Throughout history, the man who showed superior performance has become the commander of others -- for good or bad.
Since the Industrial Revolution, when factories emerged, this classical pattern has been followed.
Until recently.

There have always been tales of disillusionment -- the competent technician who became an administrator, willingly or not, and found he didn't like it;
the scientist who rebelled against the personnel and paper work;
and much more commonly in recent years, the engineer who found that other duties interfered with -- or eliminated -- his engineering contributions.
There have been many extremely competent men who have been converted into very incompetent managers or submerged in paper work, to their own and the public's dissatisfaction and loss.

This has been more evident since our products have incorporated astronomically increased technology.
The remedies have been many and varied -- attempts to teach management techniques -- either in plant, at special schools, or in university "crash" courses -- provision of management-trained assistants or associates.
But the realization has been growing that these are not the complete answer.
Some men have no talent for or interest in management;
forcing them into management can only create trouble.
The old shop adage still holds: "A good mechanic is usually a bad boss".

Yet our economy clings inexorably to recognition of managerial status as the gage of success.
Labor fights to change its collar from blue to white.
All grades of management seek more resounding titles and incomes because of social pressures.
As several recent books have over-emphasized, we have become the most status-conscious nation in the world.

What can be done for the "individual contributor" who is extremely important -- and likely to be more so -- in the operation of the technically oriented company?
He is usually conscious of the social pressures at home and outside;
usually concerned about America's belief that attainment and success are measured in dollars and titles.
Yet titles are traditionally given only to management men, and income tends to rise with title.

Even the college professor in America has been affected.
It is, as one engineer says, "indeed a difficult thing for the engineer to accept that he can go as far on his technical merit as he could employing managerial skills.
This difficulty arises even though we can give examples of men who have actually followed this course.
This leads one to conclude, as you have, that there is inevitably more prestige in a management position in the minds of our people".

Nobody should be more able to answer the questions on this score than engineering vice-presidents and chief engineers.
So we asked such men in major companies in the design field to offer their opinions on the "dual-road-up" problem -- and more importantly -- their solutions.
In the paragraphs that follow, we quote from 32 men who are identified on the final page.

First: what title, what setup?

Among the more familiar plans for dual-channel advancement is that of General Electric.
This is not a mutually exclusive plan;
there is no one point in a man's career at which he must select either the technical or the managerial path upward.
Further, the management path does not open the door to higher opportunities than are offered by the more technical path.
It is common to shift back and forth, working up through a number of supervisory and individual-contributor positions.

Actually, there are a number of individual-contributor positions in both operating departments and in the company-wide "services" operation that are filled by men with successful managerial experience who are currently broadening their capabilities.

Also, moving into a managerial position does not necessarily end a man's recognition as a technical expert.
As examples at GE: Glen B. Warren, formerly manager of the Turbine Division, widely recognized as a turbine designer.
The late W. R. G. Baker, a pioneer in television design and long-time vp & gm of the Electronics Division, and later, by his own choice, an individual consultant.
Harold E. Strang, expert in switchgear design, for a long period vp & gm of the Measurements & Industrial Products Division, and who currently, approaching retirement, is vice-president and consulting engineer in the Switchgear & Control Division.

In the GE plan, a number of individual contributors have positions and compensation higher than those of many managers.
These positions carry such titles as:

Consultant, Advanced Development

Consulting Engineer,

Consulting Engineer, Heat Transfer

Consulting Electrical Engineer,

Senior Electrical Engineer,

Senior Physicist.

Westinghouse has a similar system, with two classifications representing various levels of competence on the strictly technical side: consulting engineer or scientist, as the case may be, and advisory engineer or scientist.
Many companies have systems, particularly in R & D, which work more or less well, depending upon size and actual belief in the policy on the part of administration, as will be abundantly apparent in subsequent quotations.

Another factor that may hold hope is for parallel recognition is, as one man says it: "that the fad for educating top people along managerial lines is yielding to the technically trained approach".
Senior staff engineer?

One company instituted, early in 1959, a vertical classification system consisting of four levels.
There is no formal equivalence to the supervisory ranks;
the top non-supervisory level, senior staff engineer, enjoys status and pay ranging up to that for the second level of engineering supervision.
The second level, senior engineer, rates slightly below first-level supervision.
The expectation is that first-level supervisors will be selected in approximately equal numbers from the second and third engineering level, with very few coming from the first level.

The company expects to extend upward both compensation and status for non-supervisory engineers, but probably not into executive levels.
In this organization, about half of the engineers with 15 or more years of employment are in supervision, engineering or elsewhere.
This reflects the very heavy engineering content of the products -- which are not military.
Several other examples: central and satellite

"We have over 20 divisions -- each of which has an engineering department headed by a chief engineer.
We have set up a central R & D department, as well as engineering-management departments -- about 80 people working on problems related to those of our plants.
A separate research department is, of course, confined to new or future designs.
Part of this headquarters staff, however, are engineering managers who work between divisional chief engineers and headquarters management.
These headquarters engineers, headed by the vice-president -- Engineering, counsel and advise divisional managers and chief engineers on product problems as well as aid with design;
and many are engineers who have been advanced from the divisions.
These men are considered managers of engineers.
They must learn to wear several hats, so to speak, working with management, sales and engineering problems related to the product.

"We do not have people in our organization termed 'consultants' or 'fellows', who are specialists in one particular technical subject.
I suppose it is because we are just not big enough.
We have a few 'consultants' -- retired engineers retained and called in on certain problems.
The only 'fellows' in our company are those who have been honored by ASME, AIEE or AIChE.
I am sure that the engineer who enters management is nearly always opening the door to greater possibilities than he would have as a technical specialist -- because of his wider accountability".
Another structure

"We have tried to make both paths attractive, so that good men could find opportunity and satisfaction in either.
One way to formalize this is in the job structure.
We have these positions, which compare directly: Af

"Above these jobs we have chief engineer for the company and vice-president of Engrg, R & Aj.
The latter jobs include major management responsibilities and have been filled by those who have come up primarily through the engineering-management side.
We have not yet succeeded in establishing recognition of technical specialization comparable to our higher levels of management, but I believe we will trend in this direction but not to exceed vice-president".
Top job: research scientist

"Approximately four years ago, we initiated a dual ladder of advancement for technical persons.
The highest position is known as a 'research scientist'.
This approach has not been entirely satisfactory.
The primary deterrent appears to lie with the technical people themselves, and their concept of what constitutes status in present-day society.
Scientists who agitate hardest for technical recognition are often the most reluctant to accept it.
We have discovered that the outward trappings such as private offices and private secretaries are extremely important;
and although we have attempted to provide these status symbols, support of the 'dual-ladder' plan has been half-hearted despite the creation of a salary potential for a research scientist commensurate with that of men in top managerial positions.

"A serious problem accompanying the technical-ladder approach is the difficulty of clearly defining responsibilities and standards of performance for each level.
With no set standards, there is the tendency to promote to the next highest level when the top of a salary band is reached regardless of performance.
Promotion is too often based on longevity and time in salary grade instead of merit.
If no specific organization plan exists limiting the number of scientists at each salary level, the result is a department top-heavy with high-level, high-salaried personnel".
Staff engineer dept. manager

"We have two approaches for the technical man: the position of staff engineer, which is rated as high in salary as department manager;
and an administrative organization to take the routine load away from department managers and project engineers as much as possible, thus allowing them more time for strictly technical work.
These are only halfway measures, and the answer will come when some way is found to allow the technical man in industry to progress without limit in salary and prestige".
A complete plan

"We have made limited application of the 'parallel ladder' plan.
The highest rated non-supervisory engineering title is 'research engineer'.
The salary schedule permits remuneration greater than the average paid to the first level of engineering supervision (engineering section head).
We also have an 'engineering section head -- research engineer' classification which has salary possibilities equivalent to that of a research engineer.
Above this point there is no generally used parallel ladder.

"We also do a number of things to build up the prestige of the engineer as a 'professional' and also to give public recognition to individual technical competence.
These include encouragement of, and assistance to, the engineer in preparation and publication of technical papers.
We have two media for publicizing individual technical activity, a magazine widely distributed both within and without the company, and an information bulletin for engineering personnel distributed to the homes of all engineers.
Publicity is given to the award of patents to our engineers and financial support is provided for individual membership in technical societies.

"A recent, and more pertinent action, has been the establishment of a technical staff reporting to the vice-president for Engineering.
This function is staffed by engineers chosen for their technical competence and who have the title, member of the technical staff.
Salaries compare favorably with those paid to the first two or three levels of management.
Additional symbols of status are granted, such as reserved parking, distinctive badge passes authorizing special privileges, and a difference in the treatment of financial progress through merit.

"We presently are involved in inaugurating a new development center.
Operations of this nature offer the best opportunity to recognize scientific status.
All scientific staff members will have the title, 'research-staff member'.
The salary level of an individual within the group will reflect the scientific community's acceptance of him as an authority in his scientific field.
Contrary to usual organization-position evaluations, the position to which research-staff members report administratively will not necessarily encompass the duties of the research-staff member, therefore, are not necessarily evaluated as highly.

"These recent steps do not offer the possibility of extension to the great number of senior engineers who have displayed technical competence.
It is doubtful that the complete solution to the over-all problem can result entirely from company efforts.
Fundamental to the difficulty of creating the desired prestige is the fact that, in the business community, prestige and status are conferred in proportion to the authority that one man has over others and the extent of which he participates in the management functions".