replied that their agency did not show it wasconcerned.

More generally, about 30 percent of all respondents said their agency did not show it was con-


cerned. The lowest proportion saying this (13 per-cent) was among NASA engineer-senior managers(table 66).

-The four categories of answers most frequentlygiven to this question were:

Provision of training programs. courses. etc.There is an ordered program of evaluation

to fill management positions.Does not show that it is concerned.Don't know,

Only the first category is positive. The second begsthe question. the third is definitely negative. and thefourth shows a lack of awareness or uncertainty(perhaps a reluctance to flatly say "no"). If one looksonly at the positive responses. at least half of theNASA engineers (all groups), NASA scientist super-visors. and NIH managers and senior managers saidtheir respective agencies did show concern.

However, the majority of the respondents did referto activities which may reflect the concern of theirrespective agencies for individuals making the transi-tion to management. The activities most frequentlymentioned were training programs. courses. andseminars. There were a few mentions of activitiessuch as counseling, internships or special supervisorytraining in work situations, and integration of techni-cal and management functions in one position.

When the sets of 20 superiors were asked the samequestion. the great majority cited training programs.courses and seminars. A few said that their agencieseither did not show concern or did not show enoughconcern for the individuals in transition to manage-ment.

Specific Tiaiaine Programs Mentioned

Tim respondents were asked:

What speeAfte training programs does youragency have t hat are designed to help sci-entists for engineers,' make the transition tomanagement?

Approximately 50 percent said there were trainingprograms having to do witn management problemsand techniques. Some respondents among NASAscientists and NASA engineers mentioned programg insupervision and leadership: very few at NIH men-tioned such programs. Several NASA respondents(scientists and engineers) mentioned self-developmentprograms taken at colleges or universities: again. fewat NIH mentioned such programs. In contrast, therewere numerous mentions at NIH of a Grants Associ-ates Program. Other specific programs mentioned. butonly by a few respondents in each case, wereBrookings, Harbridge Housementioned in NASAonlyand the Federal Executive Institutementioned

TABLE 66. Percentages of specialists holding various views concerning "how the agencyshows its concern about the transition of scientists and engineers to managers" (fourmost frequent responses)

Percentage reporting each view

View on questionNIH scientists NASA engineers NASA scientists

Bench(II=28*)

Spvrs.(Nr50*)

Mgrs.(N=50)

Sr.mgrs.(N=29)

Bench(N=31*)

Spvrs.(N=49)

Mgrs.(N=50)

Sr.mgrs.(N=30)

Bench(N=34*)

Spvrs.(N=49)

Mgrs.(N=49*)

Sr.mgrs.(N=33*)

There is an orderedevaluation programto fill managemenpositions 11% 18% 8% 34% 4% 18% 20% 9% 4% 36%

Provision of trainingprograms, courses.seminars, GrantsAssociate Program 14 8 54 55 52% 71 52 77 38 57% 39 46

Does not show thatit is concerned 39 46 18 24 36 24 32 13 38 26 37 21

Don't know 25 .1 0 18 3 6 4 3 9 6 16 3


TRAINING NEEDS 99

only by senior managers. This last-mentioned pro-gram is for grades GSI6 through GS18.

Most of the superiors of respondents, when askedthis question. cited training programs which dealtwith management problems and techniques.

The two programs most frequently mentionedwere the NASA course in supervision and the NIHGrants Associates Program. The NASA course wasdeveloped by Leadership Resources, Incorporated(LRI) under the guidance of NASA's central Person-nel Division and in cooperation with each fieldcenter. It is well received because it combines generalconcepts of supervision and management with thespecific problems and environment of NASA and thefield center where the course is given. This "tailoring"pays off in acceptance by scientists and engineers,who might. reject more traditional programs usingindustrial or other settings as a background. Thecourse includes considerable material on the organiza-tional environment, and organizational goals and

TABLE 67. Percentages of NM scientist-managersreporting participation: in training programsdesigned to assist in the transition to management

Response

Percentage giving each response

Supervisors ManagersSenior

managers(N=37*) (N=46*) (N=27*)

Have participated insuch programs 22% 59% 48%

Have not participated 78 41 52

Totals 100% 100% 100%

procedures.26 Field centers also deNelop their ownprograms of supervisory training to comply with theCivil Service Commission's requirement (November1968) of 80 hours of training for all supervisorypositions.27

The NIH also provides a course in supervision.with a heavy content of interpersonal relations andhuman behavior in organizations. This is relativelynew and was, therefore, unfamiliar to most of theNIH respondents. They tended to be more familiarwith the Grants Associates Program, which is ananalog to the Management Intern Program, but takingresearch scientists (mostly from universities) at levelsGS-12 to GS-14. It consists of a year-long series ofrotating work assignments throughout the organiza-tion, combined with more formal training coveringgeneral management, analytical management tools,science and public policy, administration and organi-zation within the Federal Government. Each associateis assigned to a "preceptor" who is responsible forproviding him general guidance and counsel.

Participatiorfin Training Programs

Among supervisors, only 22 I rcent at NIH saidthey had participated in training programs designedto help scientists make the transition to management.At NASA, however, 62 percent ci," scientist-super-visors and 76 percent of engineer-supervisors reportedparticipation in such programs (tables 67 and 68).

Among managers, 59 percent reported such par-ticipation at NIH, as did 52 percent of NASAscientist-managers, and 54 percent of NASA engineer-managers.

At NIH, 48 percent of the senior managersreported such participation, as did 59 percent ofNASA scientist-senior managers and 82 percent ofengineer-senior managers.

TABLE 68.Percentages of NASA specialist-manknrs reporting participation in trainingprograms designed to assist in the transition to management

Response

Percentage giving each response

NASA scientists NASA engineers

Supervisors(N=47)

Managers(N=44*)


Supervisors(N=45*)

Managers(N=46*)


Have participatedin such programs

Have not participated

62%

38

52%

48

59%

41

76%

24

54%

<6

82%

18

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



TABLE 69. Percentages of NM scientists citing various reasons for notattending training programs although aware of them (seven most frequentreasons)

Reasons for non-attendance

Percentage reporting each reason

Supervisors(N=26*)

Managers(N=17*)


No programs avnilable at the time oftransition 8% 35%

Not interested in the subject matterof those programs 15 15%

Not relevant to my level of management.too elementary, no value 23 12 38

No time, too busy, cannot fit intoschedule 27 18 31

No need, felt capable of makingtransition without such a program, too late 23 6 8

Ilad previous experience or training ofthis kind 4 29 8

Request was refused or not acknowledged

TABLE 70.Percentages of NASA scientists citing various reasons for notattending training programs although aware of them (seven most frequentreasons)



Supervisors(N=18*)

Managers(N=19*)


No programs available at the time oftransition 6% 5% 8%

Not interested in the subject matterof those programs 10

Not relevant to my level of management,too elementary, no value 11 16 23


No need, felt capable of makingtransition without such a program, too late 11 26 23

Ilad previous experience or training ofthis kind 6 21 8

Request was refused or not acknowledged 6 5 8


TRAINING NEEDS

One of the main reasons given for not havingparticipated in these particular programs was that theindividual had been "too busy" and tillable to fitthem into his schedule or workload. This reasontended to be given to higher proportions of NASAsupervisors and managers (both scientists and engi-neers) than by any of the other groups of respon-dents. Over 40 percent of those who had notparticipated said this among NASA supervisors andmanagers, 30 percent or less said this among the othergroupsNIH respondents and NASA senior managers(tables 69 through 71).

Another key reason given was that the individualshad felt no need for such training; they had feltcapable of making the transition without such aprogram. This was stated by 32 percent of NIHsupervisors who had not participated, 33 percent ofNASA engineer-supervisors, 26 percent of NASAscientist-managers, and 23 percent of NASA scientist-senior managers. Relatively low proportions of non-participant NIH managers and senior managers,NASA engineer-managers and NASA scientist-super-visors said they had felt no need for these programs.

Other reasons given by some respondents who hadnot participated in these programs were: they had notbeen interested in the subject matter of the programs,

101

no programs had been available at the time, or theprograms had not been relevant to their level ofmanagement. Some said they had not participatedbecause they had not been invited to attend. Each ofthese four seasons was given by relatively smallproportions of the respondents.

When those who had taken part in these particularprograms were asked, "What programs did youparticipate in?", most said these had been programsin management techniques and management prob-lems. There were some mentions of programs dealingwith skills such as speed reading, writing, systemsanalysis, and program evaluation review techniques.

The programs in management problems were saidto have covered a variety of topicsthe managementof scientific programs, direction of non-scientificprograms, Federal policy making, relationship ofpublic policy and science and relationships of govern-ment agencies. Included in programs in managementtechniques were: personnel management, programevaluation, budgeting and finance, general super-vision, contract supervision, and project planning.

The respondents who had participated in theprograms on management problems and techniques,designed to assist them in the transition, said thatthese programs had been most valuable.

TABLE 71.Percentages of NASA engineers citing various reasons for notattending training programs although aware of them (seven most frequentreasons)



Supervisors(N=9*)

Managers(N=20*)

Seniormanagers(s1=4*)

No programs available at the time oftransition I I% 10% 25%

Not interested in the subject matterof those programs

Not relevant to my level of management,too elementary, no value 10


No need, felt capable of makingtransition without such a program, too late 33 15

Had previous experience or training ofthis kind 20

Request was refused or not acknowledged 25 25


102

Chapter Summary

TRANSFORMATION 01. SC IrNIISTS AND ENGI:aots INTo NIANAGERS

One of the key needs of scientists and engineerswho are moving into managenient is to learn aboutthe organizational system within which they will haveto operate. This would seem to call for a system ofinternship or periods of observation designed tofacilitate such learning.

There is need, also, for activities on the part ofsupervisors to assist subordinate scientists and engi-neers in the process of transition.

Specific training is needed, our respondents said.mainly in personnel administration and budgeting.

The level of participation in training programsdesigned to assist in the transition seems particularlyin need of improvement among NII l supervisors.

X. MAKING MANAGERS OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS

Of the three dimensions involved in managementspecific functions to be performed. personal skillsneeded for performance of time functions, andmotivational-value patterns to be satisfiedit is thedimension of personal skills which has the greatestpotential for creating tension and stress, when anindividual moves from science or engineering intomanagement.

Motivational-value conflicts appear to representproblems for a minority of scientists and engineerswho make this transition. Least difficulty is experi-enced in the functions to be performed.

Management Functions

Scientists and engineers generally accept the viewthat management functions are necessary aspects ofadministration. This is especially true for the func-tions of reporting. supervising, planning and programassessment. The key indication that the managementfunctions are not a major source of stress in thetransition into management is evident in the extent towhich most of the respondents cited managementfunctions they "particularly liked" to perform andseldom gave functions they "particularly disliked".Another indication is the degree to which therespondents said the various functions were notparticularly difficult to perform.

Management functions evoke a positive reactionbecause they arc perceived as providing opportunitiesfor the individual to be an influence in the organiza-tion. The individual establishes goals and devisesmethods of attaining them; he uses his technicalknowledge on broad-scale problems; he has contactwith a broader range of people; he has a chance toassist other people in their development. I t is interest-ing to note that the respondents define the im-portance of the management functions in terms ofwhat they mean to the individual rather than in termsof their role in the administration of anorganization.

103

Performance of the management functions, per se.is not a completely new experience to the scientist orengineer who moves into management. The transitioninto management. however, brings about changes intwo aspects of the functions. On the one hand,performance of these tasks becomes more compre-hensivea greater number of them have to beperformed more frequently than was true when theindividual was working as a scientist or engineer. Thesecond change is the major one. The activitiesinvolved in the respective functions become muchbroader in scopebroader-based policies and pro-grams; longer-range perspectives; broader spectrum ofpersonal contacts within the organization. Theselatter aspects of the change in management functionshave positive appeal to the scientists and engineerswho make the transition.

When the management functions are perceivednegatively the reasons given are: one's work in hisspecialty is disrupted; the person questions whetherhe has the aptitude or training to perform the tasks;there is dislike of the interpersonal relations involvedin management; there is too great a demand for theindividual to make subjective judgments; there isgreater uncertainty as to the outcome of one'sdecisions and actions; political expediency is a factorin one's decisions; and management, in general,carries with it a greater degree of constraint andrestriction.

Personal Skills

There is primary indication that personal skills canbe a source of stress and tension: nearly all of therespondents identified specific skills which repre-sented sources of difficulty in the transition tomanagement. The specific skills most often cited aslikely sources of difficulty and the skills mentionedwith low frequency fall into two quite differentgroupings.


The personal skills cited by the highest proportionof respondents as likely sources of difficulty, in thetransition, primarily were related to coping with theorganizational environment. the particular skills men-tioned were:

Operating within the organizational systemOperating within the financial systemOperating within the personnel systemRecognizing and coping with

environmental factorsWorking with diverse peopleCoordinating group effortLeadership style.

This set of personal skills represents a patternbasically focused upon coping with the organizationalsystem and the people who compose it. In contrast,relatively few of the respondents said that thosepersonal skills essentially oriented toward task-centered issues were likely sources of difficulty in thetransition. Among the task-oriented personal skillsare: knowledge of fundamental technology, applica-tions of technology, decision-making, and problem-solving.

Apparently, when the scientist or engineer isworking at his specialty his attention is focused uponhis immediate tasks and the problems which developrelated to them. Ile is not forced, to any considerableextent, to be concerned with the various operationalaspects of the organizational system. When lie entersmanagement, lie discovers that new perspectives conicinto play. These new perspectives place great de-mands upon his ability to understand, cope with andmanipulate the organizational system. These demandsactivate new and different kinds of skillstypes ofskills for which the very situation of working as ascientist or engineer creates minimal demand.

Motivations and Systems of Rewards

Qaite different patterns of motivations were as-sociated by the respondents with "being a scientist orengineer" and with "being a manager". The scientistor engineer was characterized as enjoying new anddifferent activities, direct attack on problems. associa-tion with intellectually competent co-workers, andexercise of his technical knowledge and skills; andwanting independence and recognition. These wehave informally called "specialists' motivations". Incontrast, the manager was characterized as enjoyingleadership, detailed planning, helping one's col-leagues; association with congenial co-workers, andrisk-taking in making decisions; and wanting toexercise authority and to contribute to the organiza-tion's goals. These we have called "managers' motiva-tions". The need to achieve by overcoming difficult

obstacles was associated both with being a scientist orengineer and with being a manager. The pattern ofmotivations forming the context for this need toachieve differed, however, between the two types ofoccupation.

The systems of rewards were al_o said to hedifferent for scientists and engineers rs. managers.Among the rewards for scientists and engineers were:satisfactions derived from the successful completionof tasks. recognition by one's peers and :olleagues,independence of action, the sense of inaldng con-tributions, and the opportunity to make creative useof one's abilities. The system of rewards for managersconsisted of: satisfactions derived from directingothers, increased authority, pride in position attained,participating in a wide scope of activities, andinvolvement in policy decisions. Both systems ofreward were said to include financial advancement.This particular reward was mentionce, more fre-quently, however, as being a part of the sys..zin ofrewards of managers.

With such distinct patterns of motivation andreward systems for specialists and managers, onewould expect that, for most scientists and engineers,the transition into management would produce stressand tension arising from conflict and frustration. Thiswould be expected if the pattern of motivationsoperating for the scientist or engineer were deeplyestablished and the motivational pattern associatedwith being a manager had little appeal or evennegative appeal.

Such was not the case for the majority of therespondents, /ever. Approximately 65 percent ofthem said they had reacted favorably when con-sidering the possibility that they might go intomanagement. The motivation and reward systemsinvolved in management apparently had positiveappeal for these individuals.

A minority of scientists and engineers did say theyhad reacted unfavorably, to the idea of becomingmanagers. They saw this as involving loss of oppor-tunity to work at their specialties and to do interest-ing and enjoyable work. They also showed anxiety as

to whether they had the abilities needed to performas a manager. There was a more generalized concernas to whether the change in role would produce"satisfaction or happiness".

The data on motivation and reward systemssuggest that there may be three types of scientists andengineers, with respect to the transition to manage-ment:

Type IThese are scientists and engineerswho have essentially "managers' motiva-tions", although they are working at themoment in their specialties. The "specialists'

MAKING NIANAGERS ()I. SCI liNl ISIS AND FN(INERS I05

motivation" pattern has no deep involve-ment for them (though the pattern mt-st beoperative to some degree). One could expect

ie I scientists and engineers to be ratheractive in their efforts to move into manage-ment."ripe II. These are scientists and engineersquite involved with "specialists' motiva-tions" and somewhat reluctant to move intomanagement. Once the transition has beenmade, however, they discover that "man-agers' motivations" can have meaning forthem: satisfactions ate derived which hadnot been anticipated. (In the group inter-views, some of the respondents reported thisexperience. As one respondent said, he hadbeen reluctant to make the change but afterhe had worked as a manager, he "began tolove it.")Type IIIThese are scientists and engineersfor whom "managers' motivations" havedefinite negative appeal. If a Type III sci-entist or engineer should go into manage-ment (for financial advancement reasons, orbecause he was "drafted" into it), he wouldmost likely find the experience quite frus-trating because his basic motivations werenot being satisfied.

Approximately 65 percent of the respondents saidthey had looked favorably upon the prospect of goinginto management. when they were still working asscientists or engineers. Based tpon this finding, onecan hazard the guess that a majority of the scientistsand engineers in management at Nil I and NASA areof Type I, and that relatively small proportions are ofType II and Type III. These estimates have to betempered with the likelihood that the respondents inthis research, actually managers. probably reflect aself-selection process which has reduced the numberof Type III individuals going into management. Thosecandidates who reject the motivations associated withmanagement probably tend to avoid opportunities toenter management positions.

The preliminary interviews in this study revealedsome anecdotal evidence that each agency occasion-ally promotes a Type III scientist or engineer to arather senior supervisory position as a reward forexcellence in research. then "protects" him frommanagement tasks by assigning to him a managerially-oriented deputy or assistant. This phenomenonappears to be limited to research laboratories.

Bench Perceptions

The perceptions and opinions of the bench sci-entists and engineers (the pool from which future

475.535 0 - 72 - 8

Illanarzs will emerge) are important.Bench scientists and engineers anticipated that. in

management. the scope or breadth of the manage-ment functions (such as budgeting and reporting)would increase. They tended to perceive the manage-ment functions as being difficult to perform whenone works as a manager. On the other hand, benchscientists and engineers showed some sk,:pticisin as tothe real importance of the management functions.

With respect to the personal skills required inmanagement. the bench scientists and engineers said(as did the individuals actually in management) thatthe major areas of difficulty would be: coping withand manipulating the organizational system, workingwith diverse people and coordinating group efforts.

Finally, the `.each respondents held perceptionssimilar to those in management about specialists' rs.manager: motivational patterns.

One main difference was found beRveen theperceptions of bench personnel and the perceptionsof other respondents. This difference was in theextent to which bench personnel considered manage-ment functions not particularly important in themanager context.

Perceptions by Immediate Superiors

One key factor in easing the transition of scientistsand engineers into management has to l'4; the roleplayed by their immediate supervisors. Necessary tothis role is understanding. by superiors. of how theindividual perceives and reacts to the process oftransition.

Perceptions by the immediate superiors studied inthis research differed from their subordinates' percep-tions about: (I) those management functions dislikedand those found difficult to perform, and (2) theimportance of ability to cope with and manipulatethe organization.. system.

In addition, the superiors (3) tended to view"working with diverse people" and "leadership style"as sources of difficulty for their subordinates morefrequently than did the subordinates. The superiorsalso (4) saw problems in the subordinates' ability toearn the confidence of their superiors, to an extentnot reported by the subordinates (this may be due toa lack of insight on the part of the subordinates).

Finally, the immediate superiors (5) generallytended to give lower importance ratings to motiva-tional factors than did their subordinates. This mayreflect some lesser awareness of the importance ofmotivations to their subordinates. The immediatesuperiors of scientists and engineers who have becomesupervisors and managers need to be alert to thevariouz aspects of their subordinates' reactions totheir new roles.

106 1 RANSTORNIMION OI SCIFNTIS1S AND FNGINI:littS INTO MANA(..liliS

Implications of the Findings

The results of this research have generalimplica-tions for the selection and training of scientists andengineers to become managers. There are implica-tions. also, for later training programs designed tomake them more effective managers.

The most critical problem involved in selectingscientists and engineers to become managers lies it.the area of motivations. If "managers' motivations"are direct conflict with the motivations to whichan individual has become accustomed as a scientist orengineer, the transition will be a particularly difficultexperience. The data suggest that this might be aproblem for a minority of scientists and engineers.Even so. the selection process must attempt toidentify those for whom motivational frustrationsand conflicts wiil present a real problem. Ideally, thisidentification can be made at the time an individual isbeing assessed for a management position. Consider.able progress has been achieved in developing sytematic, more reliable means to assist in the selectionprocess. as distinguished from the transitionprocess.28

The key training need falls in the area of thepersonal skills required to perform the managerialrole. The specific problem area is rather sharpydefined. It is learning how to cope with and manipu-late the organizational environment (the general,financial and personnel systenis of the organizations;interaction with diverse people: coordination ofgroup effort: leadership style). If this is the primaryproblem area. what kind of training would be bestsuited to fill the need? A program based uponintellectualized and cognitive approaches (such aslectures and readings) will not be sufficient. Theexperiences needed are those which tend to exposethe individual directly to the organizational systemsinvolved. These can be provided by some type ofinternship program. Such pre -entry or internshipactivities can also let the scientist or engineer discoverthe extent to which he can obtain motivationalsatisfactions front the managerial role.

There is sonic need for training in specific aspectsof the management functions. even though inosi ofthe respondents said the functions presented nospecial difficult. This is particularly true for budget-ing. New developments related to the 1111010M+ (foreXalliple, systems analysis for program assessment)should be brought to the attention of managers.

This research included a review of programsfrequentl) used, in both industry and government, toease specialists' transition to management. The reviewrevealed few programs that adequately addressedspecialists' lack of ability to cope with the organiza-tional environment.2 9 Too frequently. knowledgeabout the organization and principal personalities isassumed and. therefore, not covered in supervisorytraining programs. There also is a tendency to usecase studies and laboratory materials which ate noteasily related to the work environment of the agency.Generally, industry does a much better job oforienting new employees (as well as potential man-agers) to the organization, its officers. policies,procedures. and ethos. Except for intern-type pro-grams. most Federal agencies limit their orientationof employees to a half-day or less, and a handful ofnondescript brochures.

There is a need for better understanding of theinformal structure and processes of the organization.Few formal training efforts are likely to fill this need.Ideally, such understanding comes through a combi-nation of experience, observation, and assistancefrom one's superior. As the study demonstrates. thislast appears to be a critically weak link. If an agency'sleaders are serious about helping scientists and engi.neers in the transition to managers, they must:

more strongly emphasize the responsibilityof supervisors for developing their subordi-nates;

provide incentives for greater concern on thepart of supervisors, in meeting these develop-ment needs; and

provide the means by which supervisors caneffectively exercise such concern.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. David Stanley. The Higher Civil Service, TheBrookings Institution. Washington. D.C.. 1964.

2. Lewis C. Mainzer. "The Scientist as Public Admin-istrator". The Western Political Quarterly, De-

cember 1963, pp. 814.829. (This article includesa graphic description or the differences betweenthe creed of the scientist and that of the publicadministrator.)

3. Bernard Barber and Walter Hirsch (editors), TheSociology of Science, Free Press, New York.1962; Bernice T. Eiduson. Scientists: TheirPsycbr,logical World, Basic Books, New York,1962; C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and ASecond Look, Mentor. New York, 1964; AnneRoe. The Making of A Scientist, Dodd. Mead.New York, 1953; and Norman W. Storer, TheSocial System of Science, Holt. Rinehart andWinston. New York. 1966.

4. A task under NASA contract NSR 09. 046.001.5. Peter F. Drucker. "Management and the Profes-

sional Employee", Harvard Business Review,May-June 1952, pp. 84.90; Norman Kaplan,"The Role of the Research Administrator",Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1959, p.22; Simon Marcson. "The Scientist in AmericanIndustry ", Some Organizational Determinants inManpower Utilization, Princeton University,1960; Charles D. Orth, et al., AdministeringResearch and Development, the Behavior ofScientists and Engineers in Organizations. Erwin-Dorsey, Homewood, Ill.. 1964; and H. Vollmer.Work Activities and Attitudes of Scientists andResearch Managers: Data from a National Sur-vey, Stanford Research Institute, May 1965.

6. Mainzer, op. cit., pp. 823.824.7. Robert E. Bailey and Barry T. Jensen, "The

Troublesome Transition from Scientist to Man-ager", Personnel, 42, 5 (September-October1965), pp. 49-55.

8. Ibid., pp. 50-51.9. Ibid.

107

10. John M. Crockett. The Research and Develop-ment Engineer as a Manager: An Analysis of theManagement Development Needs of Engineers atthe NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, NASAMSC-BM-MR-68.2, Manned Spacecraft Center.Ilouston, 1968.

11. Mel H. Bolster, A Study of the Scientist-Administrator at the National Institutes ofHealth, NIH, 1970 (mimeographed).

12. Ibid., p. 14.13. Harold H Leich and Nicholas J. Oganovic, Hu-

man Resources for Science Administration: CanQuality Be Enhanced?, U. S. Civil Service Com-mission. May 1969 (mimeographed).

14. Thomas S. Hodson, Preliminary Survey of Train-ing Programs to Assist Scientists and Engineersin the Process of Conversion to ManagementPositions, National Academy of Public Adminis-tration, July 1969 (mimeographed). (During thesummer of 1969 Mr. Hodson, an intern of theMead Corporation, undertook for the Academya summary survey of training programs used ingovernment agencies and industry to assist sci-entists and engineers in transition to manage-ment positions. Mr. Hodson contacted 31

heavily technology-oriented industrial corpora-tions and ten Federal agencies. All of thesecorporations and agencies were reputed either(I) to have particular interest in the problem, or(2) to be doing better than average in conductingtraining programs to deal with the problem. Thesurvey included companies such as Gulf Oil.Stauffer Chemical, Union Carbide, Monsanto.Upjohn, Olin Mathieson, Standard Oil of NewJersey, Bendix, Minnesota Mining and Manufac-turing, Humble Oil, United Airlines, AmericanTelephone and Telegraph, General Electric. andThompson-Ramo-Wooldridge. Some of the Fed-eral agencies included were the U. S. CivilService Commission, Department of Commerce,Department of the Navy, Atomic Energy Com-


mission. Department of the Air Force. Depart-ment of Agriculture. Department of the Army.NII I, and NASA.)

15. Floyd C. Mann. "Toward an Understanding ofLeadership Role in Formal Organization-. inMann. el al.. Leadership and Punk:airily.Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco.1965; L. F. Urwick. Pawn! of Management.University j! Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.1956: and Rensis Likert. New harems of Man-

agement. McGra.v-Ilill. New York 1961.16. Thomas A. Mahoney. Building the Execulire

Team, Prentice I tall. New York. 1961.17. Robert L. Katz. "Skills of an Eltixtive Adminis-

trator-. Harvard Business Renkw. January-February 1955, pp. 33-42.

18. II. A. Murray. et al.. Explorations in Personality.Oxford University Press. New York. 1938.

19. Quoted in David B. Hertz, The SuccessfulInnovators". The McKinsey Quarterly, McKinseyand Company. Inc. (management consultants).Washington, D. C., summer 1963. p. 3.

20. Bolster, op. cit., pp. J85-186. tables 7 and 8.21. Crockett, op. sit., p. 24, table V.22. Crockett mixed skills and functions, terming

them "management abilities". The above viewdeletes three of his categories as not beingcomparable to our skills-they were "personaltraits", "planning and establishing goals", and"scheduling workload".

23. Fred E. Fiedler and Stanley M. Necley, SecondLevel Management, A Reriew and Analysis.Office of Career Development, U. S. Civil ServiceCommission, March 1966.

24. Crockett, op. cit.. p. 41.25. Welt and Oganovic, op. cit., p. 51.26. Leadership Resources, Incorporated. Supervision

and Management in NASA, NASA -10 6/69,June 1969.

27. Federal Personnel Manual chapter 3335. pp.16-17. U. S. Civil Service Commission.

28. John P. Campbell, Marvin D. Dunnette, EdwardE. Lawler. III, and Karl E. 1Veick. Jr., ManagerialBehavior, Perfontuatce. and EffectivenessMcGraw-1 lilt, New York, 1970; and William C.Byham, "Assessment Centers for Spotting

Future Managers-. Harvard Business Review. 48.4 (July-August 1970). pp. 150.160.

(Campbell el al. give the most recent compre-hensive review of both selection and training formanagement candidates and managers. Theyconclude that there are four principal means. orcombinations thereof. used to assess a candidatefor a management position: personal interviews.performance evaluation. evaluation of experienceand seniority. and assessment centers.

The first is used most extensively and theauthors believe interviews generally to he heelreceive. serving to fill the needs of the inter-viewer more than serving as a reliable selectiondevice.

Both performance evaluation [i.e.. how wellthe candidate is doing on his present job] andassessing experience tend to be unsystematic.though some recent computer applications toorderly storage of experience. test scores andperformance evaluation are considered a stepforward.

Perhaps one of the most promising aids toselection is the assessment center, where basicsituations that must be faced in a managementsetting are presented to candidates and theirreactions observed. A panel of observers, trainedto evaluate candidate reaction, makes an aggre-gate assessment, identifying the candidate'sstrengths and weaknesses. The candidate, usuallyin the company of five or ten others. undertakesa series of tests and exercises [both group andindividual] designed to elicit key forms ofbehavior which serve as indications of managerialsuccess-e.g., leadership, delegation, control.motivation, organization, and operating tindertime stress. The assessment-center technique hasbeen used successfully and with some enthusi-asm by such organizations as the AmericanTelephone and Telegraph Company, GeneralElectric. J. C. Penny, International BusinessMachines. Standard Oil of Ohio. and the InternalRevenue Service. The general technique wasdeveloped for the selection of agents for theOffice of Strategic Services in World War II.)

29. Hodson, op. cit.

r'

"7

APPENDIX: PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

National Analysts, Inc.Philadelphia, Pa.

Respondent II:

Name of Respondent:

Agency: NASA

City:

Place Interviewed:

Telephone Number:

MAK!NG MANAGERS STUDY

Basic Questionnaire

Study 1-009

Fall, 1969

Time Interview Began: AM PM

Time Interview Ended: AM PM

N1H 2

Home

State: Zip:

Of Tice 2

Interviewer's Name: S.S.#

Date:

INTRODUCTION: I am from National Analysts, Inc. We are conducting

a study for the National Academy of Public Administration in Washington.

I believe you recently received a letter informing you about this inter-view. This study has to do with people who have a science or engineeringbackground and who have gone into management. It is being conducted in

several governmental agencies. You were selected in a random sampling of

your agency. All answers will be treated as confidential, and no partici-

pant will be identified.


I. First of all, is your professional field in the life sciences, the physical sciences,or in engineering?

(REFER TO RESPONDENT AS"SCIENTIST" THROUGHOUTINTERVIEW)

Life sciences 1

Physical sciences 2

(REFER TO RESPONDENT AS"ENGINEER" THROUGHOUT INTERVIEWAND SKIP TO Q. 2)

Engineering 3

la. (IF "LIFE SCIENCES," ASK): Which life science is that?

(IF "PHYSICAL SCIENCES," ASK): Which physical science is that?

I

2. What is your highest earned academic degree? (CIRCLE AS MANY AS GIVEN)

B.A., B.S. I

M.A., M.S. 2

Ph.D. 3

M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., O.D. 4

Other (SPECIFY):

5

None 0:

3. How many years and months, if any, have you spent in teachingor university? Do not include time spent as either a teachingwhile working toward your degree.

or researchor research

at a collegeassistant

None 0(YEARS) (MONTHS)

4. How many years and months, if any, have you spent workingfessional field in business, industry, or a non-profit corporation?any time in which your duties were primarily administrative

in your scientificDo not

or managerial.

or pro-include

(YEARS) (MONTHS)None 0

5. How many years and months have you worked in your scientificagencies? Do net include any time in which your duties were

field in governmentprimarily managerial.

(YEARS) (MONTHS)

None 0

- 1 -


6. How many years and months have you worked in primarilybusiness, industry, a non-profit corporation or university?

managerial positions in

None

_0(YEARS) (MONTHS)

7. How many years and months have you worked in primarilygovernment agencies?

managerial positions in

None 0(YEARS) (MONTHS)

8. What is the largest number of employees that you havefor supervising?

LARGEST NUMBER SUPERVISED:

ever had direct responsibility

None 0

9. What is your estimate of the number of professional papershave authored or co-authored?

NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS:

or publications that you

None 0

:O. Speaking only in terms of your work as a scientist/engineer,job you held before entering a managerial position?

what was the last such

I

(SKIP TO Q. 12) None 0

II. Was this job in government, in business or industry,

with a non-profit organization?

at a college or university, or

Government I

Business or industry 2

College or university 3

Non-profit organization 4

12. What was your first managerial position in government? (PROBE FOR TITLE AND DUTIES)

[

- 2 -

-7

112 TRANSFORNIATION or SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO NIANAGERS

13. What was the grade level of your first government managerial position?

GRADE:

14. What is your present position? (PROBE FOR TITLE AND DUTIES)

15. What is your grade level?

GRADE:

16. How many years and months have you worked in NIH (NACA-NASA)?

(YEARS) (MONTHS)

17. What was your age when you first went into a position having management responsibilitywhether that position was in government or elsewhere?

YEARS OF AGE:

18. After first entering management, did you ever occupy a non-managerial, solelyscientific/engineering position?

Yes I

No 2

18a. Why is that?

- - -

3


19. What, if any, offices have you held in activities outside of your work during thepast five years? For example, professional societies, church, community, social orsport activities. (PROBE: Any others?)

No offices 0

20. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD I; DO NOT TAKE BACK UNTIL AFTER Q. 49.)Here is a list of functions that are commonly found in managerial jobs, along withsome examples of the finds of activities within these functions. Take a moment tonote each one, because the next questions have to do with these particular functions.

First, I'd like you to take the perspective you had as a scientist/engineer in thepurely professional sense, prior to entering management. Within that perspective,would you say that you actually performed Budgeting_ "frequently," "occasionally,"or "not at all"? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE BELOW)

How about Reporting?---"frequently," "occasionally," or "not at all"? (REPEAT FOREACH FUNCTION, CIRCLING APPROPRIATE CODES BELOW)

Frequently Odcasionally Not At All

a. Budgeting 2 3

b. Reporting 1 2 3

c. Staffing 2 3

d. Supervising 1 2 3

e. Planning 1 2 3

f. Policy-Making 1 2 3

g. Representing the Organization 1 2 3

h. Consulting 2 3

i. Program Assessment 1 2 3

j. "Fire-Fighting" 1 2 3

113


21. Still thinking in termsdid you especially like

of your work as a scientist/engineer, which of these functionsto perform? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1 BELOW) (PROBE: Any others

ASK): Why did you especially like to do (NAME OF

you especially

22. (FOR EACH FUNCTION

FUNCTION) ?

liked?)

GIVEN,(ENTER IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. I Col. 2.

Function Reason Liked

None especially11 ked

0

.----

23. Which of theseBELOW) (PROBE:

24. (FOR EACH FUNCTIONFUNCTION) 1

functionsAny

(ENTER

did you especially .dislike to perform? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1

others you especial ly disliked ?)

GIVEN, ASK): Why did you especially dislike to do (NAME OFIN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. I Col. 2

Function Reason Disliked

None especiallydisliked 0

5


25. When you were workingyou find especially

26. (FOR EACH FUNCTION(ENTER IN COLUMN 2

strictly as a scientist/engineer, which of these functionsdifficult to do? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1 BELOW) (PROBE: Any others?)

did

GIVEN, ASK): Why was (NAME OF FUNCTION) especially difficult?BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2

Function Reason Difficult

None especiallydifficult 0

Tt

27. Which of these functions did you find particularly time-consuming? (PROBE: Anyothers you found particularly time-consuming?)

None particularly time-consuming 0

6

115


28. Which of these functionsas a scientist/engineer?

particularly important?)

29. (FOR EACH FUNCTION GIVEN,(ENTER IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

did you find to be particularly important in doing your workfound

important?

(ENTER IN COLUMN 1 BELOW) (PROBE: Any others you

ASK): Why was (NAME OF FUNCTION) particularly

Col. 1 Col. 2

Function Reason Important

None particularlyimportant

0

30. Now,

engineerWithin"frequently,"

(REPEAT

or "not

let's shift your perspective from that ofto where you are now--a scientist/engineer

this context of supervision or management,"occasionally," or not at all"?

FOR EACH FUNCTION BELOW): How aboutat all"? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODES BELOW)

your work purely as a scientist/with management responsibility.

do you actually(CIRCLE APPROPRIATE

Reporting?--"frequently,"

performCODE BELOW)

"occasionally,"

Budgeting

Frequently Occasionally Not At All

a. Budgeting I 2 3

b. Reporting I 2 3

c. Staffing I 2 3

d. supervising i 2 3

e: Planning I 2 3

f. Policy-Making I 2 3

. Representing the Organization I 2 3

h. Consulting 1 2 3

'. Program Assessment 1 2 3

j. "Fire-fighting" 1 2 3

7


31. In term of your work as a manager, which of these functions do you especially liketo perform? (ENTER IN COLUMN I BELOW) (PROSE: Any others?)

117

32. (FOR EACH FUNCTION GIVEN, ASK): Why do you especially like to do (NAME OF FUNCTION) ?I(ENTER IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. I Col. 2

Function Reason Liked

None especiallyliked

L

L33. Which of these

BELOW) (PROBE:

34. (FOR EACH FUNCTIONFUNCTION) ? (ENTER

functionsAny

do you especially dislike to perform? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1

others you especially dislike?)

GIVEN, ASK): Why do you especially dislike to do (NAME OFIN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2

Function Reason Disliked

None especiallydisliked

0

I

- R -

118 TRANSFORMATION 01' SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

35. Whicn of these functions do you find to be especially difficult to perform, now thatyou are working in a management position? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1 BELOW) (PROBE: Anyothers?)

36. (FOR EACH FUNCTION GIVEN, ASK): Why is (NAME OF FUNCTION) especially difficult?(ENTER IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. I Col. 2

Function Reason Difficult

tNone especiallydifficult

37. Which of these functions do you find particularlyothers?)

time-consuming? (PROBE: Any

None particularly time-consuming 0

9

APPENDIX: PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE 119

38. Wnich of these functions do you find to be particularly important in doing your workas a supervisor or manager? (ENTER IN COLUMN 4 BELOW) (PROBE: Any others?)

39 (FOR EACH FUNCTION GIVEN, ASK): Why is (NAME OF FUNCTION) particularly important?(ENTER IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2

Function Reason Important

I

I

:None particularlyi important() '

I

I

In the next stt of Questions I want you to focus upon any changes that you have perceivedin the nature of these functions when performed by a scientist/engineer in a purely pro-fessie-al context and when they are performed in what is essentially a managerial context.

1 40. How is budgeting different in a management position from what it is in the strictly

ORscientific/engineering role? (IF UNCLEAR WHETHER RESPONSE REFERS TO MANAGEMENTSTRICTLY SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW. PROBE.)

- 10 -


41. How is reoorting different in a management position? (PROBE)

42. How is staffing different? (PROBE)

43. How is supervising different? (PROBE)

44. How is planning different? (PROBE)


45. How is establishing policies and procedures different in a management position?(PROBE)

46. How is representing the organization different? (PROBE)

47. How is consulting different? (PROBE)

1

48. How is program assessment and evaluation different? (PROBE)

49. How is "fire-fighting" different? (PROBE)

i (TAKE BACK CARD I)

12 -

0 - 72 - 9

121

122TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS INTO MANAGERS

O. (HAND RESPDNDENT CARD 2; DO NOT TAKE BACK UNTIL AFTER Q. 53.)We have been talking aeouc specific functions that a person has to perform, to somedegree, whether working as a scientist/engineer, or as a manager. This card containsdescriptions of the skills that a person may need to perform the various functions wehave just been talking about. Take a moment to note each one of these.

Let's talk first in terms of the perspective you had as a scientist/engineer in thepurely professional sense, prior to entering management. We want you to rate.howimportant each one of these is in a person performing your professional specialty.Use tne scale from "I" to "9" on the bottom of the card--"1" means that a givenskill was not particularly important; "9" means that a given skill was of criticalimportance. Select a number that tells how important each skill is in a personperforming your professional specialty. (READ LIST DF SKILLS AND ENTER RATINGS INCOLUMN 1 BELOW)

51. Still using this "1" through "9" scale, I'd like you to change your perspective fromthat of the scientist/engineer to that of the manager. You gave Fundamental Technologya rating of (RATING Ili COLUMN 1) for a scientist/engineer in a non-managerialposition; how important is Fundamental Technology in performing as a manager? (ENTERRATING IN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

(REPEAT FOR EACH SKILL BELOW): You gave (NAME OF SKILL) a rating of (RATING INCOLUMN 1) for a scientist/engineer; how about for a manager? (ENTER RATINGS INCOLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. 1

Q. 50

RATING

Col. 2

Q. 51

RATING. Fundamental technology

. Application of techniques

. Knowledge in related areas

. Operating within organizational syster.

. Operating within financial system

. Operating with personnel system

. Recognizing, coping with environmental factors

. Communication of ideas

i. Working with diverse people

j. Coordinating, etc., group effort

. Leadership style

. Generation of confidence of superior

. Integrative ability

. Problem-solving

. Decision-making

p. Creative thinking


52. Which of these skillsengineer who moves

53. (FOR EACH SKILL GIVEN,difficulty? (ENTER

are most likely to be a source of difficulty for a scientist/into management? (ENTER IN COLUMN 1 BELOW) (PROBE: Any others?)

ASK): Why is (NAME OF SKILL) likely to be a source ofIN COLUMN 2 BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2

Skill Reason Difficulty

None a source ofdifficulty

0

r

(TAKE BACK CARD 2)

- 14-


54. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 3; DO NOT TAKE BACK UNTIL AFTER Q. 58)This is a list of psychological rewards that may or may not be involved in how muchsatisfaction a person obtains from his work. Take a moment to note each one of these.

Let's take the perspective of a person engaged primarily in scientific/engineeringactivities. How much satisfaction does a scientist/engineer normally get fromLeadership while working as a scientist/engineer? Use the scale on the bottom of thecard, from "1" meaning low satisfaction to "9" meaning high satisfaction. (ENTERRATING IN COLUMN I BELOW)

How much satisfaction does a scientist/engineer normally get from Detailed Planningwhile working as a scientist/engineer? (ENTER RATING IN COLUMN 1 BELOW)

(REPEAT FOR EACH REWARD BELOW): From (NAME OF REWARD) ? (ENTER RATINGS IN COLUMN 1

BELOW)

55. Now, let's move to the perspective of a person in a management job.

(REPEAT FOR EACH REWARD BELOW): You gave (NAME OF REWARD) a rating of (RATING INCOLUMN 1) for a scientist/engineer. How would you rate the degree of satisfactionwhich a manager normally gets from (NAME OF REWARD) ? (ENTER RATINGS IN COLUMN 2BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2

Q. 54 Q. 55

RATING

a. Leadership

RATING

b. Detailed planning

c. Doing new, different things

d. Direct attack on problems

e. Contributing to organization's goals

f. Achieving

g. Help to one's colleagues

h. Being independent

i. Seeking support of others

j. Being recognized

k. Being able to exercise authority

1. Risk-taking in decisions

m. Associating with very congenial co-workers

n. Associating with intellectually competent co-workers

o. Using technical knowledge, skills

- 15 -


56. After a person who has been primarily a scientist/engineer moves into supervision ormanagement, he might find that each one of these rewards is relatively difficult tosatisfy, relatively easy to satisfy, or that there is no difference in this respect.

Let's take up each of these rewards. In each one do you think it would be relativelydifficult to satisfy, relatively easy to satisfy, or make no difference when a personmoves from being a scientist/engineer to being a supervisor or manager?

(REPEAT FOR EACH REWARD BELOW): How about (NAME OF REWARD) ?--"relatively difficult,"

"relatively easy," or "no difference"? (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODES BELOW)

RelativelyDifficult

RelativelyEasy

NoDifference

a. Leadership I 2 3

b. Dqtailed planning 1 2 3

c. Doing new, different things I 2 3

d. Direct attack on problems I 2 3

e. Contributing to organization's goals I 2 3

f. Achieving I 2 3

g. Help to one's colleagues I 2 3

h. Being independent I 2 3

i. Seeking support of others I 2 3

j. Being recognized I 2 3

k. Being able to exercise authority I 2 3

1. Risk-taking in decisions I 2 3

m. Associating with very congenialco-workers

1 2 3

n. Associating with intellectuallycompetent co-workers

I 2 3

o. Using technical knowledge, skills 1 2 3

125


57.

58.

Now, let's go over this list of rewards in termsa person who is a scientist/engineer. You may selectbest describe a scientist/engineer? (CIRCLE AS

Now tell me which ones you think best describe amany as you wish. (CIRCLE AS MANY AS GIVEN IN COLUMN

of those thatas many as

MANY AS GIVEN IN

manager. Again,

you thinkyou

COLUMN

you

best describewish. Which ones

1 BELOW)

may select as2 BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2'

Q. 57 Q. 58

Best Describe AScientist/Engineer

Best DescribeA Manager

a. Leadership1 2

b. Detailed planning1 2

c. Doing new, different thingsI 2

d. Direct attack on problemsI 2

e. Contributing to organization's goals 1 2

t. Achieving1 2

g. Help to one's colleagues1 2

h. Being independent1 2

i. Seeking support of others1 2

j. Being recognized1 2

k. Being able to exercise authority1 2

1. Risk-taking in decisions1 2

m. Associating with very congenial co-workers1 2

n. Associating with intellectually competentco-workers 1 2

o. Using technical knowledge, skillsI 2

(TAKE BACK CARD 3)

59. How is taking chances, or risk-taking different for a manager thanscientist? (BE SURE IT IS CLEAR WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS DESCRIBINGA SCIENTIST)

it is for aA MANAGER OR

No difference 0

- 17 -


6o. What percentage of your time would you estimate is spent in managementat your current position? Is it 100%, 50% or more, 25-50%, or

or supervisionis it less than 25%?

100%

50% or more 2

25-50% 3

Less than 25%

61. In the last position in which you worked as a scientist/engineer, what werethoughts when you considered the possibility that you might go into a managerialposition? (PROBE: Anything else?)

your

62. What factors or circumstances caused you to enter your first managerial or super-visory position? (PROBE: Any, others?)

63. If a scientist/engineer wants to advance in salary in NIH/NASA, is the onlyopen to him to go into management?

path

Yes I

No 2

6'4. What is your reaction to this? (PROBE: Anything else?)

- 18 -

6 ,


65. How, if at all, does NIH/NASA show that it is concerned about the transition ofscientists/engineers into managers? (PROBE: Anything else?)

Does not show that it is concerned

66. What specific training programs, if any, does your agency have that are designedhelp scientists/engineers make the transition to management? (PROBE: Any others?)

to

(SKIP TO Q. 72) None 0

67. Have you participated in any such training programs?

Yes I

(SKIP TO Q. 71) No 2

68. (IF "YES" TO Q. 67, ASK): What programs did you participate in? (ENTER IN COLUMN I

BELOW)

69. (FOR EACH PROGRAM, ASK): What did (NAME OF PROGRAM) cover? (ENTER IN COLUMN 2BELOW)

70. (IF RESPONDENT LISTED MORE THAN ONE PROGRAM IN Q. 68, ASK): Which one of theseprograms did you find most valuable? (CIRCLE CODE IN COLUMN 3 BELOW)

Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3

Program Program Covered: Most Valuable

I

2

3

it

- 19 -


71. (IF PROGRAMS ARE MENTIONED IN Q. 66, BUT THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PARTICIPATED--"NO" TOQ. 67, ASK): How does it happen that you have not participated in this/theseprogram(s)? (PROBE: Any other reasons?)

72. Do you believe that the system of rewards that operates for a manager is quite dif-ferent from or quite like the system of rewards that operates for a scientist/engineer?

Quite different I

Quite alike 2

73. Why do you say that?

(IF "QUITE ALIKE" TO Q. 72, SKIP TO Q. 76)(IF "QUITE DIFFERENT" TO Q. 72, CONTINUE)

74. What is the system of rewards that operates for a manager?

_175. What is the system of rewards that operates for a scientist/engineer?

- 20 -

129


76. Thinking back over this entire interview, what would you now say are the major dif-ferences between the scientist's/engineer's and the administrator's roles? (PROBE:Any other major differences?)

$-

77. What would you say arc the primary adjustments that a scientist/engineer has to maketo become a successful manager? (PROBE: Any other primary adjustments?)

78. ..Y-Izt kind or help should be provided to the scientist/engineer who is moving into hisfirs; managerial position? (PROBE: Anything else?)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

It is clearly understood by the undersigned that this interview is being paid for by theUnited States Government. I swear that I have conducted the entire interview with therespondent whose name appears on this questionnaire at the address shown according to theinstructions of National Analysts, Inc. l have sigted my name hereto knowing that in theevent this statement is false, my payment will be withheld and

I will be responsible toreimburse National Analysts, Inc. for all costs involved, as well as being subjected toany legal action deemed necessary by the company af,,resaid.

SIGNATURE:

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAILU.S. Li

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDNATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANL,

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

I( Undeliverable (Section OSPOSTMASTER:Postal Manual) Do Noe Return

`The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall' beconducted so as to contribute . . . to the expansion of human knowl-edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administrationshall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate disseminationof inforMation concerning its activities and the results thereof."

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific andtechnical information considered important,complete, and a lasting contribution'to existingknowledge.

TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broadin scope but nevertheless of importance as acontribution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS:Information receiving limited distributionbecause of, preliminary data, security classifica-tion, or other reasons.

CONTRACTOR,REPORTS: Scientific andtechnical information-generated under a NASAcontract or grant and considered an importantcontribution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Informationpublished in a foreignlanguage consideredto merit NASA distribution in English.

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Informationderived from or of value to'NASA activities.Publications include conference proceedings,

-monographs, data compilations, handbooks,sourcebooks, and speciaL bibliographies.

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATIONPUBLICATIONS: Information on technologyused by NASA That may be of-particularinterest in commercial arid other,non-aerospaceapplications. Publications include TecbBriefs,Technology Utilization RePoris and

Technology Surveys.

Details °tithe availability' of thesei publicatiOns*iy

SCIENTIFIC ANb tECNNICAL -INFORM A

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS /8",10-SPO,Washington, D.C. 20546

be obtalned"frpm:

TiON: OFFICE.

ADMINISTRATION