ll m mu; 1ijng Lu; W um; M II

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE
ENGINEERING MANAGER AND HIS
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

by Charles A. McKee

Purpose of the Study

 

The main purpose of this study was to investigate
the relationships among the perceptions engineering managers
have of their role, their continuing education activities,
and subject area needs, and among the expectations held for
them by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and

by engineering faculty outside of the organization.

Methodology

Role theory was adopted as the conceptual approach
to study the position of the engineering manager. A
questionnaire-schedule received from 199 engineering mana-
gers, 122 immediate superiors, 168 direct subordinates and
50 engineering faculty members produced information about
the role of the engineering manager, his continuing educa-

tion activities, and his subject area needs.

Charles A. McKee

Conclusions

 

Section I--Job Functions

1. The immediate superiors indicated a strong
positive feeling on more items concerning the job func—
tions of the engineering manager than any of the other
groups.

2. The direct subordinates indicated a strong
positive feeling on fewer items concerning the job func-
tions of the engineering manager than any of the other
groups.

3. There was common agreement among all four
groups on seven items out of twenty-nine.

4. A higher degree of agreement existed between
the engineering managers and their immediate superiors
concerning the role of the engineering manager than be-
tween any other groups. Lesser agreement existed in com—
paring the engineering managers and the engineering faculty,
and in comparing the immediate superiors and the direct

subordinates.
Section II--Continuing Education Activities

1. The engineering managers, immediate superiors
and direct subordinates, as individual groups, were essen-

tially in agreement on the continuing education items.

Charles A. McKee

2. The engineering faculty indicated agreement
on fewer continuing education items than the other groups.

3. There was common agreement among all four
groups on one item out of thirty-four.

4. The engineering managers, immediate superiors,
and direct subordinates, when compared, were essentially
in agreement on the continuing education activities of
the engineering manager. There was very little agreement

between the engineering manager and the engineering faculty.

Section III—-Subject Areas
(Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry)

1. The engineering faculty indicated a need for
more mathematics, physics, chemistry subjects for the engi-
neering manager than any of the other groups.

2. The direct subordinates did not indicate a need.
for any of these subjects for the engineering manager, and
the immediate superiors indicated a need for only one subject.

3. There was very little agreement among the com-
pared groups concerning the mathematics, physics, chemistry
subject needs of the engineering manager. There was no

agreement between the managers and subordinates.
(Engineering)

1. There was high agreement by both the engineering
managers and the engineering faculty, as individual groups,
concerning the need of the engineering manager for the engi-

neering subjects.

Charles A. McKee

2. There was relatively low agreement by both the
immediate superiors and the direct subordinates, as indi-
vidual groups, concerning the need of the engineering
manager for the engineering subjects.

3. There was common agreement among all four
groups on one item out of fourteen.

4. A much higher degree of agreement existed be-
tween engineering managers and engineering faculty con-
cerning engineering subjects than between managers and the
other groups. There were no such items on which the

superiors and subordinates agreed.
(Management)

1. There was high agreement among the engineering
managers and relatively low agreement among the immediate
superiors concerning the need of the engineering manager
for the management subjects.

2. There was moderate agreement by both the direct
subordinates and the engineering faculty, as individual
groups, concerning the need of the engineering manager for
the management subjects.

3. There was common agreement among all four groups
on seven items out of thirty-one.

4. A higher degree of agreement existed in com-
paring engineering managers with both superiors and sub-

ordinates than existed in comparing managers and faculty.

Charles A. McKee

There was moderate agreement between the superiors and
subordinates.

5. In comparing engineering managers and engi-
neering faculéy, there were more items (8) with high
intraposition consensus and a significant difference than

for any of the other groupings. There were no such items

in comparing engineering managers and superiors.
(Communication Skills)

1. There was uniform agreement among the four
individual groups on the need of the engineering manager
for the communication skills subjects.

2. There was common agreement among the four
groups on five items out of ten.

3. A higher degree of agreement existed in com-
paring engineering managers with superiors than existed
in comparing any of the other groups.

4. There were relatively few items (3) in which
the groups showed high intraposition consensus with a
significant difference. There were no significant dif-
ferences in comparing managers and superiors, or in com-

paring superiors and subordinates.
General Conclusion

As a general conclusion of the entire study:
'1. The engineering managers showed the highest

degree of consensus of the four individual groups;

Charles A. McKee

2. The engineering managers and the immediate
superiors showed the highest degree of consensus of the
compared groups; and

3. The engineering managers and the immediate
superiors showed the lowest number of significant dif-

ferences of the compared groups.

A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE
ENGINEERING MANAGER AND HIS
CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

BY

Charles A; McKee

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Administration and Higher Education
College of Education

1967

i—QECopyright by
CHARLES ALAN MCKEE
1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to the many individuals and organizations who have helped
make this study possible.

The author is indebted to Dr. James Costar, Dr. Carl
Frost, Dr, Max Smith, and Dr. Harold Dillon who served as
members of his doctoral committee. Special acknowledgment
and appreciation is due to Dr. Floyd Parker, chairman of
the committee, for his constructive guidance and sincere
personal encouragement throughout the study.

Appreciation is due to those persons in the College
of Engineering and in the Continuing Education Service, es-
pecially Dr. Harold Gray, Dr. Joseph Strelzoff, Dr. Melvin
Buschman, and Dr. Armand Hunter for their patience and sup-
port throughout the study. Special thanks go to my secre-
tary, Susan McKenzie, for her untiring assistance in the
preparation of the manuscript.

To Dr. Myron Miller, close friend and colleague,
the author is forever grateful.

Finally, my sincerest appreciation to my parents
and to Sheila, Stephen, and Lynne for making this entire

effort meaningful.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDICES O O I O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION 0 C O O O O O O O O O 0

Background for the Problem . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .

Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Importance of the Study . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . .
Summary and Overview . . . . . . .

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION . . . . . . .

Concepts of Role Theory . . . . . .
Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . .
Operational Definitions . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Engineers in Management . . . . . .
Engineers as Managers . . . . . . .
Continuing Education for
Engineering Managers . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Population Sample . . . . . . . . .
Questionnaire-Schedule Construction
Questionnaire-Schedule Distribution
and Response . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . .
Characteristics of the Respondents

iv

Page
iii

vi

ix

10
ll
11
12
14

16

16
26
26
30

31

31
31
4O

55
80

82

83
84

87
89
91

Chapter

V. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .

MacroscoPic Consensus Analysis . . .
Hypothesis of Macroscopic Analysis .

Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . .
Engineering Managers--Immediate
Superiors . . . . . . . . .

Engineering Managers—-Direct
Subordinates . . . . . . . . .
Engineering Managers--Engineering
Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis la . . . . . . . . . . .
Immediate Superiors--Direct
Subordinates . . . . . . .
Analysis of Role Differences . .
Analysis of Role Ambiguity. . . . .
Analysis of Role Consensus . . .
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Engineering Managers--Immediate
Superiors . . . . . . . . . .
Engineering Managers--Direct
Subordinates . . . . . . . .
Engineering Managers--Engineering
Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2a . . . . . . . . . . .
Immediate Superiors--Direct
Subordinates . .
Areas of Differences
Areas of Ambiguity
Areas of Consensus
Hypothesis 3 . . .
Hypothesis 3a . . . .
Mathematics, Physics
Engineering . . . .
Management . . . .
Communication Skill

0 O O
O C ‘ O O O O O O
O O O C O O

o o o no 0 o o
23‘
m. o o o o
B

o o 0 Fun 0 o o o
m

o o o ff. 0 o o o o
H
l<o o 0

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study
Summary . . . . . .

Co
Re

Implications .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

nclusions . . .
commendations .

Page
102

102
104
104

104
109

114
118

118
123
125
127
132

132
140

145
150

151
156
159
161
164
164
165
179
188
200

208
208
209
231
238
240
243

255

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table Page

1. Questionnaire--schedule distribution

and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2. Age distribution of respondents . . . . . 92
3. Highest level of formal education attained

by the respondents . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4. Length of time since receiving highest

degree in engineering . . . . . . . . . 95
5. Respondents currently enrolled for

another degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6. Respondents planning to enroll for another

degree 0 I O O I I O O O I O O O O O I O 99
7. Interest of respondents in graduate work

if they had their education to do

over again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8. Academic area of interest of respondents

currently enrolled or planning to

enroll for another degree . . . . . . . 99
9. Degree level pursued by respondents cur-

rently enrolled or planning to enroll

for another degree . . . . . . . . . . . 100

10. Group frequency, mean, and variance

responses, and significance of dif-

ference between groups on twenty-nine

items concerning job functions of the
engineering manager . . . . . . . . . . 105

Classification of twenty-nine job function
items according to consensus within each
of the samples and according to signifi-
cant degree of disagreement between two
samples:

11. Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors 108

vi

Table

12.
13.
14.

15.

16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.
27.
28.

Engineering Managers-~Direct Subordinates
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors--Direct Subordinates.

Group frequency, mean, and variance respon—

ses, and significance of difference
between groups on thirty-four items con-
cerning continuing education activities
of the engineering manager . . . . . . .

Classification of thirty-four continuing

education activity items according to
consensus within each of the samples
and according to significant degree of
disagreement between two samples:

Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors--Direct Subordinates.

Group frequency, mean, and variance respon-

ses, and significance of difference
between groups on sixty-six items con-
cerning the needs of engineering managers
in certain subject areas . . . . . . . .

Classification of eleven mathematics,

physics, chemistry items according to
consensus within each of the samples
and according to significant degree of
disagreement between two samples:

Engineering Managers—-Immediate Superiors
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors--Direct Subordinates

Classification of fourteen engineering

items according to consensus within each
of the samples and according to signifi-
cant degree of disagreement between two
samples:

Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors-—Direct Subordinates

vii

Page

110
115
119

133

137
141
147
152

168

174
174
178
178

183
183
185
185

Table

29.
30.
31.
32.

33.
34.
35.
36.

Figures

1.

Classification of thirty-one management
items according to consensus within
each of the samples and according to
significant degree of disagreement
between two samples:

Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors-—Direct Subordinates.

Classification of ten communication skills
items according to consensus within each
of the samples and according to signifi-
cant degree of disagreement between two
samples:

Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates

Engineering Managers-~Engineering Faculty
Immediate Superiors--Direct Subordinates.

Hierarchic system model . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

194
194
199
199

204
204
206
206

27

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Open-ended Interview Schedule . . . . . . 255
B. Engineering Manager Questionnaire . . . . 257
C. Sample Postcard . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
D. Sample Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . 261

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background for the Problem

 

Since the close of the second world war, there has
been an unprecedented, eXplosive advance in science and
engineering. Accompanying this rapidly accelerating growth
rate of engineering and scientific knowledge is a rapid
technological obsolescence. This rapid rate of change re-
quires engineering and scientific personnel to spend a
greater prOportion of time in acquiring new knowledge in
order to solve new problems. Continuing education, there-
fore, is no longer incidental to the job but an essential
part of it.1

The problem of keeping pace with changes in pro-
fessional knowledge and procedures has been, and will con-
tinue to bg, particularly acute for\the engineer and even more

acute for the engineering manager who has risen into manage-

ment and been made.responsible for an engineering activity.

 

1William W. Evans, "The Problem of Obsolescence of
Knowledge," IEEE Transactions on EngineeringIManagement,
Vol. 10, No. 1 (March, 1963), pp. 29-31; I. I. Raines and
J. C. Missar, "Engineering Obsolescence: A Challenge to
the Training Director." TrainingfiDirectors Journal,‘Vol.19.
No. 1 (January, 1965), pp. 35-42.

 

1

Rubey2 observes that well over a third of the management
of large industry in America today is in the hands of en-
gineers. In 1900 only about 7 percent of top management
of American business had a technological background. This
had advanced to 13 percent by 1963. Dawson3 reports that
a recent Harvard study of 6,000 executives of 100 corpor-
ations with sales of $100 million or more showed 45 per-
cent in these middle and t0p management posts had degrees
in science or engineering. More significantly perhaps,
51 percent of the executives in the 35-45 age group had
such a background as compared to only 36 percent in the
55-65 age group.

Increasing technological complexity of products
and services is a prime reason for more corporations fill-
ing top management jobs with engineers, but another factor
is the change in engineering schools. Liberal arts courses
have been introduced into the curriculum because engineering
graduates are called upon now to become more involved in
social, economic and political problems. Today's engineer

must be better prepared for other than a purely technical

 

2Harry Rubey, "The Engineer Becomes a Professional
Manager," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 43, No. 5
(January, 1953), p. 338.

3Samuel Dawson, "More Engineers in Management,"
The State Journal, Lansing, Michigan (August 22, 1966),
p0 C-So

assignment.4 Cronstedt in Engineering Management and Ad-

 

ministration supports this and states:

 

Unlike the intellectual, who directs his attention
to only one goal, the completion of his work, the en-
gineering manager operates in two directions: toward
the engineers he manages, on the one hand, and toward
the people to whom he is responsible for results, on
the other. In addition to his extraordinary penchant
for scientific and technical subjects, the engineering
manager must be well versed in commercial matters. He
must be completely at home in the role of businessman
as well as able to meet the engineer and scientist on
their own ground.5

Richardson labels the engineering manager as the

man in the middle and comments:

 

The engineering manager is under constant scrutiny
not only by higher management, but by the personnel he
supervises, both as to his technical competence and
his managerial ability. He must be able to interprete
the highly technical accomplishments of his people to
other segments of management so that they grasp the
full significance of what is being done. And, at the
same time, he must be able to communicate the corpor-
ate goals convincingly to his highly technical associ-
ates. He must be able to do an outstanding job of
selling--and communicating--up and down the line.

The engineering manager therefore occupies essen-
tially the position of a mediator, administrator, and com-

municator.7 Nevertheless, he must also be an unusually

 

4Loc. cit.
5V. Cronstedt, Engineering Management and Adminis-
tration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961), p.8.

6Howard L. Richardson, "Management and Engineering-
Professions of Progress," IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 4, No. 1 (March, 1957), p. 71.

 

 

7Cronstedt, Op. cit., p. 8; Richardson, op. cit.,
p. 71.

perceptive engineer, quick to pick up new trends and al—
ways on the alert to new developments in technology. He
must be prepared to spend many hours, mostly in his Spare
time, absorbing the rudiments of other disciplines.
Although in the breadth of his technical knowledge he must
not permit himself to fall behind those who are working
for him, he must also realize that in a rapidly expanding
technology it is impractical for him to maintain exhaus-
tive proficiency in every category and at the same time to
retain his competence in administrative matters.8 His
problem now is that he finds it increasingly difficult to
understand what the young engineers under him are talking
about. He may even be utterly baffled by any chemists,
physicists, or mathematicians in his group. The engineer-
ing school he himself attended may have been strong on
how-to-do-it courses, but today many engineering colleges
give the students vigorous work in the basic science area
as well as courses in modern engineering that hardly existed
when the forty-five-year—old manager was in school. Does
he have difficulty communicating with the men he manages?
Can he assess the capabilities of engineers to be hired
and advanced, or evaluate proposed develoPment programs,

if his own education is out of date? In Fortune magazine,

Boehm asks the question; what can be done with him?9

 

8Cronstedt, 0p. cit., p. 8.

9George A. Boehm, "Bringing Engineers Up to Date,"
Fortune, Vol. 67, No. 5 (May, 1963), p. 120.

It appears that the engineering manager needs a
special kind of educational help. He probably lacks the
background necessary to take individual courses to update
himself in certain areas, but he also lacks the time it
would take to re-educate himself from the bottom up.
Perhaps what he needs is something in between. This may
not be found within the framework of conventional educa-
tion, but perhaps it does exist in the form of continuing
education programs especially planned and prepared by
businessmen and educators with a special interest in the
problem. Dean Brown of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology stressed the continuing education needs of the
engineering manager as follows:

Engineering managers need greater familiarity with
such areas of technology as new materials, nuclear
power, and the use of s0phisticated computers. The
concepts and techniques which recently graduated engi—
neers are employing in their work are sometimes well
beyond the experience and often beyond the level of
comprehension of their engineering managers. The pull-
ing together of today's multitude of diverse technolo-
gies elevates the team leader's job to a new level of
importance. The new fields interact with traditional
fields and with new scientific discoveries in ways that
make decision-making more complex than it used to be.
Today's engineering managers must then keep themselves
at the forefront of scientific and engineering advances,
knowing about them to the extent of understanding the
concepts, areas of application, and implications to
future develOpment if they want to stay "on tOp" of
their roles and responsibilities. This is necessary
for the direction and develOpment of their staffs, for
the coordination of today's increasingly complex engi-
neering undertakings, and for lending engineering
direction to the planning of future programs of their
companies.

 

10G. S. Brown,’"Closing the Engineering Gap--One
Approach," Electrical Engineering (July, 1963), p. 82.

 

This same point is emphasized by Dean Williamson
of Pennsylvania State University, but he imposes the addi-
tional requirement for the engineering manager that as he
gets farther away from the bench where the real technical
work is done, he becomes more and more aware of other con-
siderations that make business function smoothly. Factors
other than the purely technical exert an influence on his

11 Obviously Williamson is pointing towards the

thinking.
need of the engineering manager for managerial knowledge

and skills in addition to his technical training.
Statement of the Problem

For engineering managers in today's economy, showing
concern about their own career aspirations, as well as the
men under them, is a necessary part of helping their com-
pany stay in business. Posing real problems for engineering
managers in industry are the possible conflicts that arise
between each man and the goals and patterns of operation
of the firm in which he works. Recognition that the prob-
lem exists affords management a real opportunity to give
the engineering manager a feeling of greater accomplish-

ment in advancing his career goals and in fulfilling,

 

11Merritt A. Williamson, "Problems of Engineering
Management," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 5, No. 1 (March, 1958), pp. 61-64; M. A. Williamson,
"Professional Growth-eA Continuing Obligation," Research
and DevelOpment (October, 1960), pp. 1-3.

 

at the same time, the Operational objectives of Iris
firm.12

In the course of their engineering careers, engi-
neering managers sustain contact with persons holding
other positions within the organization--other managers,
superiors, subordinates, faculty consultants, et cetera.
The relationships engineering managers have with persons
in each of these positions are by no means identical.
Superiors of engineering managers, for example, may ob-
viously differ from subordinates in their images and ex-
pectations of engineering managers. In turn, engineering
managers may differ in their expectations. Such a complex
of role relationships which persons have by virtue of
occupying a particular status has been described by Merton13
and Kahnl4 as a role set.

The activities of engineering managers are guided

by their role perceptions, that is, how they are supposed

o o n I 15 0 I o
to act in a given Situation. Since engineering managers

 

12Ernest D. Phelps, "Help Your Engineers to Get

Aheadfl'Harvard Business Review, Vol.40 (January,l962L p.125.
13Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and_Social Struc-
ture (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957, rev. ed.)i
pp. 368-384.
14Robert L. Kahn et al., Organizational Stress:
Studies inIRole Egnflict and Ambiguity (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 13.

15Hjalmar Rosen, "Managerial Role Interaction: A
Study of Three Managerial Levels," Journal of Applied Psy-
chology (February, 1961), pp. 30-34.

 

 

 

perform different roles, they must be highly adaptive in
order to change from one role to another quickly. The
engineering manager's role particularly requires that he
be adaptive in working with the extremes of subordinate
and superior, and technical and nontechnical. In order
to be adaptive, he needs to see his own role as required
by the function he is performing and he needs to see his
role as seen by others. Obviously he cannot meet the needs
of others unless he can perceive what they eXpect of him.
Research shows that where there is wide variance in a
manager's role perception of his job and the employees'
role expectations of that job, there tends to be poor
motivation and inefficiency.16 Hulett and Stagner found
that differences in role eXpectation and degrees of con-
sensus might result in the lowering of morale within an
17

organization.

Sociologist H. A. Shepard, in his marginal man

 

theory, claims that the work ofengineering managers re-
quires them to mediate between the frequently conflicting
demands of two different sub-cultures: those of business

and of science. Although heavily dependent on both cultures

 

16Keith Davis, Human Relations at Work (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962), p. 41.

17J. E. Hulett and R. Stagner, Problems in Social
Psychology, An Interdisciplinary Inquiry, (University of
Illinois, 1952).

 

 

for his livelihood, the engineering manager is not fully
identified with either one. To the extent that he identi-
fies himself with business management, the engineer's work
attitude will be dominated by empiricism and considerations
of market practicality. To the extent that his role-
identification is professional, his work approach will be
closer to the pole of disinterested scientific curiosity.18

Supporting these roles are certain educational re-

quirements which reflect the need for continuing education
in the technical field to keep the engineering manager
abreast of the state-of-the-art of engineering and to off-
set obsolescence; furthermore, he must also acquire know-
ledge and skills in the managerial area in order to gain
acceptance as a professional manager. Role-identification,
then, as "managerial" or "professional" appears to pose a
real educational dilemma for the engineering manager and
raises the general question for study:

Are there differences among the perceptions engi-
neering managers have of their role and their continu-
ing education requirements, and among the expectations
held for them by their immediate superiors, direct

subordinates, and by engineering faculty outside of
the organization?

 

18Herbert A. Shepard, "Engineers as Marginal Men,"
Journal of Engineering Education (March, 1957), pp. 536-
542.

 

10

Purpose of the Study

 

The main purpose of this study is to investigate

the relationships among the perceptions engineering mana-

gers have of their role and their continuing education

requirements, and among the eXpectations held for them by

their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by

engineering faculty outside of the organization.

More specifically, the study will:

Examine the relationships among the perceptions
engineering managers have of their job functions
and among the expectations held for them by their
immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by
engineering faculty outside of the organization.
Examine the relationships among the perceptions
engineering managers have of their continuing
education activities, and among the expectations
held for them by their immediate superiors, direct
subordinates, and by engineering faculty outside
of the organization.

Examine the relationships among the perceptions
engineering managers have of their subject area
needs, and among the expectations held for them
by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates,
and by engineering faculty outside of the organi-

zation.

11

Hypotheses

 

Cursory discussions and interviews, along with a
preliminary analysis of the literature, have given rise
to the formulation of research hypotheses.

The general hypothesis of this study is that engi-
neering managers, their immediate superiors, direct sub-
ordinates, and engineering faculty hold different
expectations regarding the role of the engineering manager

and his continuing education requirements.

Importance of the Study

 

An underlying assumption of this study is that the
continuing education needs of engineering managers can be
more fully understood by ascertaining certain role expec-
tations held for them. Thus, the significance of this
analysis is to provide a better understanding of the
rationale supporting the educational pursuits of the engi-
neering manager.

In this study an attempt is made to provide more
information and insight into areas of agreement and dif-
ference regarding the continuing education requirements
that support the role of the modern engineering manager,
under the assumption that more complete knowledge of the
role would aid in decreasing role differences, if any, be-

tween the engineering manager and the related groups in

the study. '

12

The manner in which the engineering manager views
his role obviously contributes to the manner in which he
functions in his position. It is hoped that, in contri-
buting to an understanding of the role of engineering
managers, a contribution will be made to the solution of
problems involved in raising the performance levels of
engineers, particularly engineering managers.

Also, it is hoped that this study will lend in-
sight to educators, management, professional societies,
and engineers themselves as to the kinds of approaches
and subject matter which might be of value to the develOp-
ment of continuing education programs for the modern engi-

neering manager.

Limitations of the Study

 

This study is an attempt to investigate the rela-
tionship among the perceptions of the role of the engineer-
ing manager as perceived by members of the organizational
hierarchy to which he belongs, and from an objective
position outside of the organization. The central focus
of the investigation concerns the continuing education
activities and subject area needs supporting the role of
the engineering manager and does not intend to encompass
all of the possible sociological and psychological con-

flicts that may present themselves. There have been

13

numerous studies by Warner,19 Henry,20 Jennings,21 Bass,22

Kahn,23 Argyris24 and others referring to the psycho-
dynamics of the executive role, i.e. his personality needs,
anxieties, and the sociological structure from which he
emerges.

Although the engineering manager interacts with
many persons within and without the industrial organiza-
tion, the sample for this study is limited to engineering
managers, their immediate superiors and subordinates repre-
senting forty companies of various sizes located in Michigan
and the surrounding Midwestern states. The companies repre-
sented are classified into manufacturing, public utility,
and service categories. The engineering faculty sampled
in the study include faculty members from the College of

Engineering at Michigan State University.

 

19 . .
W. Lloyd Warner and Norman H. Martin, Industrial

Man (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959).
20William E. Henry, "The Business Executive: The

Psychodynamics of a Social Role," The American Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 54, No. 4 (January, 1949), pp. 286-301.

 

 

Eugene E. Jennings, The Executive in Crisis
(East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press,
1965).

22Leonard M. Bass, Leadership, Psychology and Or-

ganizational Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960).

23Kahn, et al., op. cit.

24Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New

York: Harper and Brothers, 1957).

14

The items in Section I of the study questionnaire,
related to the job functions of the engineering manager,
were emperically explored and generated primarily to serve
as criteria upon which to support the continuing education
activities and subject area needs of the engineering mana-
ger. This was necessary since no apprOpriate job standard
was available.

This study will not attempt to survey or evaluate
continuing education programs in management develOpment
for engineers being conducted by the universities, industry,

or the professional societies.

Summary and Overview

 

In Chapter I, the introduction, the background for
the study and the statement of the problem have been pre-
sented in some detail. The purpose of the study was out-
lined and the general hypotheses were stated. Indicated
also were the importance of the study and its delimitations.

Chapter II provided a theoretical orientation for
the study in which some central concepts of role theory are
discussed, a theoretical model is structured and pertinent
definitions are presented. In Chapter III the literature
related to the study is reviewed. Chapter IV contains a
detailed description of the methodology used in the study
including a description of the pilot interviews and the

formulation of the final questionnaire. Found in Chapter V

15

are the presentation and analysis of the data collected.
The final chapter, Chapter VI, presents the summary, con—

clusions, recommendations, and implications of the study.

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
Concepts of Role Theory

The general theoretical framework used in this
study is role theory as conceptualized in the studies by
Gross, Mason, and McEachernl and by Kahn g£_§l.2 Role
theory, in its broadest sense, maintains that individuals
occupy a number of roles, and the role perceptions that
they hold for themselves, or the expectations which others
define for them, are assigned on the basis of their posi-
tion in a given social system.3 That social system is
treated here only with respect to the position occupied

in the organization charts of the business organizations

studied.

 

1Neil Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W.
McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958).

2Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn,
J. D. Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964).

3Gross, et al., loc. cit.

 

16

17

The central idea in the language of role analysis
is the concept of role. Gross4 formulated three categories
into which the definitions of the concept "role" could be
placed. The first, "the normative cultural pattern" cate-
gory includes Linton's definition of role as representing
the dynamic aspect of status. "When the individual puts
the rights and duties which constitute the status into
effect, he is performing a role."5 A second category
treats role as an individual's definition of his situation
with reference to his and others' social positions. In
the third or final category are included definitions which
deal with role as the behavior of actors occupying social
positions. Davis's definition of role falls in this
category:

How an individual actually performs in a given

position, as distinct from how he is supposed to per-
form, we call his role. The role, then, is the manner

in which a person actually carries out the require-
ments of his position.6

 

4Gross, et al., ibid, pp. 11-13.

SRalph Linton, The Cultural Background of Person-
alit (New York: D. AppIeton-Century Co., 1945), p. 77;
Ra p Linton, The Study of Man (New York: D. Appleton-
Century Co., 1936), pp. 113-114.

 

6Kingsley Davis, Human Society (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1948), p. 90.

18

According to Brookoverl and Gross,2 there is prob-
ably more disagreement concerning this concept than there
is for any other in role theory. Biddle and Thomas, in
their review of role definitions, support this by stating:

The idea of role has been used to denote prescrip-

tion, description, evaluation, and action; it has re-
ferred to covert and overt processes, to the behavior
of the self and others, to the behavior an individual
initiates versus that which is directed to him.
Perhaps the most common definition is that role is
the set of prescriptions defining what the behavior
of a position member should be. But this much agree-
ment is at best an oasis in a desert of diverging
Opinion.

Biddle and Thomas go on to point out that a care-
ful review of the definitions reveals, however, that there
is one nearly universal common denominator, namely, that
the concept pertains to the behavior of particular persons.
Their preference is to define role in broader terms and
thereby encompass the numerous and subtle ways in which
persons may be associated with behaviors. They handle
these relationships by develOping a person--behavior matrix

that deals with interface between persons and behavior.10

 

7Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology
of Education (New York: American Book Company, 1964),
p. 323.

 

 

8Gross et al., 0p. cit., pp. 10-11.

9Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas, Role Theory:
Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966), p. 29.

10

 

Ibid.

19

Newcombll and Jacobson et al.,l2 chose to call

actual behavior, "role behavior," and the perceptions that
others share of the behavioral expectations of a particular
person, "social role." Their concept of "personal role"
focuses on what Argyris terms individual behavior.l3
Bakke and Argyrisl4 defined role as the totality of formal
tasks ,informal tasks, and acts as organized by the indi-
vidual. They described "formal task" as the formal be-
havior assigned by the organization, "informal task" as
the informal behavior assigned by the work group, and
"personal act" as the individual need--fulfilling, self-
actualizing behavior.

Gross, Mason and McEachern,from their survey of
the literature, conclude that three basic ideas appear in
most of the conceptualizations considered, namely that
". . individuals (1) in social locations (2) behave

(3) with reference of expectations."15 They go on to say

that:

 

llTheodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York:

The Dryden Press, 1951).

12E. Jacobson, et al., (eds.), "Human Relations
Research in Large Organizations," Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 7, No. 3 (1951), p. 19.

13Chris Argyris, Persopglityand Organization (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 242.

14E. W. Bakke and C. Argyris, Orggnizational Struc-
ture and Dynamics (New Haven: Labor and Management Center,
Yale University, 1955).

 

 

 

 

15Gross et al., 0p. cit., pp. 17-18.

20

PeOple do not behave in a random manner. Their
behavior is influenced to some extent by their own
expectations and those of others in the group or
society in which they are participants. . . . Re-
gardless of their deviation, expectations are pre-
sumed by most role theorists to be an essential
ingredient in any formula for predicting social be-
havior. Human conduct is in part a function of
expectations.

These same concepts are supported and extended by
Kahn and his associates who believe:

Each person responds to the organization in terms
of his perception of it. . . . He, too, has a con-
ception of his office and a set of attitudes and
beliefs about what he should and should not do while
in that position. He has some awareness of what be-
havior will fulfill his responsibilities, lead to the
accomplishment of the organizational objectives, or
further his own interests. He may even have had a
major part in determining the formal responsibilities
of his office. Through a long process of socializa-
tion and formal training he has acquired a set of
values and eXpectations about his own behavior and
abilities.17

Other concepts characterizing role theory are
those of consensus, conflict, and ambiguity.

Writers on role theory, like Biddle and Thomas,18
have commonly defined the term "consensus" as the degree
of agreement of individuals on a given topic and have

restricted the concept to behaviors partitioned as pre-

scription, evaluation, description or sanction. The

 

reason is that ". . . consensus implies that one must
l6Gross, loc. cit.
l7 .
Kahn, et al., op. Cit., p. 18.
18

Biddle and Thomas, Op. Cit., p. 33.

21

agree or disagree about something, i.e., there is some
object of agreement or disagreement indicated in the indi-
vidual's behavior."19

The Gross group20 views consensus in terms of the
degree of agreement of expectations associated with posi-
tions while Etzioni21 conceives of consensus as the dif-
ferences and similarities in the orientations of two or
more groups. Jacobson, Charters and Lieberman, in apply-
ing the concept of consensus to a study of complex organi-
zations, state that:

Behavior can be predicted more accurately in an

organization where consensus in highly developed than

in one where it is relatively underdevelOped, even
though formal organizational charts are identical.22

Thomas,23 in his study of the Michigan State Depart-
ment of Social Welfare compared the role conceptions, the
degree of role consensus, and the quality of work of wel—

fare workers in various organizational units of the state

welfare department. In his study role consensus was

 

lgIbid.

20Gross, et al., Op Cit., p. 43.

21Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Organizations (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press Inc" l961),p.128.

2Eugene Jacobson, W. W. Charters, Jr., and Seymour
Lieberman, "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Com-
plex Organizations," The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7,
No. 3 (1951), pp. 18-20.

23Edwin J. Thomas,"Role Conceptions and Organiza-

tional Size," American Sociological Review, Vol. 18 (1953),
pp. 30-37.

22

indicated by the degree of agreement between the public
assistance worker and his supervisor about the importance
of functions performed by workers. The amount of agree-
ment was assumed to reflect the degree to which workers
and supervisors shared a frame of reference regarding the
importance of workers' functions. Eleven areas of know-
ledge and skill relevant to performance of the role of
the public assistance worker were rated on a seven point
scale by workers and supervisors, and discrepancy scores
were computed.

By role conflict, Seeman24 and Gross25 mean the
exposure of the individual to incompatible behavioral ex-
pectations in a given position. In some formulations of
role conflict it is Specified that the individual must
occupy simultaneously two or more positions. Sarbin,26
for example, sees role conflict occurring when a person
occupies two or more positions simultaneously and when the
role expectations of one are incompatible with the role

expectations of the other. The role conflict analysis of

 

24Melvin Seeman, "Role Conflict and Ambivalence

in Leadership," American Sociological Review, Vol. 18
(1953). pp. 373-380.

25Gross, et al., Op. Cit., p. 246.

26Theodore S. Sarbin, "Role Theory," in G. Lindzey
(Editor), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I (Cambridge:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954), p. 228.

 

 

23

Getzels and Guba27 concerning the incompatible expecta-
tions to which air force instructors were exposed and

Burchard's study28

of role conflicts of military chaplains
are based on the assumption that the persons studied,
simultaneously occupied multiple positions. In the air
force study the subjects were faced with dilemmas stem-
ming from their roles as instructors and officers. In

the chaplain study the role conflict was between military
officer and minister.

The study by Kahn gp_§1.,29 was based on the as-
sumption that the quest for identity is a significant
problem for many individuals, that this in combination
with other needs leads them to look for certain kinds of
satisfactions in the work situation, and that the work
situation frequently presents conditions of conflict and
ambiguity. Their research was designed to determine the
prevalence of these conditions as well as their distri-
bution in organizations and in the pOpulation at large.

It was designed also to trace the effects of role conflict

and ambiguity on the persons exposed to them.

 

27J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Con-

flict and Effectiveness, "American Sociological Review,
Vol. 19 (1954): pp. 164-175.

28W. W. Burchard, "Role Conflicts in Military
Chaplains," American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (1954),
pp. 528-535.

29Kahn, et al., op. cit.

 

 

24

The Kahn group sees role conflict occurring when
members of the role set hold different role expectations
toward the focal person and comments:

Much of role conflict, as we have defined it, can
be thought of as a kind of inadequate role sending;
lack of agreement or coordination among role senders
produces a pattern of sent expectations which contains
logical incompatibilities or which takes inadequate
account of the needs and abilities of the focal person.

A different pattern of inadequacy in role sending
constitutes role ambiguity. Kahn defines it thus:

Role ambiguity is conceived as the degree to which
required information is available to a given organi-
zational position. To the extent that such informa-
tion is communicated clearly and consistently to a
focal person, it will tend to induce in him an eXperi-
ence of certainty with respect to his role requirements
and his place in the organization. To the extent that
such informition is lacking, he will experience
ambiguity.3

The use of the role concept in studying complex
organizations is illustrated in studies of supervisory
practices which have been conducted within the Human Rela-
tions Program of the Survey Research Center at the University
of Michigan. Inquiries have produced evidence that the per-
ceptions and eXpectations with respect to a supervisor's

behavior are systematically related to productivity, to

the facility of change in the behavior of supervisors, and

 

30Ibid., p. 21.

311bid., pp. 25-26.

25

to the attitudes of those who work with them.32 According
to Newcomb, more application of role theory to the analy-
sis of complex hierarchically structured organizations
might promote further understanding of the functioning of
these organizations and of the determinants of the effec-
tiveness and satisfactions of the individual members.
Analyses of standard role prescriptions, role behaviors
and role relationships might also furnish fundamental data
for predicting the attitudes, perceptions and behavior of
the members of organizations, for understanding the success
or failure of current organizational functioning, and for
anticipating the responses in an organization to projected
change programs.33
The present research is also a study in the organi-
zational application of role theory. The writer has at-
tempted to bring into a theoretical schema the organization,
some of its members and the individual. The central con-
cept in this attempt has been role eXpectations. In these
terms this study is designed to ascertain the degree ofrole

consensus between. the engineering manager and those re-

lated groups who define his role.

 

32Jacobson, et al., Op. Cit., pp. 18-20; W. W.
Charters Jr., "A Study of the Role Conflict Among Foremen
in a Heavy Industry," (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
sity of Michigan, 1952).

33Newcomb, Op. Cit.

26

Theoretical Model

 

The hierarchic system model34symbolized in Figure].
provides a framework for focusing on one position within
the organization (engineering manager) and examining its
relationship to various other positions within the organi-
zation (superior, subordinate) and outside of the organi-
zation (engineering faculty). It also provides for the
relationships desired between certain other positions
(superior-subordinate). Even though a large corporation
may exhibit four or five levels of engineering management,
this three-level relationship would still be represented:
an engineering manager with a superior above him and a

subordinate below him.

Operational Definitions

 

For purposes of clarity, communication, and facili-
tation of analysis, the following definitions of concepts
as employed in this study are presented:

A. Role Theory Definitions35

Position will refer to the social location of an

incumbent in a social system.

 

34Gross, et al., op. cit., p. 54.

35The primary sources for role theory definitions
are: N. Gross, et al., op. cit., Chapter IV; R. Kahn,

et al., op. cit.

27

COUNTER POSITION I

(Superior)

 

FOCAL POSITION COUNTER POSITION III

(Engineering Manager) (Engineering Faculty)

 

COUNTER POSITION II

 

(Subordinate)

Figure l. Hierarchic system model

28

Expectation will refer to an evaluative standard

 

applied to an incumbent of a particular position; that
is, how the incumbent should behave with reference to
his position.

5913 will refer to the set of expectations applied
to an incumbent of a particular position.

Role Consensus will refer to the degree of similarity

 

or agreement among role expectations held for an incum-
bent of a particular position.

Role Differences will refer to the degree of in-

 

compatibility among role expectations held for an
incumbent of a particular position.

Role Ambiguity will refer to the degree of uncer-

 

tainty among role expectations for an incumbent of a
particular position.
Other Related Definitions

Engineer will refer to a person having completed
a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from an
accredited college of engineering.

Engineerinnganagement is intended to be roughly

 

descriptive of the management of technical matters,

merely as contrasted with such other areas of manage-

. . 37
ment as finanCial, sales, personnel, etcetera.

 

36Samuel S. Dubin and LeRoy H. Marlow, Research

Report of Continuing Professional Education for Engineers
in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University (1965» p.11.

37Cecil B. Combs, "Decision Theory and Engineering

29

Immediate Superior of the engineering manager will

 

refer to the executive to whom the engineering manager
reports directly; a manager of engineering managers.

Engineering Manager will refer to an engineer in a

 

managerial position at the first line of engineering
management in charge of an engineering activity, such
as a department or unit, and/or responsible for direct-
38

ing the work of engineers or scientific personnel.

Subordinate will refer to an engineer at the Oper-

 

ative level reporting directly to the engineering
manager.

Engineerinngaculty will refer to a full-time

 

faculty member of the Michigan State University College
of Engineering.

Continuing Education will refer to the education

 

(knowledge and skills) needed by the professional engi-
neering manager to enhance his total competence in per-
forming his job. This definition emerges from a review
of the literature39 and empirical interviews with

engineering personnel currently practicing in industry.

 

 

Management," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 9, No. 4 (December, 1962), pp. 149-154.
38

Dalton E. McFarland, Management Principles and
grgctiges (New York: The Macmi11an Company, 1962), p. 195;
Keith Davis, Human Relations at Work (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., 2nd Edition, 1962), p. 195.

 

 

 

39A.C.Ingersoll,"A Sampling of Industrially Spon-
sored Programs in Continuing Educationfl'Proceedings--American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Meeting, Orono,
Maine (June, 1964).

30

Summary

In this chapter the general theoretical framework
for the study was presented. Various interpretations of
the concept of role were offered with the general conclu-
sion that individuals in social locations behave with
reference to expectations held for them. Other concepts
such as consensus, conflict and ambiguity were discussed
and a theoretical systems model was structured to provide
a framework for focusing on one position and examining its
relationship to various counter positions. Finally some

Operational definitions pertinent to the study were provided.

CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction

 

In Chapter II, literature concerning role theory
and research related to role analysis were reviewed in
terms of providing background and rationale for the theo-
retical framework used in this research study.

The_objective of this chapter is to survey selected
literature and research related to engineering management.
The primary focus for this review will center around the
role of the engineering manager and on the continuing edu-
cation needs and activities that support the role Of the
engineering manager. In addition, other important data

pertinent to this research study will be reviewed.

I

Engineers in Management

 

Three decades ago, greater emphasis was placed on
the art of management rather than on its scientific aspects.
Since that time science and engineering have advanced at a
tremendous pace, and management has had to become more

science oriented.~ In view of this, government, industry,

31

32

and business in general have become more and more dependent
on scientific and engineering techniques. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that engineers should be called upon
for the administration and management of large organiza-
tions Of all kinds.1

Historian John B. Rae of Massachusetts Institute
of Technology states that " . . . the prOper place of the
engineer in the management of business is a question which
has grown in the last few years from being merely important
to being highly critical."2 He points out that American
industry today is faced with two acute shortages of talent;
the highly publicized shortage of engineers and a less well-
known but equally serious shortage of good executives. "To
put engineers into management," Rae comments "is both a
prOper and a necessary use of engineering talent, made so
by the nature of modern industry."3

C. E. Gray cites three primary factors which contri-
buted to the rapid increase in the number of engineers in
management: (1) the increasing complexity of technology;

(2) the rapid growth of science and its immediate application

 

lHarry Rubey and John Logan, The Engineer and Pro-
fessional Management (Columbia, Missouri: Artcraft Press,
1963), preface.

2John B. Rae, "The Engineer as Manager," Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 48, No. 1 (October, 1957), p. 25.

3

 

 

 

Loc. cit., p. 26.

 

33

in industry; and (3) the diversifications Of product lines.4
Alfred P. Sloan, outstanding engineer-administrator
and past board chairman Of General Motors, supported the
need for the engineer in management and stated:
We need the engineer's point of view, his respect
for basic facts, his analytical frame of mind, his im-
agination and his contact with the interpretation and
control of physical forces. . . . It is logical that
the engineer, in exercising his expanded responsibility,
should recognize, as indeed he has, that there is more
in business than business itself. . . .5
As early as 1924 there was a great demand for en-
gineers in administrative positions, as reported in a
survey of 5,000 engineering graduates conducted by the
Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education.6 The
drift of engineers from purely technical to administrative
duties was shown in even greater proportions in the 1931
survey by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
This study showed that by forty years of age three-fifths

of the engineering graduates surveyed were in management

positions. Among those engineers in management positions,

 

4C. E. Gray, "The Transition from Engineer to Man-
ager," Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 1
(January-February, 1963), pp. 28-32.

5Alfred P. Sloan, "The Engineer's Place in the

Future," Dun's Review and Modern Industry, Vol. 64 (December,
1954), p. 16.

6W. E. Wickenden and Elliot D. Smith, "Engineers,
Managers and Engineering Education," Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 54, NO. 7 (August, 1932), p. 541.

 

34

there was a secondary drift from positions in technical
management to general management.7

Also in the late 1920's, the Society for the Promo-
tion of Engineering Education came to the conclusion that
the subject of engineers in management was becoming so im-
portant that it appointed a Committee on Instruction in
Industrial Relations, headed by E. D. Smith, to make an
extensive analysis of the possibilities, aims and methods
of teaching engineering students to manage men.8

In 1947, a comprehensive study by the Engineers
Joint Council revealed that 34 percent of some 38,000 mem-
bers of six national engineering societies were engaged in
work primarily administrative in nature.9 Rae's study in
1955 of the careers of M.I.T. alumni over the previous forty
years showed that almost 50 percent had gone into business
roles other than that of the professional engineer. Most
Of the movement was into managerial positions, with the
records showing at least one in five of M.I.T.'s engineering
graduates in some kind of managerial role, with the ratio

approaching one in two as they advanced in their careers.10

 

7
Ibid.

8Elliot D. Smith, "Can the Engineer Be Taught to Man-
age Men?," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21, NO. 2
(October, 1930), pp. 98-128.

9The Engineeringgrofession in Transition (Engineers'
Joint Council Report, 1947).

10John B. Rae, "Engineering Education as Preparation
for Management: A Study of M.I.T. Alumni," The Business
History Review, Vol. 29 (March, 1955), p. 71.

 

 

 

35

In 1956, a survey by Fortune magazine of the execu-
tives in 250 of the largest industrial companies in the
United States indicated that nearly 50 percent of all the
executives had concentrated on engineering and science, but
only a third of them rose to their present eminence through
11

these or related fields of work.

A study Of 200 tOp companies by Dun's Review and

 

Modern Industry in 1961 showed 17 percent of the chief

 

executives were trained in engineering or had moved into

12 These

that Office through the engineering function.
studies, among others, give some indication of the rapid
increase in the number of professional managers with en-
gineering training and eXperience.

In 1959, an extensive research survey on career
Opportunities and satisfactions of professional engineers
in industry was conducted by the Opinion Research Corpora-
tion for the Professional Engineers Conference Board for
Industry. This survey revealed that the idea of going into
management is the route to success is very prominent in the
engineer's thinking. Eighty-five percent of approximately

300 professional engineers from eleven companies responded

that they thought, in terms of prestige within the company,

 

11Editors of Fortune, The Executive Life (New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1956), p. 37.

12M. Mandell, "How to Make the TOp," Dun's Review
and Modern Industry, Vol. 78, No. 4 (October, 1961),
pp. 46-470

 

 

 

36

engineers would be in a better position in five years by
going into management rather than by remaining in engineer-
ing. Some of the attractions of management are that both
the financial and non-financial rewards are more evident.
Success in the purely technical world offers no comparable
marks Of recognition or status.13
George Odiorne directed a study for the American
Management Association of some 100 senior engineers in an
eastern engineering school. Among other questions, the
seniors were asked, "Do you expect, eventually, to become
an executive?"--to which about 80 percent responded that
they did. Odiorne claims that even assuming that many
students are thinking Of technical administration rather
than general management positions, the indications are that
engineering students have a decided inclination toward man-

agement.14

15 16

Lee E. Danielson and Howard L. Richardson

studied the characteristics of engineers and scientists.

 

l3Career Satisfactions of Professional Engineers in
Industry (Waghington, D. C.: The Professional Engineers
Conference Board for Industry, 1959), pp. 47-48.

14George S. Odiorne, "Making Managers Out of En-
gineers," Personnel, Vol. 33, NO. 3 (November, 1956), p. 259.

15Lee E. Danielson, Characteristics Of Engineers and
Scientists, Report No. 11, Bureau of Industrial Relations
(Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1960).

16Howard L. Richardson, "Management and Engineering -
Professions of Progress," IRE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 4, No. 1 TMarch, 1957), p. 71.

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

Danielson is of the Opinion that many follow engineering
programs only so that they will be more employable. Once
employed, many engineers seek to move out of the technical
areas and into more lucrative areas such as management and
sales. Richardson claims that to be a good manager, a man
must want to be a good manager and must go into a managerial
position with a real interest in it.

Raudsepp suggests the following as reasons for this

movement into management:

1. A managerial or administrative position gives
the engineer a greater sense of power, in that he will
be able to exert more influence and control over or-
ganizational objectives and subordinates.

2. Many engineers feel that the levels of authority
and responsibility in the administrative areas are bet-
ter defined.

3. Engineers also feel that ability and performance
in management positions are valued and rewarded better
than outstanding skill in a technical area.17

Some interesting research undertaken by Becker and Carper
studied the elements of identification engineers have with
their occupations. They found that engineers take great
pride in their occupational titles and find the field de-
sirable because of the skills and abilities engineering

training is supposed to produce in them. They are quite

ready, however, to forget the specific kinds of work for

 

17Eugene V. Raudsepp, Managing Creative Scientists
and Engineers (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964)

p. 182.

 

38

which they are trained and take on any kind of job which
the title of engineer can win for them, such as a position
in higher management. Fifty percent of those surveyed in-
dicated that they felt confident that they could compete
successfully for any position, technical or managerial.18
This over-confident attitude may not be entirely justified.
Robert Best concludes from his study of 622 engineers and
scientists in six large companies, that many engineers and
scientists seek out a business career without any real
understanding of what business is all about.19
Herbert Shepard, in writing about social change in
science and engineering, explains that we have become thor-
oughly accustomed to engineers holding highly respected
positions in the power structure of our society. Many pre-
sent-day tOp executives were trained as engineers. The

business career is not as "normal" a career for a scientist,

. . . . 2
however, as it is for an engineer,20 Studies by Marcson l

 

18H. S. Becker and J. Carper, "The Elements of
Identification With an Occupation," American Sociological
Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (June, 1956), pp. 341—348.

19Robert D. Best, "The Scientific Mind vs. the Man-
agerial Mind," Industrial Research, Vol. 5, No. 9 (October,
1963): PP. 50-52.

20Herbert A. Shepard, "Social Change in Science and
Engineering," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 8, No. 1 (March, 1961), pp. 11-14.

21Simon Marcson, The Scientist in American Industry,
Research Report NO. 99, Industrial Relations Section
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1960), p. 65.

 

 

 

39

and Best22 also point out that engineers aspire in greater
numbers to the management career than do scientists, who
consider the management career as the last resort.

From interviews with executive, supervisory, and
non-supervisory professional personnel in firms with ex-
tensive research organizations, Danielson, at the University
of Michigan, found that today's engineers and scientists are
equally concerned with personal advancement, recognition,
and financial reward for their efforts. Danielson believes
that companies should Open up new routes, other than the
managerial one, for the advancement of professional person-
nel and that engineering managers should be rewarded for
developing their subordinates.23

In a national study on engineer attitudes, Raudsepp
found that nearly 80 percent of the more than 3,000 respon-
dents felt that more opportunity for recognition, advance-
ment and prestige lay outside technical specialization and
that, in comparison to management, technical professionals
have little or no status. He commented:

The engineer's need for status and prestige has be-

come an increasingly important factor in job satisfac-
tion. Since status and prestige are perceived by many

 

22R. D. Best, "The Conflict Between the Scientific
Mind and the Management Mind," The Public Opinion Index for
Industry, Vol. 17, NO. 9 (September, 1959), p. 8.

23Danielson, Op. cit., p. 28.

40

as unrealizable in the engineering profession, the ten-
dency to regard management as the really attractive
career alternative has assumed major prOportions.24
Raudsepp warns of the serious repercussions that
could occur if the exodus of engineers to management ranks
continues unchecked, irrespective of the presence or ab—
sence Of requisite administrative skills. He cites such
repercussions as: (1) the depletion Of valuable technical
manpower; (2) the reduction of the effectiveness and util-

ization of engineers; and (3) the consequences of losing

outstanding technical men and gaining poor managers.

Engineers as Managers

 

A limited amount of literature and research exists
on the subject of engineers as managers. Much of what is
available appears to center around the difficulties engi-
neers have in the transition from engineer to manager and
on the problems they face in adjusting to and performing
in their dual role as engineer-manager.

Karger and Murdick devote a chapter of their book,

Managing Engineering Research, to the transition from engi-

 

neer to manager. They discuss the manager's need for a

systematic approach in establishing a new engineering

 

24Raudsepp, O . cit., p. 180; See also Eugene V.
Raudsepp, A National Survey on Engineer Attitudes (Deutsch

and Shea, Inc., July, 1958).
25

 

Ibid., p. 183.

41

component or taking over a going organization. The authors
point out some of the pressures the engineering manager
often finds in this transition:
1. The generalities of management textbooks to
plan, organize, initiate, control, and measure aren't
specific enough for the time and knowledge he has

available.

2. His previous experience is too narrow and his
management techniques are too weak.

3. Daily Operations and longer range plans are
pressing in upon him with increasing intensity.26

Bailey and Jensen, in their study of managers at
all levels in two large research and development organiza-
tions, claim that neither the engineer himself, nor those
who are responsible for directing him up the managerial
ladder, understand the particular stresses of this transi-
tion. Among the managers interviewed, it was generally
agreed that a crucial change takes place at the second level
of supervision or first line of management. Here the man-
ager is no longer reSponsible for technical details, but
must Spend more and more of his time in coordinating the
efforts of others under his direction. The interviews un—
covered several reasons why this transition is so difficult
for the technical man. These are summarized as follows:

1. The specialist must now make a definite commit-

ment to management and in doing so move away from the
work at which he has been successful.

 

26D. W. Karger and R. G. Murdick, Managing Engi-
neering and Research (New York: The Industrial Press, 1963),

 

 

42

2. The manager fears the loss of the direct control
he formerly exercised over his work.

3. When it comes to COping with human nature, the
engineer finds few rules and theorems to fall back on.

4. The technical manager has little or no time to
Spend on the things he really enjoys doing. He is ex-
pected to devote himself to activities that until now

have ranked low in his scale of values--the skills of
management.27

Watson,28 McCormick29 and Johnson30 believe that
the engineer-trained mind is an excellent basis for the role
of manager, and that engineers have a natural advantage in
working toward higher management positions. They learn to
gather facts, arrange and analyze them logically, and to
base their decisions and judgments on their conclusions.

Yet despite this advantage, many engineers find it difficult

to step into management jobs.

 

27Robert E. Bailey and Barry T. Jensen, "The Trouble-
some Transition from Scientist to Manager," Personnel, Vol.
42, NO. 5 (September-October, 1965), pp. 49-55.

28Douglas Watson, "Engineers Can Be Managers," IRE

Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 2 (November,
1954), pp. 28—40.

29Brooks McCormick, "Management and the Industrial
Engineer," The Journal Of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8,
NO. 1 (January-February, 1957), pp. 20-22.

30Howard W. Johnson, "Developing Engineers for Man-
agement Responsibility," Personnel, Vol. 35, No. 2 (September-
October, 1958), pp. 66-71.

 

 

43

William Given Jr.31 and C. E. Gray32 attribute the
difficulty in adjustment to the management role to problems
engineering managers have in dealing with intangibles such
as human-relations, decision-making, the lack of team ori-
entation, the perfectionist attitude, and the reluctance to
accept conclusions and recommendations from others. Gray
lists some factors which contribute toward these unique
problems of the engineering manager:

1. the rigid adherence to the Scientific approach
in engineering training, failing to give an appreciation
and understanding of other disciplines;

2. the tendancy among engineering administration
to select managers primarily on the basis of their tech-
nical Skills;

3. the lack of identification of the technically
trained manager with the management profession, thus
failing to motivate him to improve his managerial com-
petence; and

4. the failure to develOp an over—all business per-
Spective and an appreciation of the interrelationship
of the various business functions.33

Eugene Jennings, who Specializes in adjustment prob-

lems of executives in a corporate environment, studies in

The Executive in Crisis, movement within the ranks of the

 

 

3J'William B. Given Jr., "The Engineer Goes Into Man-
agement," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33, No. 1 (January-
February, 1955), p. 44.

32C. E. Gray, "The Transition from Engineer to Man-
ager," Journal of Industrial En ineering, Vol. 14, No. l
(January-February, 1963), pp. 2 -32.

33LOCO Cit. ' pp. 30-31.

 

 

44

corporate hierarchy. According to Jennings, whenever there
is a separation and a new attachment, there is a degree of
anxiety which is most likely to occur at three basic points:

1. First is the anxiety of entrance into the firm
which usually ensues from having to make a separation
from college life. The attachment to the firm is
generally made in a technical sense. This entrance
phase, lasting about five years, usually places the in-
dividual in a formal or informal training program.

2. The second point is anxiety Of movement into
the middle rank, which requires dropping the technical
attachments and acquiring managerial ones. Since the
middle ranks are initially managerial, the technical
Skills remain with subordinates. The manager is re-
quired to know how to direct them to accomplish depart-
mental and sectional goals. Accountants, salesmen,
engineers, and scientists too Often want to keep their
technical eXpertise, and become anxious at making the
required separations and attachments.

3. The third point of anxiety involves meeting the
requirements of administration as Opposed to management.
Here the Operating orientation of the middle and upper-
middle manager must be left behind and the strategical,
evaluative, long-range concerns of administration must
be acquired. This separation from the management ori-
entation and attachment to the administrative orienta-
tion proves difficult for many.34

The engineer-manager role conflict was studied by

36 both of whom concur that most

Gray35 and by Elliott,
engineering manager positions are dual in nature in that

the manager is expected to make some technical contributions

 

4Eugene E. Jennings, The Executive in Crisis (East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State UniverSity Press, 1965),
pp. 69-70.

3SGray, Op. cit., p. 29.

 

36Herbert M. Elliott, "The Transition from Engineer
to Supervisor," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 5, No. 1 (March, 1958), pp. 29-32.

45

in addition to his several managerial responsibilities.
However, the degree of this direct engineering effort, they
believe, should be greater at the first level of supervi-
sion--where the supervisor is frequently eXpected to perform
functional work along with others in his group--and, gen-
erally should decrease with progress up the manager hierarchy.
This was supported further in the findings of the

study, Role Concept of Engineering Managers, conducted by

 

Simon Marcson, at Princeton University.37 Marcson studied
over 600 engineering managers in a large electronics and
engineering company. He was concerned with three major
problems: (1) an analysis of the needs of engineering su-
pervisors in terms of managerial Skills and the difficulties
which face engineering management; (2) a determination of
the motivations of engineering supervisors; and (3) a study
of the degree to which the engineering supervisor is involved
in decision-making, integrated into the company, and com-
municated with through information programs.

Marcson found distinct differences in role concept
between managerial levels, suggesting that they constitute
significantly different strata in the engineering organiza-

tion. Members of the highest management level tended to see

 

37Simon Marcson, "Role Concept of Engineering Man-
agers," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 7
(March, 1960), pp. 30-33.

46

themselves as business executives, further removed from a
professional orientation and more identified with a company
orientation. The lower the management level, the more they
saw themselves as involved in the Skills of planning and
directing the technical program Of engineers. The lowest
management level had a stronger professional orientation
than the middle level and saw itself as primarily involved
in a technical and engineering type of job.38

Commenting on this same point, Karger and Murdick

state:

There are those who bear the title of "Manager" who
still claim to be doing engineering work; nevertheless,
there is ample evidence provided by engineering leaders
as well as management analysts to Show that a manager
who is doing his job correctly does little or no engi-
neering work himself.39
A. F. Coleman sets forth some broad responsibilities

of the engineering manager in describing his role. Although
the responsibility of engineering management is to provide
the necessary technical counsel and to help guide the com-
pany toward sound solutions to business problems, the main
responsibility of the engineering manager, according to
Coleman, is the day-to-day management of the engineering

group under his direction. He also has a responsibility

to work with other departments of his company on problems

 

38Loc. cit., p. 32.

39Karger and Murdick, Op. cit., p. 652.

47

related to engineering. Finally, the engineering manager
has the responsibility, to his men and to the company, Of

taking the initiative in the matter of develOping his per-

sonnel and providing the guidance they require.40

William Crissy believes that a manager in his work
environment has many roles to play. The directions in
which he strives will be in those that support the roles
that are important to him. According to Crissy, we need to
study the incentives necessary to motivate him in these

directions. If we can enhance this motivation, then we will

have a more purposeful manager.41

In his article, "Management and the Engineer,"
General T. C. Rives quotes Ralph C. Cordiner, former pres-
ident of the General Electric Company, who commented on the
responsibilities of a manager as follows:

. . . he is essentially a long-range thinker, a
planner, an organizer and a teacher, rather than solely
a "doer". . . . The manager makes his best progress
through his ability to supply leadership to others,
rather than by continued specific personal contributions
to the growth or develOpment of scientific knowledge in
some particular Sphere. . . .

While the manager increasingly, therefore, needs
to understand the processes of science, of research
and of technical analysis, to uncover and use better
facts, his great contribution comes through his capa-
city to influence, guide and multiply the voluntary

 

 

40A. F. Coleman, "The Responsibility of Engineering
Management," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 2 (November, 1954), pp. 48-51.

41

William J. E. Crissy, Paper presented at the
Summer School for Executives conference, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, August, 1966.

48

work and achievements of his fellow workers in the

business.42
Rives, on the other hand, sees the engineering manager as
an "artist," having the imagination to visualize what his
objective is, why it iS the best objective and when, where,
and with whom he can accomplish it with the least expendi-
ture of manpower and funds.43

The importance of role adaptability of the engi-

neering manager in level, function, and interest, in his
relations with others, has been stressed by several re-
searchers.44 They see him as a generalist, rather than a
technical specialist, whose job is to integrate the re-
sources of the organization-~technica1 and human, financial
and materia1--in such a way as to achieve its goals. He
does this by taking responsibility for setting Objectives,
complete with a plan and a timetable to meet them; orga-
nizing the resources available to him to achieve these goals,
including direction and control; and finally, by evaluating

. 45
his progress.

 

42T. C. Rives, "Management and the Engineer," IRE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 1 (February,
1954), p. 5.

43

 

Ibid., p. 6.

44Paul O. Gaddis, "The Project Manager-His Role in
Advanced Technology Industry," Westinghouse Engineer, Vol.
19 (July, 1959), pp. 102-106; K. Davis, “The Role of Pro-
ject Management in Scientific Manufacturing," IRE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management, Vol. 9, NO. 3 (September,
1962), pp. 109-113.

'45H. Johnson, Op. cit., p. 67.

 

 

49

The question has been raised as to whether or not
a system of education designed to produce successful pro-
fessional engineers can produce equally successful and
satisfied managers. Sociologist N. Z. Medalia submits that
perhaps it is the confusion of goals in engineering educa-
tion itself, with the resultant conflict which this sets up
in the mind of the engineer as to what constitutes success
for him, that accounts at least partially for the dissatis-
faction that many engineers seem to eXpress in their work
situation.46

Along these same lines, Dale Walton is of the Opin-
ion that engineering managers, aS a group, find habit and
personality clashing with their managerial roles. He claims
that in asking engineers to take management positions, we
are asking them to take on a job for which they typically
have no formal education, very little training, and some-
times a complete lack of interest. According to Walton,
this conflict, although found in other professional groups
whose members are called upon to assume the manager's role,
seems particularly troublesome in the engineering profes-

sion.47

 

46Nahum Z. Medalia, "Professional and Managerial

Goals in Engineering Education: A Sociologist's Comments,"
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 49, No. 3 (December,
1958), pp. 237-240.

47Dale G. Watson, "Engineering Managers--Do You
Understand Their Role?" Advanced Management, Vol. 26 (May,
1961), p. 9.

 

50

The feeling is also held that technically trained
managers have trouble in developing a real appreciation of
managerial functions and reaching an understanding with the
higher managerial levels as to the results they are ex-
pected to achieve.48 Some recent research conducted by
Keith Davis studied the program manager's49 understanding
of his management role as compared with his superior's and
his subordinates' understanding of it.50 The study focuses
on the degree to which the program manager's job is seen as
causing him to give priority to certain managerial tasks
and points of view. These priorities constitute the pro-
gram manager's view of his managerial role; or when these
priorities are seen by others, they constitute an external
view of the way the program manager tries to perform his
role.

Seven dimensions of the program manager's role were
selected for analysis by Davis as follows:

1. Occupational orientation

2. Organizational orientation

3. Functional orientation

 

48Gray, Op. cit., p. 29.

49 . .
A program manager refers to an engineering manager

in charge of a special program within an engineering activity.

50Keith Davis, "Mutuality in Understanding of the
Program Manager's Management Role," IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December, 1965),
pp. 117-122.

 

 

51

4. Leadership style

5. Supervisory orientation

6. Functional tasks

7. Operational tasks
Davis found the data, from some 144 respondents in two elec-
tronics companies, showing a remarkable congruence in the
understanding of the program manager's job. With regard to
functional orientation, all groups agreed that program
managers are more managerial than technical in orientation.
Program managers apparently see their jobs as primarily
managerial, while a significant portion of the others still
look to them for technical leadership as well.51

Rubin, Stedry and Willits, in a Slightly different
setting, studied role expectations of 29 department managers
and 57 supervisors in research and development. They found
that the managers wanted a greater technical contribution
from lower supervisors than the supervisors realized. The
supervisors, on the other hand, thought their superiors
wanted greater managerial contributions. With regard to
contributing their personal Skills to technical work, over
60 percent of the supervisors under-estimated the eXpecta-
tions of their department managers by 10 percent or more in

52
time allocation to technical work.

 

SlIbid., p. 120.

521. M. Rubin, A. C. Stedry, and R. D. Willits,
"Effort Allocation by Research and DevelOpment Managers,"

52

According to Davis, it appears that program manage-
ment and research and development supervision offers an
ambiguous role to scientists and engineers. Because of un-
clear guidelines, they have difficulty apportioning techni-
cal and managerial duties, and they are not sure of the
eXpectationS of their superiors in this matter. "Difficul-
ties may tend to build up," says Davis, "unless this ambi-
guity is reduced by means Of frequent communications, better
job design, and clear job assignments."53

Other studies of the role Of management in an engi-
neering organization have examined the manager's style of
leadership and his ability to influence the course of de-
partmental affairs,54 classified activities performed by
engineering management staff at the corporate, division,

55

and production levels, and have eXplored the major prob-

lems confronting the research and develOpment engineer who

is manager and leader of a project.56

 

Research paper, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Mass-
achusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1964, p. 20.

53Davis, Op. cit., p. 120.

54Raymond R. Ritti, "Engineers and Managers: A
Study of Engineering Organization" (unpublished PhD Thesis,
Cornell University, 1960).

55H. H. Fite, "The Role of the Management Engi-
neering Staff at the Corporate Level," Advanced Management,
V01. 23, No. 10 (October, 1958), pp. 14:17.

56Thomas Moranian, The Researgh and Development En-
gineer as Manager (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1963).

 

53

Professor R. C. Heimer maintains that engineers
oftentimes Shun management positions, Since they are not
accustomed to management's method of thinking, which in-

volves the profit motive. In his book, Management for

 

Engineers, Heimer directs the attention of the engineer
to the profit motive, the costs of production as the prin-
cipal determinants of profits, the organization of the in-
dustrial enterprise, and the place of the engineering man-
ager in the decision—making apparatus of the enterprise as
the costs are determined.57
With the aim of Shedding some light on the question
of what technical managers are like, Krugman and Edgerton58
made a comprehensive study of thirty-three top technical
managers of a large chemical corporation. The managers
studied ranged in rank from project engineer up to general
manager. For purposes of comparison, twenty-one non-
technical managers of equivalent rank within the same di-
visions were studied. Each subject of the two groups was
given an "executive appraisal" which included a personal

history record, personal data blank, depth interviews with

a trained psychologist and a battery of psychological tests

 

57Roger C. Heimer, Management for Engineers (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958).

58Herbert E. Krugman and Harold A. Edgerton, "Pro-
files of a Scientist-Manager," Personnel, Vol. 36, No. 5
(September-October, 1959), pp. 38-49.

 

 

54

covering such areas as: (l) intellectual functioning;
(2) relations with others; (3) work characteristics;

(4) aspirations and drive; (5) interests and values; and
(6) personal adjustment.

According to the authors, there was basically no-
thing in the findings which ran counter to the results of
earlier research. Technical managers are still more like
pure engineers and scientists than they are like the non-
technical group. One finding, which may be of interest
here, however, was the psychologist's assessment of each
subject's single major value on the job. The technical
managers were more concerned with professional achievement
and growth, while the non—technical managers were more con-
cerned about security, money and position.

Harry Rubey and John Logan allot the first two
chapters of their recent book, The Engineer and Professional

Management, to the importance of engineers understanding

 

the inter-relationships between engineering and management
so that they can:
1. Think from a broad rather than a narrow, Special-
ist'S point of view, and have a sympathetic understanding

of management and its Objectives.

2. Work intelligently with the non-engineering
departments.

3. Use engineering methods more effectively for
the solution of non-engineering problems.

55
4. Plan to assume a greater role in management and
administration.59
Another recent contribution to the literature on

engineering management is Val Cronstedt's book, Engineering

 

Management and Administration.60 This book, written for

 

engineers with little or no previous administrative eXperi-
ence, pulls together all those business matters affecting
the engineering department of an organization, that the
manager must know. It supplies solutions to many of the
problems confronting the administrator, describes adminis-
trative methods, and presents procedures for making engineer-
ing changes. The author also Shows the advantages of
separating administrative duties from the technical per-
sonnel, and describes the manager's role in terms of his
responsibilities both to the general management and to the
engineering department.

Continuing Education
for Engineering Managers

 

 

During the last few years, the volume of literature
and research on continuing education for engineers has been

steadily increasing. Along with this, some of the recent

 

59Rubey and Logan, Op. cit., pp. 5-6.

60Val Cronstedt, Engineerinnganagement and Admin-
istration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961).

 

 

56

major research studies and surveys on engineering education
conducted by the Societies, industries, and the universities
have also given attention to the continuing education as-

pects of engineering education.61

Even though much of the
available literature and research focuses primarily on con-
tinuing education for practicing engineers, a significant
amount of interest seems to be developing in the area of
continuing education for the engineering manager.62
Recent studies, notably those under the auspices of
the President's Science Advisory Committee, have stressed
the importance of continuing education of scientists and
engineers at all levels.63 In 1961 President John F. Kennedy
approved the undertaking of a study to examine the utiliza-

tion of scientists and engineers in the United States, to-

gether with a review of requirements for the development of

 

61Goals of Engineering Education - The Preliminary
Report (Lafayette, Indiana: American Society of Engineering
Education, October, 1965); An Engineering Master Plan Study
for the University of California (Berkeley, California:
University of California Engineering Advisory Council,
September 1, 1965).

 

2ContinuingEngineering Studies, Report of the
Joint Advisory Committee (ECPD, EJC, ASEE, NSPE, 1965);
W. L. Everitt, et al., "A Symposium on Continuing Educa-
tion," IEEE Spectrum (June, 1965), pp. 112-122; W. W.
McCallum, “Educating Industrial Managers for Tomorrow,"
Journal Of Engineering Education, Vol. 47, NO. 5 (January,
1957), PP. 450-455.

63Education for the Age of Science (Washington, D.C.:
President's SOience Advisory Committee, 1959); Meeting Man-
power Needs in Science and Technology: Graduate Training in
Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences (Washington,
D. C.: PreSidentis Advisory Committee, 1962).

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

scientists and engineers by 1970. In the study, which was
released in 1964, the Committee on Utilization of Scientific
and Engineering Manpower cited the unmistakable shortages
Of manpower in the advanced technologies of new engineering
systems, and of scientists and engineers with technical and
administrative Skills required for the effective management
of large scientific and technological undertakings.64
The Committee recommended that industry, government
and the universities all share in the responsibility to
train and develOp more managers who can combine thorough
understanding of the technology they manage with mastery
of the art Of leadership. The report stated that " . . .
the nation needs more managers who understand the inter-
dependence of technical and managerial decisions, and who
are equipped to appreciate the technical as well as the
managerial issues. . . .65
The nature of some of the problems of transition,
role adaptability and adjustment mentioned earlier in this
chapter that confront the engineer who moves into engi-

neering management, would seem to suggest that the contin-

uing education requirements necessary to support the role

 

64Toward Better Utilization of Scientific and Engi-
neering Talent: A Program for ActiOn (Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences, 1964), p. 10.

65

 

Ibid., p. 26.

58

of the engineering manager center around managerial know-
ledge and skills. This tends to be supported in the liter-
ature by the numerous articles directed to "continuing
management education" or management develOpment for engi-
neering managers.66

It has been pointed out that engineering managers

have some unique problems, and ways must be found to fill
the gaps that exist in each individual manager's background.
C. E. Gray cites several factors that influence the develOp-
ment of managers and are critical for men who have an engi-
neering background:

1. It is imperative that a full managerial position
be structured and that technical - engineering func-
tional reSponsibilities be minimized.

2. In determining rewards of engineering managers,

sufficient weight must be given to the managerial func-
tions of the job in addition to the technical.

 

66H. W. Johnson, "Developing Engineers for Manage-
ment Responsibility," Personnel, Vol. 35, No. 2 (September-
October, 1958), pp. 66-71; George W. Jernstedt, "Engineering
Management DevelOpment," IRE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 5, No. 1 (March, 1958), pp. 3-6;
W. R. G. Baker, "Personnel Selection and Training for Engi-
neering Management," IRE Transactions on EngineeripgiManage-
ment, Vol. 4, No. 1 (March, 1957), pp. 79-81; G. C. Jacobus
and J. C. Stephens, "The Engineer Manager: Training the
Technician for Executive Responsibilities," Personnel,
Vol. 30, NO. 5 (March, 1954), pp. 374-381; Robért K.
Greenleaf, "A Forward Look at Management DevelOpment,"
IRE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, Vol. 6, No. 1
(March, 1959), pp. 19-30.

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

3. High level managers Should treat subordinate
managers as managers and not as engineers.

4. Engineering managers Should be given the Oppor-
tunity and encouraged to develop their managerial skills
and increase their appreciation of the business world.67

Jucius and Schlender maintain that a manager must

know something about the technicalities of the field in
which he is the leader. He must have knowledge and Skill
pertinent to personnel and human relations, and he must get
his technicians to work together effectively by planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling their work. They
describe the needs of the engineering manager in the fol—
lowing way:

. . . a manager is a Specialist leading a group of
technical eXpertS or specialists. . . . He must possess
managerial attributes that will permit him to Optimize
various goals of his particular team. He must have a
fund of managerial knowledge, a set of managerial skills,
and an acquaintance with managerial duties to lead his
team of engineers . . .58

The need to involve professional managers in normal

business decisions is considered extremely important by
several researchers. Bailey and Jensen suggest that the en-
gineering manager needs training to cover both the immediate

and the longer-range aspects Of his job. Steps Should be

taken to see that he gets adequate instruction in handling

 

67Gray, Op. cit., pp. 31-32.

68Michael J. Jucius and William E. Schlender, Ele-
ments of Managerial Action (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., 1965), p. 3.

 

60

the purely administrative aspects of his job and develOpS
intelligent insight into company policies. Above all, he
Should be helped to see what being a manager means to him.69
Peter Drucker also stresses the importance of the
manager's participation in discussions of long-range policy
and in decisions on the range of products, as well as his
being involved in determining production programs. The
professional manager, according to Drucker, needs all the
insight into business he can possibly get.70
The engineering manager, Rubey believes, often fails
to give enough attention to business, political and finan-
cial viewpoints, and to public relations. He must guard
against too much "how to do it," which his subordinate can
handle, and give more thought to broader questions of over-
all policy. "Knowing what to do, through and by which
peOple, iS more useful than knowing how to do it," he com—

ments.71 Kenneth 01m refers to this as "process knowledge"

or knowledge about, rather than knowledge of how to do it.72

 

69Bailey and Jensen, Op. cit., p. 53.

70Peter F. Drucker, “Management and the Professional
Employee," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May-
June, 1952), p. 89.

71

 

Rubey and Logan, Op. cit., p. 4.

72Kenneth W. Olm, "The Role of the Industrial Engi-
neer in the Emerging Profession of Management," Journal of
Industrial Engineering, VOl. 7, NO. 3 (May-June, 1960),
p. 217.

 

 

61

The Opinion is also held that the administrative
engineer must regard himself as a "resource person" rather
than as the boss who is supposed to manage, to control, and
to make decisions. His major function, Charles Orth con-
tends, Should be one of "helping," and he Should acquire
administrative Skills accordingly. The engineering manager
should be valued mainly for his ability to release the po—
tential creativity of the Operating engineer.73 Drucker
adds that the one contribution a manager is uniquely ex-
pected to make is to give others vision and ability to
perform.74

Simon Marcson's study reveals that little is done
to help the engineering manager acquire managerial skills.
Marcson attributes this to the fallacious assumptions that
somehow the engineering manager has acquired managerial
skills because he holds such a position, and that he is
mainly an engineer and does not need Special preparation
for managerial duties. In summarizing on the role concept
of engineering managers, Marcson states:

. . . he has acquired a conception of himself as an

executive type of manager without the necessary skills.
His conception of his role iS no longer based on his

 

73Charles D. Orth, "More Productivity from Engineers,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35, NO. 2 (March-April, 1957),
p. 61.

 

74Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1954).

62

professional attainments. In his new role of manager

he no longer has the sure footing of training and com-

petence he had as an engineer. The tendency, then, is

for him to continue to act as an engineer in a role

which calls for executive skills.75

The need for training in management skills was
voiced by approximately 1500 engineering graduates of the
University of California in a recently completed study of
continuing education needs. A large number of the respon-
dents considered the broader aspects of education such as
organizing, planning and administration, public Speaking,
letter and report writing, and human relations more impor-
tant and necessary to their present jobs than highly tech-
nical subjects such as advanced mathematical analysis,
modern physics, modern chemistry, and advanced probability
and statistics. The highest rating by those in management
for a technical subject was only 19 percent, that being
reached on both computers and advanced design.76
In the Fall of 1962, the Engineering College Admin-

istrative Council and the Relations with Industry Divisions

of the American Society for Engineering Education formed a

joint Feedback Committee to determine, analyze, and report

 

75Marcson, Op. cit., p. 33.

76A Study of the Engineering Alumni of the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley; and University of California,
LOS Angeles, Classes Of 1949-1962 (Los Angeles, California:
University of California, Department of Engineering, 1965);
An Engineering Master Plan Study for the University of
California, Op. cit., p. 102.

 

 

 

 

63

the needs which engineers believe they have for further
training several years after they have begun their profes-
sional careers in industry.77

The primary conclusion of the study is that engi-
neers in general believe that they need more training in
both technical and non-technical areas. However, their
first needs appear to be for subjects that will enable them
to better apply the technical knowledge they already pos-
sess. This conclusion is based on the fact that between 60
and 66 percent of the engineers responding designated in
order of need, management practices, technical writing,
and probability and statistics. In the overall results,
nine of the first 15 subjects selected were non-technical;
Six were technical.

Survey data reported by job functions showed that
persons primarily concerned with the management Of engineers
and scientists chose the highest number of subjects as
needed for further training. These respondents placed high
priority on the need for instruction in management practices,
technical writing, public Speaking, working with individuals,

and creative thinking.78

 

77"Education in Industry: Synopsis of the Joint
ECAC-RWI Feedback Committee Report," Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 55, NO. 9 (May, 1965), pp. 2543256.

78

 

Ibid., p. 256.

64

One of the most recent and extensive studies to be
found in the literature, focusing on continuing education
needs and pursuits of engineers and engineering managers,
is the one conducted by Samuel S. Dubin and H. LeRoy Marlow
of the Research Division, Continuing Education, The Penn-
sylvania State University in 1965. This study was concerned
with technological obsolescence in the education of the
professional engineer with specific reference to the self-
perceived educational needs Of 2,090 practicing engineers
of all ages employed in Pennsylvania industries of varying
size. Group interviews were conducted with managing engi-
neers in 51 companies and included discussion on current
and future technical and managerial problems.79

When asked about Specific areas of technological
instruction needed to help them deal more effectively with
the tasks they encountered in their work, engineering man-
agers placed the highest priority on computer technology
and application, followed by statistics, metallurgy, math-
ematics, basic physics and chemistry, electronics and solid

state physics.80

 

79Samuel S. Dubin and LeRoy H. Marlow, Research
Report of Continuing Professional Education for Engineers
in Pennsylvania, (The Pennsylvania State University, 1965).

80

 

Ibid., p. 88.

65

Of the desired humanities, social science, and busi-
ness subjects that would be of help, economics, psychology
and English (report writing) ranked highest. Following
these were: public Speaking, human relations, accounting,
management, and communications. The few engineers who de-
sired the humanities expressed the Opinion that advancement
in management required a broadening of personal development.
Most engineers were so pressed by the demands of their work
that they felt they scarcely had time to keep up with the
technical advances and had little desire for courses that
had no immediate application to their work.81

Much of the literature and research pertaining to
management skills expresses the need for engineering managers
to become adroit at human relations.82 Kilgore and Baker
investigated human relations training for engineering
managers at Westinghouse through a specially designed course
approach. They concluded by large voluntary turnout and by
active participation, that engineers are interested in human
relations training and do profit from a study of the tech-

83
niques of getting along with peOple.

 

BlIbid., pp. 89-90.

82Tyler G. Hicks, Professional Achievement for Engi-
neers and Scientists (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1963), p. 182.

83L. Kilgore and V. Baker, "Human Relations and
Engineers," Westinghouse Engineer, Vol. 17, No. 4 (July, 1957).

 

 

 

66

Human relations showed up again among the tOp three
goals of general education ranked as most important by
3,800 Purdue engineering alumni, many of whom held engi-
neering management positions. Accompanying human relations
were: learning to eXpreSS one's thoughts effectively, and
acquiring the Skills for constructive thinking.84

Some generalizations from a study conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation for the Professional Engineers
Conference Board for Industry that reflect on the attitudes
which engineering managers have toward continuing education,
came from a question that was asked concerning the type of
company training they would prefer. Invariably top billing
was given to non-technical subjects. The managers wanted
more instruction on organization and planning, how to handle
peOple, letter and report writing, and public Speaking. Of
the ten choices listed, the managers rated the only two
technical subjects, advanced engineering and advanced math-

ematics, eighth and tenth, respectively.85

 

84William K. LeBOld et al., A Study of the Purdue
University Engineering Graduate (Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University, January, 1960); John Gillis, The Attitudes of
Purdue Engineering - Alumni, Faculty and Students Toward the
Goals of General Education (unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Purdue University, 1958); Edward Thoma, A Study of the
Purdue University Engineering Graduate (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1958).

85Career Satisfactions of Professional Engineers in
Industry, pp. cit., p. 32.

 

 

67

According to the Study, it would appear that the
experienced engineer, including the engineering manager,
is seeking ways to make himself a more rounded individual.
He feels deficient in the non-technical skills, and welcomes
company training that will extend his competence beyond the
purely technical.86

The need for engineering managers to procure educa-
tion and training in management is further evidenced by the
ever-increasing number of management development programs
being Offered for technical managers by universities and
industries throughout the country. For example, the Ad-
vanced Management Programs at Harvard University, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Michigan
State University, and at the University of Michigan, to
mention a few, are structured so that middle managers can
gain an understanding of the processes of management and
the role of tOp administrators; can develOp competence in
planning and policy formulation; can see the role of busi-
ness in society; and can refine skills in handling the
human elements of organizations. Typical of the subject
areas covered in these university programs are: problem
solving and mathematical concepts for decision making,

human behavior, marketing management, accounting and

 

86Ibid., p. 48.

68

financial policy, business history, communication Skills,
managerial economics, and scientific and technical innova-
tions, among others.87
Illustrative of this trend in industry are manage-
ment develOpment programs for engineering managers of the
type being conducted by Ford Motor Company, General Electric,
Radio Corporation of America, The Western Electric Company
and many others. At Ford Motor Company, for instance, the
Engineering Management Education Program consists of special
courses, lectures and engineering management conferences de-
signed to increase the managers' skill in understanding and
working with peOple, selection and appraisal interviewing,
decision making, delegation and motivation.88 At Western
Electric, on-going management develOpment programs, usually
in a seminar or workshOp format, are held as Off-the-job
study for several consecutive days or weeks at a company-
training facility. Program content is concerned with such
topics as: administrative policies and practices, labor

relations, personal development, managerial controls, public

 

87Advanced Management Programs (unpublished report,
General Personnel Planning and DevelOpment, Consumers Power
Company, Jackson, Michigan, July, 1966).

881967 Education Programs (unpublished report,
Personnel Planning Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn, Michigan, 1967).

69

affairs, simulation, data processing systems, product and
Operations research, computer theory, linear programming,
systems analysis, inventory control and others.89

A survey by Dun's Review and Modern Industry of 100

 

tOp executives of some of the largest U.S. industries un—
covered few signs of disillusionment with management training
as such. There was general agreement, however, that "canned
approaches" to the complex problem of develOping executive
talent had run their course and that company programs in the
future should be more tailored to fit the needs of both the
organization and the individual. The main focus on outside
courses should be on on-the-job training, with prime empha-
sis on the immediate superior-subordinate relationship. The
respondents favored informal, small-group training techniques,
such as workShOp seminars, business games, and special de-
velopmental assignments. There was little enthusiasum for
formal lectures and courses aimed at broadening the manager's

cultural background.90

 

89Graduate Engineering Education (New York: Western
Electric Company, 1966); Management Development Prggrams
(New York: Western Electric Company, 1963).

90Editors, "Does Management Training Pay Off?"
Dun's Review and Modern Industry, Vol. 74, No. 5 (November,
1959), PP. 41-43.

 

70

91 92

Dooher and Marquis, and McGehee and Thayer,
among others, have assembled a wide variety of methods and
techniques employed in management develOpment. The indi-
vidual may receive training on the job. He may be coached
by his immediate superior. He may be given guided job ex-
perience on a planned basis. He may receive counseling
from professional consultants. The manager may be given
additional education outside the company in formal organized
programs, such as management conferences, institutes, sem-
inars; technical and professional meetings; university
executive develOpment programs; graduate programs in busi-
ness administration; university extension and night courses;
regular college and university work on leave from the job;
and in workshOps, panels, adult education classes, and
forums. Widely used are such company training classes as
conferences and skills training classes in planning, or-
ganizing, report writing, and conference leadership skills.
Continuing education activities supported by com-
panies to keep engineers abreast of current knowledge were

surveyed in The Pennsylvania State University study.

 

91M. J. Dooher and V. Marquis, The DevelOpment of
Executive Talent (New York: American Management Association,

92William McGehee and Paul Thayer, Training_in
Business and Industry (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1964), pp. 196-224.

 

 

 

 

71

Company attitudes toward additional education for engineers
ranged from strong support to neutrality. Larger companies
gave more vigorous support than the smaller companies. The
engineering managers surveyed indicated that companies gave
strongest support to such continuing education activities
as: convention attendance, professional and technical
society membership, technical publications, short seminars
and in-plant courses. Evening and full-time courses, the
use of consultants, awards for publications, in-plant con-
ferences, sources of information from manufacturers, and
visits to other companies were given little positive en-
couragement.93

Technical managers in a Princeton University survey
indicated a preference for in-company, evening, seminar
type study.94 Another survey revealed lack of interest in
credit course study, in that eighty percent of the engi-
neering managers were not planning to pursue an advanced
degree.95

Industrial Sponsorship of continuing education for

engineering managers was also studied by Rice,96

 

93Dubin and Marlow, Op. cit., p. 86.

94E. Raudsepp, "Who Pays for Technical Retooling?"
Machine Design, Vol. 36, No. 16 (July, 1964), p. 94.

95E. Raudsepp, "Attitudes on Education," Machine
Design, Vol. 36, NO. 17 (July, 1964), p. 125.

96R. A. Rice, "Education for Specific Needs--Company
Sponsored Courses," IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 6,
No. 2 (December, 1963), pp. 99-104.

 

72

Schneider,97 and in a doctoral dissertation by Wheeler.98
The trends in sponsorship of continuing education programs
which were revealed were: (1) significantly increased use
of non-credit technical course programs; (2) Slightly in-
creased use of work-study and sabbatical programs; and

(3) greater emphasis upon education and less emphasis upon
training programs.

A study by Gorr considered the interpretation which
the individual and the company place on company-sponsored
programs Of continuing education. The study focused on
companies' and individuals' eXpectations after completing a
degree-study program. The findings suggest that the com-
panies generally viewed their programs as a necessary fringe
benefit which made them competitive with other companies in
recruiting and retraining personnel. The participants, on
the other hand, viewed the advanced-study programs as means
toward success-advancement, greater responsibilities, and

new job duties.99

 

97Eugene Schneider, "What Industry is Doing for
Continued Education of Engineers," Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 51, NO. 3 (December, 1960), pp. 211-217.

98Edward Wheeler, Industrial Sponsorship of Con-
tinuing Education for Anti-Obsolescence of Engineers and
Scientists (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lehigh
University, 1965), p. 62.

99M. L. Gorr, et al., A Comparison of Attitudes
Regarding the Value of the MBA Degree Towards Personal
Advancement (unpublished study, Graduate School of Business,
University of Pittsburg, 1964).

 

 

73

In 1965, Maw and Addison evaluated the attitudes of
research and development managers toward management training.
Their findings revealed that research and development man-
agers seem to feel that increased management training is
needed at both the academic degree and the in-plant levels.
Management training at the in-plant level seems to be pre-

100 C. J. Chamberlain has voiced some

ferred, however.
criticism at company sponsored, "in-house" programs such as
management courses and fundamental technical courses.
Chamberlain believes that these "quick" courses usually
fail to accomplish anything. He maintains that advanced
educational status can only be Obtained by hard work and
intense formal training.101
Studies indicate a trend toward on-campus academic
servicing of continuing education for engineering managers.
However, the trend has just begun and the total number of
professional managers attending continuing education pro-
grams at universities and colleges is relatively small.102

Engineering managers have been found, however, to be more

consistent participants in non-degree continuing education

 

1001. L. Maw and A. Addison, "Attitudes of Research
and DevelOpment Management Toward Management Training,"
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 12, No. 4
(December, 1965), pp. 134-138.

101Clinton J. Chamberlain, "Coming Era in Engi-
neering Management," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39, No. 5
(September-October, 1961), p. 90.

102Wheeler, Op. cit., p. 40.

 

 

74

study at universities than practicing engineers and scien-

103 104 105
assessed

tists. Studies by Oberg and Huneryager
the effectiveness of university-sponsored executive de-
velOpment programs for middle and tOp management personnel.
The data showed the over-all reaction of managers on their
evaluation of this type of continuing education approach
to be highly favorable. According to Oberg, the chief ad-
vantages of such programs are: (1) they let executives
get away from the job pressures and the "party line" think-
ing and stimulate self-analysis; (2) they provide resource
people and materia1--facu1ty members, fellow executives,
books--to help the executive as he attempts to change, de-
velop, and grow; and (3) they present a challenge to the
executive which enhances his motivation to develop himself.106
Apparently the concept of continuing education de-
signed for the purpose of technically updating engineering

managers is rather new. The predominant thought seems to

have been that once a degree in engineering is acquired,

 

lOBIbido' pp. 81-82.

104Winston Oberg, "TOp Management Assesses Univer-

sity Executive Programs," Business Topics, Vol. 11, NO. 2
(1963), PP. 7-27.

105Sherwood Huneryager, An Evaluation of University
Executive Training (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, 1963).

106

 

Oberg, OE. Cit., pp. 23-24.

75

the technical knowledge accrued is applicable for all time.
The emphasis in the literature appears to center on the ac-
quisition of management knowledge and skills somewhat to
the neglect of the need for updating obsolete knowledge in
the technical or professional areas. This is evident from
the predominance of articles and studies in management de-
velOpment for the engineering manager and the dirth of
studies in continuing education in the technical areas.

Undoubtedly this imbalance will change as evidenced
by the increasing number of articles and speeches on the
eXplosion of knowledge and the accelerating rate of obso-
lescence that accompanies it, and by the growing pOpularity
of programs being offered by universities and industries
throughout the country, dealing with technical and profes-
sional updating for the engineer-manager.

Franklin D. Murphy, Chancellor of the University of
California, LOS Angeles, commented on the need for technical
updating of engineering managers:

The problems we will confront in the next ten or
fifteen years will require that our industrial and
scientific leaders have a deep understanding of the
nature of our technology and the forces which are
Operative in it. They will be called upon to make
technical decisions of far-reaching social and economic
impact. Here the engineering executive will provide
leadership. To make his leadership effective he must

be constantly updating himself to meet the accelerating
needs Of society.107

 

107Franklin D. Murphy, Modern Engineering for Engi-
neering Executives (Los Angeles, California: University of
California, 1962).

 

76

J. A. Strelzoff, Professor of Electrical Engineering
at Michigan State University and Director of the Modern En-
gineering Seminars, strongly emphasizes the need for con-
tinuing education programs to technically update engineering
managers. He believes that engineering managers need:

1. to have an understanding of, and an apprecia-
tion for some of the more important scientific and
advanced engineering concepts which have become highly
essential to our modern way Of life.

2. to become acquainted with the numerous changes
and newest advancements in the fields of engineering

and science.

3. to learn about the latest methods Of attacking
engineering problems.

4. to seek out the practical aspects of the new
technology from the practitioners of the art.

5. to develop a more extensive vieWpOint on current
engineering problems.

6. to understand the unifying concepts and sim—
ilarities of many different engineering and related
subjects.

7. to become excited as to the possibilities of
using some of the "new" science in their work.108

In 1959, engineering educators began to realize that
many engineering executives were finding it increasingly
difficult to keep pace with recent developments in science
and engineering. Also, it was felt by many that technical
considerations had become so important in business decisions

that the engineering manager had to augment his formal

 

108Joseph A. Strelzoff, 1966-67 Modern Engineering

Seminars (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,

T966).—

 

77

education to make the necessary technical decisions required
by his job. To alleviate this problem, special tailormade
courses and seminars were designed early in the 1960's by
the University of California at Los Angeles, Michigan State
University and by the General Electric Company.109

Michigan State University, for example, in May of
1967 completed its fifth annual Modern Engineering Seminar
series for engineering managers representing industries
throughout Michigan and the Midwest. Also during the past
year, the Continuing Education Service, cooperatively with
the College of Engineering at Michigan State University,
has offered a Power Systems Engineering Seminar for engi-
neering managers from Michigan public utilities, along with
two Special seminars for engineering executives from two
large automotive industries in Michigan. Judging from the
reactions of the participants, the Modern Engineering Sem-
inars seem to be serving a pressing continuing education
need. Current appraisals and explorations are being con-
ducted to improve and expand such programs for apprOpriate
develOpment of engineering managers.

Several share the View that new develOpments and
new directions lie ahead in continuing education for engi-

neering management. Some see management becoming more

 

109George A. Boehm, "Bringing Engineers Up to Date,‘
Fortune, Vol. 67, No. 5 (May, 1963).

78

analytical and scientific under the impact of technological
develOpments, requiring managers to know more SOphisticated
techniques of analysis, programming, communication and de-
cision making; and to employ such mathematical and statis-
tical tools as Operations research methods, game theory,

110 It is felt that

Simulation, and mathematical modeling.
more concern will be with the manager's judgment develOp-
ment than with his job Skill develOpment,lll and emphasis
will be placed more on the conscious application of the
social and behavioral sciences to the solution of business
problems.112 Engineering managers will need sabbatical
leaves to take courses in the newer areas, and participation
in Special full-time seminars extending from one to several
months will be routine.113

Others are Of the Opinion that the master's degree

and even the doctor's degree will become a routine require-

ment for engineers advancing in managerial positions.

 

110A. Uris, "What's Ahead for Middle Management,"
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 70, No. 17 (August 19, 1963),
pp. 176-180.

111J. T. Emrick, "Training and DevelOpment of Mid-
dle Managers," Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4
(October, 1965), p. 56.

112Leonard Silk, The Education of Businessmen (New
York: Committee for Economic DevelOpment, December, 1960),
p. 9.

 

 

113Neil W. Chamberlain, "Retooling the Mind," The
Atlantic (September, 1964), pp. 48-50.

 

79

Joseph Pettit, Dean of Engineering at Stanford University,
points out that there is still wide-Spread belief that en-
gineers with advanced degrees, particularly the doctorate,
are suitable only for research, even though there is abun-
dant evidence that engineers with advanced degrees are al-
ready functioning effectively in leadership roles in all
aspects of engineering activity.114

The real change, however, many believe, will come
in formalizing the practice of life-time learning that has
become necessary in our society.115 John D. Ryder, Dean Of
the College of Engineering at Michigan State University,
has emphasized that in atomic terms, today's graduate en-
gineer has a half-life of approximately ten years; i.e.,
half of what he knows now will be Obsolete in about a

116

decade. This infers, then, that about half of what he

will need to know is not even available to him today. In
View of this, Bass makes a fitting conclusion in his state-

ment that "the manager who is satisfied to rest on his laurels

114Joseph Pettit, "The Changing Status of Graduate
Engineering Education," Journal of Engineering Education,
VOl. 57, No. 5 (January, 1967), p. 364.

115Alan J. Levy, "New Developments in Management,"
‘Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May-June,
1965). pp. 1713.76.

116John D. Ryder, "Education for Modern Engineering,"
Ekiper presented at the 1965-66 Modern Engineering Seminars,

gfichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, October 22,
965.

 

80

cannot survive for long in today's rapidly changing world.
Thus, for managers, the process of learning is a lifelong

affair."117

Summary

Because of the increasing complexity of technology
and the rapid growth of science and its immediate applica-
tion in industry, the literature and research over the past
several years have pointed to the acute need for engineers
in management. Studies have revealed a decided inclination
on the part Of engineers toward management and have shown
a definite movement of engineers into managerial positions.
From all indications in the literature, it would appear
that this trend will continue.

A limited amount of literature and research exists,
however, on the subject of engineers actually performing
in managerial roles. Much of what is available seems to
focus on transition problems in the movement from engineer
to manager and on the difficulties engineers have in adapting
themselves to the dual role of engineer-manager. Studies

Show distinct differences in role concept between managerial

117Bernard M. Bass and James A. Vaughn, The Psycho-
lfiggy of Learning for Managers (American Foundation for
Management Research, Inc., 1965), preface.

 

81

levels and stress the importance of role adaptibility of
the engineering manager in level, function, and interest.

A further examination of the literature reveals an
increasing awareness of the importance of continuing edu-
cation for the modern engineer-manager. Until recently,
however, the emphasis on the continuing education needs and
activities necessary to support the role of the engineering
manager seems to have been primarily on the procurement of
managerial knowledge and skills rather than on the need for
technical updating. In View of the recent literature and
the Special efforts being made by universities and indus-
tries directed to the need for updating technical managers,

a new emphasis is indicated.

CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY

This study develOped out of discussions, evalua-
tions, and informal interviews with university faculty
members and engineering managers who participated in the
Modern Engineering Seminars conducted annually by the
Continuing Education Service and the College of Engineering
at Mighigan State University. The writer has served as
the administrator of the Modern Engineering Seminars since
their inception in 1962.

The main Objective of this study is to investigate
the relationships between the perceptions engineering
managers have of the continuing education requirements sup-
porting their role and the expectations defined for them
by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by
engineering faculty outside of the organization.

The research procedures chosen to achieve the ob-
jectives of the study stem from those employed in studies

by Kahn et al.,1 and by Gross, Mason, and McEachern.2

 

lKahn et al., Op. cit.

2Gross et al., Op. cit.

82

83

Population Sample

 

The subject pOpulation consists of engineering
managers employed by 40 companies of various types and
sizes located throughout Michigan and the Midwest.

The problem in identifying role-definers was to
decide on those persons whose behavior was likely to have
an influence on the content of the engineering manager's
role and on the continuing education requirements support-
ing his role. Criteria, established a priori, dictated
the selection of the other role-definer groups. These
included the selection of the other role-definers in posi—
tions defined by the hierarchical authority structure and
the work-flow structure in the engineering activity within
the organization. Therefore, immediate superiors and di-
ect subordinates Of the engineering managers were selected.
In order to provide an Objective view from outside of the
organization, full-time faculty members of the Michigan
State University College of Engineering were also selected
as role definers.

DisprOportionate stratified sampling procedures3
were employed in the selection of the role-definers. To

assist in obtaining the sample of engineering managers,

 

3Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples:
Practical Procedures (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950),
Chapter 7; Russell L. Ackoff, The Design of Social Research
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953» Chapter 4.

 

 

84

company organization charts were studied and interviews
conducted with engineering personnel officers and engineer-
ing managers attending the Modern Engineering Seminars.

The sample of engineering managers in turn generated the
sample of immediate superiors and the sample of direct
subordinates, as explained later in the chapter. Because

of the relatively small number of full-time faculty mem-
bers in the Michigan State University College of Engineering,

all members were included in the analysis.
Questionnaire-Schedule Construction

Two separate instruments were develOped for this
study using Gross et al.,4 and Anderson5 as sources of
reference.

To generate role-expectation items measuring the
three major consensus areas selected for analysis, a struc-
tured interview schedule consisting of open-ended questions
was devised and utilized (see Appendix A). This Open-ended

Interview Schedule6 was administered in forty-five minute

 

4Gross, et al., Op. cit., Chapter 7.

5Robert C. Anderson,"A Method and Instrument for
Predicting the Consequences Of Intra-Organizational Action"
(unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1963).

6This instrument is a modification of the analyti-
cal Open-ended Question Device used by Robert C. Anderson
by which to generate elements or descriptive statements
about any specific social system or organization under
analysis.

85

interviews with eight respondents from each of the role-
definer groups at the three levels of the organizational
hierarchy (See Figure 1, Chapter II) and with eight mem-
bers of the faculty of Michigan State University.

From the responses to the Open-ended Interview
Schedule, a preliminary set Of role-expectation items was
develOped and an instrument prepared and submitted to
faculty judges to be assessed for construct validity and
for critical evaluation.

Based upon the evaluation of the faculty judges,
a modified role-expectation instrument was structured and
a pretest administered to the thirty-two respondents of
the Open-ended Interview Schedule and to four additional
respondents from each of the four role-definer groups.
One hundred percent return was achieved on the pretest
from the forty-eight respondents. The results of the pre-
test were subjected tO item analysis and the final instru-
ment was prepared.

The instrument used in the study was a self-
administered questionnaire-schedule containing 130 role—
expectation items in three sections, and 15 personal data
items in a fourth section. The differences in types of
role definers involved in the investigation necessitated
slight variations in the questionnaire instructions as

well as the omission of the personal data section in

86

the faculty questionnaire. The questionnaires have been
color-keyed into four groups to make these distinctions.
The questionnaire-schedule contains items clus-

tered around three categories:

1. Section I contains 29 items dealing with the types of
functions in which engineering managers may or may
not be expected to engage. These items were gener-
ated primarily to serve as criteria upon which to
support the continuing education requirements of the
engineering manager. This was necessary Since no

appropriate job standard was available.

2. Section II contains 35 items dealing with the types
of continuing education activities in which engineer-

ing managers may or may not be expected to engage.

Responses to the role expectation items in the
questionnaire-schedule were in terms of a Likert-type
scale.7 Each item in Sections I and II was characterized
by five forced-choice responses. They were Absolutely Must
(AM), Preferably Should (PS), May or May Not (MMN),
Preferably Should Not (PSN), and Absolutely Must Not (AMN).
Numerical values were assigned to each response choice:

AM-l, PS-Z, MMN-3, PSN-4, and ANN-5.

 

7Partens, o . cit., pp. 196-198; c. Selltiz,
M Jahoda, M. DeutscE, and S. Cook, Research Methods in

Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 19617! pp. 357-384.

 

87

3. Section III contains 66 items dealing with specific

technical and nontechnical subjects. The question to

' which they are directed concerns the extent of know-
ledge that the engineering manager should have con-
cerning each subject. Each item in Section III was
characterized by three forced-choice responses. They
were Acquire a Working Knowledge of (AWK), Acquire an
Overview only (AOV), and Doesn't Really Need (DRN).
Numerical values were assigned to each response choice:

AWK-l, AOV-Z, and DRN-3.

Exhibit 1 of Appendix B contains one of the four
role-analysis instruments. This instrument was used for
the engineering managers and is illustrative of the two
instruments used for the immediate superiors and the di-
rect subordinates of the engineering managers. These
three instruments differed only in color code and in vari-
ations in instructions. The items in Section IV of
Exhibit 1 are concerned with personal data and were not

included in the faculty instrument.

Questionnaire-Schedule
Di stribut ion and Re eponse

A package containing two questionnaires, two self-
addressed stamped envelOpes, a self-addressed stamped
postcard (see Appendix C), and an individually typed and

personally addressed cover letter (see Appendix D) was

88

either mailed or distributed personally to some 230 engi-
neering managers employed by the 40 firms mentioned. The
mailing or distribution occurred on November 1, 1966. The
engineering manager was asked to indicate on the enclosed
postcard the name, title, company, and company address of
his immediate superior and to return the postcard immedi-
ately. The engineering manager was also asked to complete
and return his questionnaire, and to give the remaining
questionnaire and envelope to a direct subordinate engineer
employed within the engineering activity. Information from
the returned postcard was used to direct a similar package
containing a questionnaire, self-addressed stamped envelOpe
and cover letter to the immediate superior of the engineer-
ing manager.

A questionnaire, self-addressed envelOpe and cover
letter were distributed to some 81 full-time faculty mem-
bers in the College of Engineering, Michigan State University.
This distribution was made possible through the Acting Dean
of the College of Engineering who personally secured the
COOperation of the College of Engineering Department Chair-
men to see that the questionnaire material was distributed
directly from the department Offices.

Follow-up letters were sent as needed to members
of each group. Final tabulations of the data include all
reSponses which were received by February 1, 1967. Usable

questionnaires were received from 199 engineering managers,

89

122 immediate superiors of engineering managers, 168 direct
subordinates and 50 faculty members, totaling 539 question-
naires. This represents a return of 77 percent of the
total distributed. Table 1 indicates the questionnaire-
schedule distribution and returns based on the sample

groupings.

Analysis of the Data

 

All responses to each of the statements comprising
the questionnaire-schedule were coded and the information
key punched on IBM cards and verfied. for use with the
Control Data Corporation 3600 computer at Michigan State
University. The Analysis of Contingency Tables written
program (ACT)8 was used in determining the chi-square sta-
tistic. The chi-square test was used to determine the
significance of differences between two independent groups,
thereby providing the basis for determining the extent of
consensus between role groups on each of the statements.
The level of significance established a priori was the .05
level. This methodology provided the basis for acceptance
or rejection of the null hypotheses. According to Siegel,

the chi-square test is applicable to data in a contingency

 

8The Analysis of Contingency Tables (ACT) program
was written for the Control Data Corporation 3600 computer
by A. M. Lesgold, F. M. Sim, and L. C. Widmayer, Computer
Institute of Social Science Research, Michigan State Uni-
versity, Revised, January 27, 1966.

90

 

 

v.0» mmm o.m mm >.hm use won mamuoa
m.ao om o.oa m m.am me am Spasomm
mqfluwmcfimcm
o.mn mma H.m ea m.mm «ma omm mmumsHpHonsm
uomuflo
m.pm mas o.oa mm m.pn pus omm mummmcmz
mcwummcflmcm
p.45 NNH 4.0H AH v.4p mos mpa muoflummsm
mumameEH
mcuopmm mausuom susumm assumm cusumm cusuom Omusnwuumflo
Hmuoe Hmuoe paoomm pcoomm umHHm umnwm moanpmzom mHmEmm
usmonmm unmoumm usmoumm IOHHMGGOflumOOO

 

 

.mmcommmu paw coflusnflupmflp waspmnomnmnflmccowummso .H magma

91

table only if the expected frequencies are sufficiently
large. When the expected frequencies do not meet certain
requirements, one may increase their values by combining
adjacent classifications and thus reducing the number of
cells. This may be done only if such combining does not
alter the data of their meaning.9 It was necessary in
Sections I and II of this analysis to combine the two
negative categories (PSN) and (AMN), to assure sufficient
numbers of responses in the cells of the contingency table.
Therefore, in the final analysis for all statements in
Sections I and II, there were four responses per statement,
"Absolutely Must," "Preferably Should," "May or may not,"
and a combination of "Preferably Should Not" and "Absolutely

Must Not."
Characteristics of the Respgndents

Some characteristics and statistical information
about the engineering managers, their immediate superiors,
and their direct subordinates were gathered in Section IV
of the questionnaire-schedule.

Age groupings on the basis of 5-year intervals
were established. The data reveal a common modal age range
of 40-44 years of all three respondent groups. Table 2

shows the age distribution of the above respondents.

 

9Sidney Siegel,Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav-
ioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), p. 109.

 

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooa mma o.ooa mma o.ooa NNH
v.~ wII o.m MII m.ma ma mumps mm nm>o
psm p H.ma mm m.m NH mmuam
m.va «N H.mm om o.mm mm omImv
H.mm mv H.mm mm w.¢m mv vaov
H.ma mm H.mm we n.oa ma mmImm
m.ma mm m.m Ha m. H «MIom
m.m ma o.m q I I mmImm
o.m m I I I I mummm mm Hons:

usmoumm umnEdz usmoumm umnEdz unwoumm HmnEdz
mmumcflpuonom mummmcmz muoflummsm mmmcmm 00¢

uomuflo mafiummcfimcm mumwmeEH

 

 

.muampcommmu mo coausnfluumflp mmd

.N manna

93

The respondents were also asked to indicate the
highest level of formal education which they had attained.
The findings show the Bachelor's Degree as the modal edu-
cational level for all three groups. They further reveal
that over 20 percent of each group had earned advanced de-
grees, and in fact over 5 percent of the engineering mana-
gers and their superiors had earned the doctorate. The
response distribution is shown in Table 3.

The length of time that had elapsed since receiving
their highest degree in engineering was also analyzed. The
modal period of time elapsed was 16-20 years in the case of
the superiors and the engineering managers as compared to
11-15 years for the subordinates. The data also indicated
that nearly 30 percent of the superiors had received their
degrees over 25 years ago. Table 4 enumerates the findings.

The respondents were also asked if they were cur-
rently enrolled for another degree and, if not enrolled,
did they plan to enroll for another degree. Approximately
8 percent of the engineering managers indicated that they
were enrolled for another degree, and an additional 9 per-
cent stated that they were planning tO enroll for another
degree. Approximately 10 percent of the direct subordin-
ates indicated that they were enrolled for another degree;
however, 25 percent stated that they were planning to en-
roll. Two percent Of the immediate superiors were currently

enrolled for another degree, and 4 percent indicated that

94

 

 

 

 

 

o.o0H mpH o.OOH mmH o.OOH NNH mHmuoa
m.H MII. H.m MMI. h.m Ml mmummp Honouooo
H.mH mm A.Hm mp m.mm mm mmummp m.nmumm2
m.mh «NH p.4p mNH p.00 we mmummp m.uonnopm
o.p OH p.n mH o.m HH mmmHHoo mumps muH
p. H o.H m m. H Hoonom anm
ucwonmm HOQEdz pcmonmm Hmnasz usmoumm Hmnfidz
mmuqupuonsm mummpcmz muoHumdsm Hm>oH :oHupuspm
mcflummcwqcm ODMHOOEEH

 

 

.mucmpcommmu map an pmcflmuum coaumospm HOEHOM mo Hm>ma

ummanm .m mHnme

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooa «ma o.OOH omH o.ooa ONH mamuoa
m.m mH m.pH mm m.m~ em mumps mm um>o
m.m m m.¢H mm m.nH Hm mNIHN
m.HN mm H.Hm mm S.Hm mm omImH
v.¢~ ow H.Hm ov n.0H om mHIHH
m.mm mm H.MH mm m.m n OHIO
N.ma mm >.m h I I mmma Ho mummm m

unmoumm HmnEdz usmoumm HmnEsz usmoumm HOQESZ
woumwo mocflm
mmumcflpuonsm mummmcmz mHOAHOQSm Ommmmam mafia
m:HHOOCHmcm mumapwEEH

 

 

.mcflummcflmcm cw mmumwp umwnmfln msH>HmomH mocflm 08H» wo numcmq

.4 6H689

96

they were planning to enroll for another degree. The dis-
tribution Of responses is shown in Table 5 and Table 6.

Another statement in the questionnaire-schedule
referred to the interest of the respondents in doing gradu-
ate work if they had their education to do over again.
Eighty-seven percent Of the engineering managers stated
that they would do graduate work if they had their educa-
tion to do over again. Approximately 90 percent Of the
subordinates and 94 percent of the superiors indicated
that they would also do graduate work if they had their
education to do over again. Thus, approximately 90 per-
cent of all the respondents indicated that they would do
graduate work if they had their education to do over again,
whereas Tables 3, 5, and 6 revealed that approximately 40
percent had actually done so or were planning to do so.

The data also indicated an equal interest on the part of
engineering managers and their superiors in graduate work
in Engineering and Business Administration, and a nearly
equal interest on the part of the subordinates. These
findings are shown among the distributions of responses
in Table 7.

Those respondents indicating that they were enrolled
for another degree or planning to enroll for another degree
were also asked to indicate the academic area and level of
the degree they were pursuing or planning to pursue. Since

the questionnaire-schedule was designed to examine the

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooa mmH o.ooa NmH o.ooa mamuoe
m.mb baa m.mm mma m.mm oz
m.v~ mm h.> «a N.¢ mm»
usmouwm Hmnasz unmonmm Honsdz usmoumm
HHOHOm Op
mmumcwpuonsm mummmcmz muownmmdm mcflcsmam
uomuwo mcflummsflmcm mumHOmEEH
.mmummp Hmnuocm How HHOHGO Op mcflccmam mucmpcommmm .m OHQOB
o.ooa mma o.OOH mmH o.ooa mHmuoa
m.mm Hma m.Hm mma v.mm oz
H.oa ha H.m OH m.H mm»
ucmoumm HOQESZ “amoumm Honesz pnmoumm
pmaaoncm
mmumcflpuonsm mummmsmz muofinmmdm hausmuuso
uomHHD mcflummsfimsm mamameEH

 

 

.mmnmmp Hmnuocm How Omaaoncm maucmnuso mucmpcommmm .m manna

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooH moH o.ooH moH o.ooH HNH mHmuoa
m.s NH «.4 m m.m w “mayo I mo»
o.om Ho ~.om on m.oo op coHumuumHoHsoa
mmmcflmom I mm»
m.m o v.0H om o.o NH mmoaoHom Hmonmno
Ho mowumamnumz I mow
o.ov no ~.om on m.oo as ooHumoonom I mm»
h.o pH o.MH mm m.m A oz

unmoumm HOQEDZ usmoumm Hmnadz usmonmm HODESZ
xnoz mumnwmuw
mmumnflpuonsm mummmqmz mHOflHmmom cw ummnmucH
uomufla mcfiumocflmsm mumwmeEH
.Sflmmm

Hm>o Op ou coflpmooow Hams“ Om: mmsu we xnoB unsopmum SH mpcmpsommmu Mo ummnmucH .h magma

99

.pmpomfioo poo oumz mommasmoumm .huommumo mmcommmu mHsu SH mmHocmemHm pmuHEHH mo mmsmomm«

 

 

 

 

 

o.o0H mm o.OOH mm I h mHmuOB
MJMII MI. m.w m I I monuo
I I H.m H I I moocwHom
n.5m om n.mm mm I m mmmchom
m.mm cm m.H~ n «I N mcHummchsm
usmoumm Honesz ucmonmm HmnEdz «unmonmm HOQEOZ
mmumsHpHOQSm mummmsmz muoHHmmom OHEOMMWM
uomuHo OCHuomchsm OHMHOOEEH

 

 

.oonmmo Hmnuocm Mom
HHOHSO ou OOH:GMHQ no OOHHOHOO mHucmHHso mucmpcommmu mo ammumucH mo mono OHEmOmo¢ .m mHQmB

100

.Omusmfioo poo mumB mommucmoumm .wuommumo mmcommmu mHsu SH mmHocmsvmum pmuHEHH mo mmdmomma

 

 

 

 

 

o.OOH vm c.00H om I b mHmuOB
I I I I I I Honouooo umom
m.m m m.m H I H mumuouooa
o.nm no 0.0m um I v mumummz
o.n v n.m N «I N .m.m HOGOHqupm

usmouom nonEdz unmoumm MOQESZ «unmoumm HOQEDZ
Hm>mq
mouqupuonsm mummmgmz mHOHHmmnm mmnmma
pomuHo mcHummsHmsm OUMHUOEEH

 

 

How HHOHcm ou mchcmHm Ho UOHHOHOO mHucmuuso

.mmnmmp nonuocm
mucmpcommmu >9 OOSmHsm Hm>mH mmnmmo .m OHQMB

101

continuing education pursuits and academic areas necessary
to support the role of the engineering manager, this is a
relatively select segment of the sample. The responses in
Table 8 and Table 9 Show a greater interest on the part of
the engineering managers and their subordinates in pursu-
ing degree work on a masters level in the area of Business
than in Engineering or the Sciences.

The questionnaire-schedule also disclosed that ap-
proximately two-thirds Of the engineering managers as well
as the superiors received their degrees in Michigan, whereas
approximately one-half of the subordinates received their

degrees in Michigan.

CHAPTER V

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The objective of this chapter is to present and
analyze the combined data from the engineering managers,
their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and from
engineering faculty relating to consensus on: (1) the
job functions of the engineering manager; (2) the continu-
ing education activities of the engineering manager; and

(3) the subject area needs of the engineering manager.

Macroscopic Consensus Analysis

 

Basic to macroscoPic consensus analysis is the
distinction between interposition consensus, that is, con-
sensus between any two samples of role-definers, and intra-
position consensus, or consensus among all Of the engineering
managers or among all Of the immediate superiors. To
determine the extent to which there is consensus or lack
of consensus between any two samples of role-definers
being compared (interposition consensus), it would have
been possible merely to determine the proportion of items.
for which a significant difference exists. This approach,

however, neglects the dimension of intraposition consensus

102

103

for the groups being compared. The fact that on a given
item no significant difference occurs between the responses
of any two groups does not necessarily mean that they are
in agreement; it may mean that there exist similar patterns
of disagreement. Therefore, to provide a more accurate in—
dication of macrOSCOpic consensus, both the intraposition
and interposition dimensions were analyzed.

According to Gross, in the measurement of consen-
sus at least two elements need to be considered: central
tendencies and variability of the distribution. To take
only one of these into account would be to ignore impor-
tant information.1 In view of this, the variance of the
distribution was used as the measure of intraposition con-
sensus. The mean score and variance were computed for
each role-expectation item for each role-definer group.

The distinction between high intraposition consensus and
low intraposition consensus was made by ranking the items
in each section of the questionnaire for all four samples
on the basis of the variance. The cutting points selected
were the median variance scores of the distribution of
variance scores Obtained for all items in each section

for all samples.

. The chi-square test was used as the measure of
interposition consensus to distinguish between items on

‘which there was and was not a significant difference

‘

1Gross et al., op. cit., pp. 105-106.

104

between the distributions of any two role-definer groups.
To account for these two kinds of measures of macrOSCOpic
consensus (intraposition and interposition), the data have
been aggregated to accommodate comparisons within and be-

tween the four groups under analysis.
Hypotheses of Macroscopic Analysis

Hypothesis 1.--There is no significant difference
in the perceptions engineering managers have of their job
functions and in the expectations held for them by their
immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by engineer-
ing faculty.

The group mean and variance responses as well as
the level of significance of difference between the com-
pared groups for each of the 29 items concerning the job
functions of the engineering manager are summarized in

Table 10.
Engineering Managers--Immediate Superiors

An examination of the items in Section I revealed
ilhat consensus (no significant difference in expectations)
eXisted between the engineering managers and their immedi-
ate superiors on twenty-eight of the twenty-nine items.

(Dr: twelve Of the items on which the chi-square between the
tint) distributions is insignificant there is low consensus

V92i1:hin both samples. This suggests that for these items,

 

12Iblt~

10. Group frequency, mean,

and variance

105

responses,

groups on twenty-nine items concerning job functions of the engineering manager.

and significance of difference between

 

 

 

 

Responses Chi-
Job Functions Sample N AM PS MEN PSN AMN Mean Var. Compared Square
Samples Test
Section I
(1~6) Plan departmental or IS 120 88 19 10 3 — 1.4) .55* EM-IS N.S.
unit operations. 3M 199 148 27 17 7 - 1.41 .62 EM—EF N.S.
D5 168 94 47 24 3 — 1.62 .64 EM-DS .001
SF 48 27 12 8 l - 1.65 .71 IS—DS .05
(1-7) Determine departmental IS 120 79 26 15 — — 1.47 .50: EM-IS N.S.
or unit Objectives. EM 199 128 48 19 3 l 1.49 .55 EM—EF N.S.
D8 168 107 39 18 2 2 1.52 .61 EM-DS N.S.
IF 48 21 18 8 1 - 1.77 .66 IS-DS N.S.
(1-8) Organize resources for IS 120 70 28 17 3 2 1.64 .77 EM-IS N.S.
carrying out plans. SM 199 117 49 29 4 - 1.60 .66 EM-EF N.S.
D8 168 70 46 43 8 1 1.95 .88 EM—DS .005
or 49 3o 16 2 1 — 1.47 .46* IS-DS .05
(1-9) Delegate authority. 18 120 86 26 8 — — 1.35 .36: EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 148 41 9 - 1 1.31 .34 EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 119 39 9 1 — 1.36 .37* EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 34 9 5 — 1.40 .46* IS-DS N.S.
(1-10) Coordinate the efforts IS 120 91 24 3 2 - 1.30 .36* EM—IS N.S.
of subordinates. :3 198 142 46 9 1 - 1.34 .35* sM-SF N.S.
US 168 97 45 21 4 1 1.36 . 7* EM-DS .005
SF 49 34 14 l — - 1.33 .27 IS-DS .005
(1-11) Motivate employees to IS 120 96 21 3 - - 1.23 .23: EM-IS N.S.
achieve Objectives. EM 199 144 44 11 — - 1.33 .34 EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 90 58 19 l — 1.59 .50: EM—DS .005
CF 48 34 12 2 - - 1.33 .31 IS-DS .001
(l-—l2) Make decisions concerning IS 120 26 22 50 19 3 2.57 1.06 EM—IS N.S.
the technical work of EM 199 30 38 93 31 7 2.70 .90 EM—EF .05
subordinates. D8 168 14 3O 85 35 4 2.89 .74 EM—DS N.S.
CF 48 13 14 15 5 1 2.29 1.02 IS-DS 05
(1 -J.3) Direct employees toward IS 120 70 29 13 7 1 1.66 .85 EM—IS N.S.
established Objectives. EM 199 102 62 26 7 2 1.71 .74 EM-EF N.S.
Do 168 63 64 35 6 - 1.90 .72 EM—DS .OS
2 48 24 13 9 2 - 1.77 .81 IS-DS .005
(.1-—J,4) Rely on specialists for IS 120 24 44 47 5 - 2.28 .69 EM-IS N.S.
technical decisions. JM 199 36 66 91 4 2 2.34 .66 EM-EF N.S.
US 168 37 64 59 6 2 2.23 .72* EM—DS N.S.
3F 48 9 23 15 l - 2.17 .56 IS-DS N.S.
(J--'153) Facilitate communication IS 120 75 39 6 — - 1.42 .35* EM-IS N.S.
on all levels. .x 199 122 60 16 1 — 1.48 .45: EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 98 48 19 3 - 1.57 .58 EM-DS N.S.
HF 48 29 11 8 - - 1.56 .59 IS-DS N.S.
(1-—-1.6>) Manage engineers, not Is 120 67 36 14 3 - 1.61 .62 EM-IS N.S.
work alongside them. “M 199 90 71 34 3 l 1.76 .66 EM—EF N.S.
HS 168 72 61 32 1 2 1.80 .66 EM—DS N.S.
HF 47 14 18 14 1 ~ 2.04 .69 IS-DS N.S.
(1”"'1~7’) Create and propose new IS 120 22 46 50 2 — 2.27 .59 EM—IS N.S.
ideas in engineering. EM 199 32 68 92 6 l 2.37 .62 EM—EF N.S.
DS 168 17 50 97 4 2.52 .50* EM—DS N.S.
EF 48 12 20 14 2 - 2.13 .71 IS-DS .05
(1..
1-53) Ezepresent engineering in IS 120 82 27 9 2 _ 1.42 .50‘ EM—IS .05
rhanagement decisions. RM 199 114 66 19 - — 1.52 .457 EMHEF N.S.
us 168 102 51 13 1 1 1.49 .48* EM—DS N.S.
HF 47 31 15 1 — — 1.36 .28* IS—DS N.S.
) Crustify and "sell" prO— IS 120 69 36 14 l - 1.56 .537 EM—IS N.S.
"jects, ideas and plans to HM 198 112 64 21 l - 1.55 .49* EM-EF N.S.
Iiigher management. D8 168 84 51 30 3 - 1.71 .67 EM-DS N.S.
up 48 26 19 2 1 — 1.54 .46* IS-DS N.S.

106

Table 10. Continued.

 

 

Responses __ Chl-
Job Functions Sample N AM PS MMN PSN AMN Mean Var. Compared Square
Samples Test

 

 

(1-20) Assess problems and IS 120 93 23 4 .. _ 1.26 .26* 814-13 N.S.
progress. EM 199 142 43 13 l - 1.36 .40: EM—EF N.S.
D5 168 90 56 21 1 - 1.60 .53 EM—DS .01
RP 48 3o 17 l .. _ 1.40 .29’ IS-DS .001
(1—21) Ask penetrating ques- IS 120 62 45 13 - - 1.59 .46‘' EM—IS N.S.
tions to provide EM 199 87 78 31 3 - 1.75 .59; BM-EF N.S.
insight. D5 167 54 80 3O 3 - 1.89 .56* EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 18 20 10 - - 1.83 .56 IS-DS .01
(1-22) Encourage his engineers IS 120 38 66 15 l - 1.83 .45: BM—IS N.S.
to justify and ”sell" EM 199 70 102 25 1 1 1.79 '48. EM-EF N.S.
projects, ideas and plans D8 168 51 89 22 5 1 1.90 .58 EM-DS N.S.
to him. CF 48 16 20 12 - - 1.92 .59 IS-DS N.S.
(1-23) Recruit and select 15 120 28 41 41 9 1 2.28 .85 EM-IS N.S.
engineers. EM 199 45 79 67 8 - 2.19 .69 EM-EF N.S.
BS 168 29 49 74 14 2 2.46 .79 EM-DS .05
EF 47 13 15 17 2 - 2.17 .79 IS-DS N.S.
*
(1-24) Keep abreast of the IS 120 50 55 13 2 - 1.73 .52. EM-IS N.S.
current state of the EM 199 80 101 16 2 - 1.70 .44 EM-EF N.S.
art of engineering. as 168 54 93 19 2 - 1.82 .45: EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 23 18 7 - - 1.67 .52 IS—DS N.S.
(1-25) Keep abreast of the IS 120 62 50 8 - - 1.55 .38: EM-IS N.S.
current state of the EM 199 124 68 7 - — 1.41 .31* LH-EF .05
art of management. 03 168 93 66 9 - - 1.50 .36. EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 21 21 6 - - 1.69 .48 IS-DS N.S.
(1-26) Promote, organize, im- IS 120 34 57 25 3 1 1.99 .62 EM—IS N.S.
plement and support Rt 199 68 82 44 4 1 1.93 .66 EM-EF N.S.
educational development D5 166 42 72 44 6 2 2.11 .71 EM—DS N.S.
programs for employees. RP 48 14 17 13 4 — 2.15 .90 IS-DS N.S.
(1—27) Familiarize himself in IS 120 84 33 2 1 - 1.33 .31‘ EM-IS N.S.
general with the work of EM 199 140 53 4 2 - 1.34 .32* EM-EF N.S.
those engineers reporting 05 168 110 51 5 1 1.40 .37’ EM—DS N.S.
to him. 8F 48 31 16 1 — - 1.38 .28* 15-05 N.S.
(1-28) Familiarize himself in IS 120 3 7 48 41 21 3.41 .52‘ EM-IS N.S.
detail with the work of EM 199 2 20 86 67 24 3.34 .49: EM-EF .oos
those engineers reporting D5 168 1 17 62 65 23 3.41 .48 EM-DS N.S.
to him. EF 48 2 11 25 10 - 2.90 .61 IS—DS N.S.
(1-29) Familiarize himself in IS 120 10 52 27 25 6 2.66 .92 EM-IS N.S.
detail with the job of EM 199 16 9O 53 29 11 2.59 .81 EM-EF N.S.
his immediate superior. US 168 15 55 63 25 10 2.70 .81 EM—DS N.S.
EF 48 5 20 17 6 - 2.50 .72 IS-DS .05
(1-30) Be available for consul- IS 120 49 62 8 1 _ 1.67 .41‘ EM-IS N.S.
tation with his engineers EM 199 73 102 21 3 - 1.77 .48. EM—EF N.S.
as much as possible. D5 168 44 98 21 4 1 1.92 .50* EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 16 24 7 1 - 1.85 .55“ 15-133 .05
(J-—*3-1) Train engineers on IS 120 30 30 35 18 7 2.46 1.17 EM-IS N.S.
the job. EM 199 35 57 60 41 6 2.60 1.06 EM-EF .01
05 168 15 45 52 41 15 2.89 .96 EM—DS .01
GP 48 3 7 25 11 2 3.00 .69 IS-DS .005
(1‘32) Evaluate the work IS 120 77 32 8 2 1 1.48 .53" EM—IS N.S.
being done by his EM 199 121 62 10 6 - 1.50 .53* EM—EF .05
engineers. BS 168 88 60 17 3 - 1.61 .55: 814-05 N.S.
8F 48 22 19 7 - - 1.69 .52 IS-DS N.S.
(1”.:3‘3 ) Ideise and counsel his IS 120 23 43 44 6 4 2.34 .77 EM-IS N.S.
«engineers concerning EM 199 43 72 72 11 1 2.27 .76 EM-EF N.S.
technical aspects of BS 168 15 70 70 11 2 2.48 .59 EM-DS .05
t:heir work. EF 48 8 15 22 3 - 2.42 .72 IS—DS N.S.
(1-34 ) c . .
ounsel his engineers IS 120 23 38 46 12 1 2.41 .85 EM-IS N.S.
in personal problems EM 199 36 65 76 20 2 2.42 .83 EM—BF N.S.
ilffecting their work. 05 168 17 52 70 23 6 2.66 .77 EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 6 8 25 8 1 2.77 .81 IS-DS N.S.

.‘hiz-'
<36! below median cutting pornt of .585, indicating high intraposition consensus.

107

the findings can more reasonably be interpreted as indi-
cating "lack of disagreement" rather than "agreement."
Further examination of the twenty-eight items, for which
interposition consensus existed, revealed fourteen items
(50 percent) where the variance for both samples was rela-
tively low and, therefore, exhibited high intraposition
consensus as categorized in Table 11. This occurred for
items 7, 9, 10, ll, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30,
and 32. Consensus between the engineering managers and
their immediate superiors was one of decided positive re-
action for the following: determine departmental or unit
objectives; delegate authority; coordinate the efforts of
subordinates; motivate employees to achieve objectives;
facilitate communication on all levels; justify and "sell"
Iprojects, ideas and plans to higher management; assess
[aroblems and progress; encourage his engineers to justify
airni "sell" projects, ideas and plans to him; keep abreast
(Di? the current state of the art of engineering; keep
aiereast of the current state of the art of management;
ifauniliarize himself in general with the work of those engi-
neers reporting to him; be available for consultation with
his engineers as much as possible; and, evaluate work
being done by his engineers. Consensus in a negative vein
Was noted when both groups indicated that the engineering
I“Eiliéiger preferably should not familiarize himself in de-

tail with the work of those engineers reporting to him

(Item l-28).
O

108

 

 

mm NH N I ma mamuoa
a u u u a usooamasmam
mm NH m I «a UGMOflMflcmwmcoz
mun.H Ema mHm Ema mHA 2mm mHm 2mm mmdmfiom O39
mamuoe ecu soo3umm

 

mansmm some canoes nanosecoo any 30a no any swam

ucoEoonmmHQ

 

 

A.muowuomsm oumflcmEEHllmuommsmz msfluoocflmcmv .mmHmEom o3u cmozuon puma
Immummmwc mo woumop UGMOflstmflm on msflpuooom poo moHQEMm ecu mo some sflnufl3
momsomsoo ou msflcuooom mfimufl coHuUGSM new ocflclmpco3u mo cofiumoHMHmmmau .HH wanes

109

A further analysis of the data disclosed a signifi-
cant difference between the engineering managers and their
immediate superiors on only one of the twenty-nine items
in the job function section of the questionnaire-schedule.
This difference occurred at the .05 level on item l-18
where the engineering managers indicated a lesser (57 per-
cent) preference than the superiors (68 percent) that the
engineering manager "absolutely must" represent engineering
in management decisions. High intraposition consensus was
exhibited on this item for both samples as shown in Table 11.
When comparing the responses of the engineering managers
and their immediate superiors, the null hypothesis can thus
be rejected for one item: (1-18) represent engineering in

inanagement decisions.
Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates

In comparing the responses of the engineering mana-
gers and their direct subordinates to the items related to
'tlie job function of the engineering manager, interposition
<2<>nsensus existed on twenty of the twenty-nine items.
kalalysis of these twenty items revealed high intraposition
cOnsensus for both samples on ten items as shown in Table 12.
I«I'lterposition and intraposition consensus occurred on items
9, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 32. Nine of these

items, for which consensus existed between and within the

againniples of engineering managers and their direct subordinates,

110

 

 

mm NH m M NH mamuoa
m m I H N unmonmncmam
om m m m 0H ucmoflmwcmwwcoz
mag Ema mam 2mg man 2mm mom 2mm mmamfimm 039
mamuoe one cmmsuom

 

mHmEmm comm cacuflz momcmmcou Adv BOA no Amy comm

ucmfiooummmfla

 

 

A.moumsflcuocsm pomuHQIImummmomz mcwuoocflmcmv .moHQEMm o3» com3uon acme
Immummmwc mo woummo unmoflwflcmflm ou msflcuooom can mmHmEMm ecu mo comm :chfl3
msmcomcoo on mcwcuooom madam sofiuocom new ochImucozu mo QOAHMOHMHmmMHU .NH manna

111

were among those fourteen items disclosing interposition
and intraposition consensus for the engineering managers
and the immediate superiors. The engineering managers
and the direct subordinates expressed positive consensus
that the engineering manager should represent engineering
in management decisions (Item 1-18). Negative consensus
was exhibited on Item 1-28 for the engineering managers
and the direct subordinates. That is, both samples re-
sponded that the engineering manager "preferably should
not" familiarize himself in detail with the work of those
engineers reporting to him.

Significant differences in expectations occurred
in comparing the responses of the engineering managers
and their direct subordinates on nine of the twenty-nine
job function items. The data revealed, that for all nine
items indicating significant differences in the responses
of the engineering managers and their direct subordinates,
the engineering managers expressed a more positive atti—
tude than their subordinates. Seventy-four (74) percent
of the engineering managers responded that the engineering
manager "absolutely must" plan departmental or unit Oper-
ations, while 56 percent of the direct subordinates indi-
cated such (Item 1-6). In addition, the engineering
managers noted a stronger preference for engineering mana-
gers to organize resources for carrying out plans (Item.1-8).

Fifty-nine (59) percent of the engineering managers

112

indicated that the engineering manager "absolutely must"
do this as compared to 42 percent of the direct subordi-
nates. With regard to coordinating the efforts of sub-
ordinates, 72 percent of the engineering managers responded
"absolutely must," while 58 percent of the subordinates
reacted thus (Item l-lO). A similar pattern of replies
to Item 1-11, motivate employees to achieve objectives,
revealed an "absolutely must" response from 72 percent of
the managers and 54 percent of the direct subordinates.
Another job function of the engineering manager, in which
the managers and their direct subordinates differed in in-
tensity of response, dealt with directing employees toward
established objectives (Item 1-13). More than 50 percent
of the engineering managers believed that they "absolutely
Inust" direct employees toward established objectives,
vflhile this same feeling was expressed by only 37 percent
c>f their subordinates. Also given high preference as a
j<3b function of the engineering manager but still reveal-
ing a significant difference in the responses of the mana-
ggears and their subordinates was Item 1-20, assess problems
Eirnd progress. Seventy-one (7l)percent of the managers re-
Sponded "absolutely must" to this item compared to 54

Percent of the direct subordinates.
Another item in which a significant difference in
Jreasrponse occurred was Item 1-23. Sixty-three (63) percent

(’15 'the engineering managers felt that the engineering

113

managers should recruit and select engineers compared to

46 percent of the direct subordinates. In addition, the
engineering managers indicated a stronger preference for
managers to train engineers on the job (Item 1-31). Forty-
seven (47) percent of the engineering managers so indicated,
while 36 percent of the subordinates indicated likewise.

On the final item in the section (Item 1-33) for which a
significant difference in responses occurred, 68 percent

of the engineering managers were of the Opinion that the
engineering manager should advise and counsel his engineers
concerning technical aspects of their work. Fifty-one (51)
percent of the direct subordinates shared this same prefer-
ence.

Table 12 shows the disagreement between the engi-
neering managers and their direct subordinates, and classi-
fies the 29 job function items according to consensus
within each of the samples. Six of the nine items showing
that significant differences exist between the engineering
managers and their direct subordinates indicate high vari-
ance or low intraposition consensus for both samples. On
{only two of the items is there a combination of high intra-
position consensus within both samples and a significant
(Sifference representing divergence of Opinion between the
eangineering managers and their direct subordinates. When
comparing the responses of the engineering managers and

t11e direct subordinates the null hypothesis is rejected

114

for two items, namely:
(l-ll) Motivate employees to achieve objectives; and

(1-20) Assess problems and progress.
Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty

The responses of the engineering managers concern-
ing the job role of the engineering manager were also com-
pared with those of the engineering faculty. The data
revealed interposition consensus on twenty-four of the

(twenty-nine items as seen in Table 13. Further analysis
disclosed high intraposition consensus for both samples
on nine items, namely; 9, 10, ll, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27, and
30. Consensus on these items was positive for the follow-

ing: delegate authority; coordinate the efforts of sub-

 

ordinates; motivate employees to achieve objectives;
represent engineering in management decisions; justify and
"sell" projects, ideas and plans to higher management;
assess problems and progress; keep abreast of the current
state of the art of engineering; familiarize himself in
general with the work of those engineers reporting to him;
and, be available for consultation with his engineers as

nnuch as possible. Four of the items as underlined above,

 

Jrevealed high intraposition consensus for all three samples.
llhese were items 9, 24, 27, and 30.

Significant differences in expectations between the
engineering managers and the engineering faculty existed on

five of the twenty-nine items. There was a significant

115

 

 

 

mm Ha m w Ha mamuoa
m m u H m unmoflmncmflm
vm m m m m unmoHMHcmHmcoz
mmq Ema mmm 2mg mun 2mm mmm 2mm mmHmEmm O38
wamuoe mnu cmmBumm

mamemm some snaps: mamawmaoo Age sou no Ame amflm

#cmEmmHmmmHQ

 

 

A.>uasomm mcflummcwoGMInmummmcmz mcfluwmcflmcmv .mmHmEMm 03¢ cmm3umn ucme
Immnmmmwc mo omummp uCMOHMHcmHm ou mcflcnooom cam mmadfidm map mo comm cfl£Ufl3
msmcmmcoo ou mcfipuooom mEmuH COHHUGSM non mcHCIwucme Mo coflumoflmammmao .ma magma

116

difference in expectations regarding the engineering mana-
ger making decisions concerning the technical work of sub-
ordinates (Item 1-12). Thirty-four (34) percent of the
engineering managers were of the Opinion that the engineer-
ing manager should do this, as compared to 56 percent of
the engineering faculty. (The modal response of the engi-
neering managers to this item was "may or may not.")
Another item in which the engineering managers expressed

a less positive attitude than the faculty was Item l-28.
Forty-three (43) percent of the engineering managers re-
sponded that the engineering manager may or may not famil—
iarize himself in detail with the work of those engineers
reporting to him, as compared to 52 percent of the engi-
neering faculty. (The modal response of the engineering
managers to this item, however, was that he preferably
should not do this.) Both the managers and faculty pre-
ferred that the engineering manager keep abreast of the
current state of the art of management (Item 1-25).
However, 62 percent of the managers responded that he
"absolutely must" do this compared to 44 percent of the
engineering faculty. A similar pattern of response oc-
‘curred for Item 1-32. Sixty-one (61) percent of the engi-
Jneering managers felt that the manager "absolutely must"
(evaluate work being done by his engineers, while only 44
Emercent of the engineering faculty were of this strong an

Oiainion. Finally, there was a significant difference in

117

expectations regarding the engineering manager training
engineers on the job (Item 1-31). The modal reSponse of
the engineering managers was that he "preferably should"
do this with 47 percent of the sample responding as such.
The modal response of the engineering faculty was that the
manager "may or may not" do this with 52 percent of the
engineering faculty expressing this opinion.

Table 13 categorizes the disagreement between the
engineering managers and the engineering faculty, and classi-
fies the items according to consensus within each of the
two samples. Two of the five items showing that signifi-
cant differences exist between the engineering managers
and the engineering faculty indicate low intraposition
consensus for both samples. High intraposition consensus
is revealed for two items which show significant differen-
ces. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for two
items when comparing the responses of the engineering mana-
gers and the engineering faculty, namely:

(1-25) Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of management; and

(1-32) Evaluate work done by his engineers.
Inasmuch as both the Immediate Superiors and the
lDirect Subordinates have a direct influence on the Engi-
Ineering Managers, an additional comparison of these two

gyroups was undertaken.

118

Hypothesis la.--There is no significant difference

 

in the expectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold for the job functions of the engineering
manager.

The group mean and variance responses, as well as
the level of significance of difference between the two
groups for each of the 29 items concerning the job func-
tions of the engineering manager, are summarized in

Table 10.
Immediate Superiors—-Direct Subordinates

The data revealed interposition consensus on seven-
teen Of the twenty-nine items, as shown in Table 14.
Further analysis revealed high intraposition consensus for
both groups on eight items, namely, 9, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25,
27, and 28. Consensus on these items was positive for
the following: delegate authority; facilitate communica—
tion on all levels; represent engineering in management
decisions; encourage his engineers to justify and "sell"
projects, ideas and plans to him; keep abreast of the cur-
rent state of the art of engineering; keep abreast of the
(current state of the art of management; familiarize himself
:in general with the work of those engineers reporting to
Ilim. Consensus on Item 28, familiarize himself in detail
krith the work of those engineers reporting to him, was

negative .

119

 

 

 

mm Ha H m NH mamuoe
NH m H N v unmoflmncoflm
5H m I m m uGOOHMHcmHchZ
man mHA mam mHA mad mHm mam mHm mmHmEmm 038
manpoe on» cmw3umm

mamsmm roam unsung msmcmmcoo Age son no and roam

ucmammmmmmaa

 

 

A.mmumcflouonsm uomuflollmuoflummsm ouMHOmEEHV .mmamemm 03» cmmsuon acme
Immummmflp mo mmnmmo ucmoHMHcmHm ou mcflcuooom can mmHmEMm mcu mo comm cflcuwz
mSmcmmcoo Op mcflcuooom mEOOH cOHuOcSM now mcHCIaucmzu mo coauMOflMHmmmHU .¢H magma

120

Significant differences in expectations between
the immediate superiors and the direct subordinates existed
on twelve (41 percent) of the twenty-nine items. The modal
reSponse for both the superiors and the subordinates on
Item (l-lO) revealed that the engineering manager "abso-
lutely must" coordinate the efforts of subordinates; how-
ever, 73 percent of the immediate superiors indicated this
expectation as compared to 58 percent of the direct sub-
ordinates. Similar patterns occurred in the responses of
the superiors and the subordinates for Items (1-11) and
(1-20). Eighty (80) percent of the immediate superiors
felt that the engineering manager "absolutely must" moti-
vate employees to achieve objectives, while 54 percent of
the direct subordinates felt that this "absolute must" be
done. Likewise, 78 percent of the superiors were of the
opinion that the engineering manager "absolutely must"
assess problems and progress compared to 54 percent of the
direct subordinates.

In addition, the immediate superiors noted a much
stronger preference for engineering managers directing em-
ployees toward established objectives (Item 1-13). Fifty-
eight (58) percent of the superiors believed that the
engineering manager "absolutely must" do this as compared
'to a modal response of 38 percent of the direct subordinates
Viho felt that he "preferably should." The function of the

engineering manager to train engineers on the job was the

121

tOpic of Item (1-31). The responses of both groups of
role-definers were somewhat scattered over the first four
points on the scale, making it difficult for a definite
role expectation to emerge from this item. However, 50
percent of the immediate superiors did express a positive
attitude toward this as a job function of the engineering
manager compared to 36 percent of the direct subordinates.

More immediate superiors than direct subordinates
strongly preferred that the engineering manager plan de—
partmental or unit operations (Item 1-6). Seventy-three
(73) percent of the superiors believed that he "absolutely
must" do this, compared to 56 percent of the direct sub-
ordinates. Immediate superiors also preferred that the
engineering manager organize resources for carrying out
plans (Item 1-8). Fifty-eight (58) percent of the immedi-
ate superiors felt that the engineering manager "absolutely
must" do this as compared to 42 percent of the direct sub—
ordinates. Even though both the immediate superiors and
the direct subordinates were of the Opinion that the engi-
neering manager should ask penetrating questions to provide
insight (Item 1-21), 52 percent of the superiors felt that
this was mandatory as compared to 32 percent of the sub-
ordinates.

A significant difference existed in expectations
regarding the function of the engineering manager to create

and propose new ideas in engineering (Item 1-17) . Fifty-six

122

(56) percent of the immediate superiors were of the opinion
that the engineering manager "preferably should" do this,
whereas the modal response (58 percent) of the direct sub-
ordinates indicated that he "may or may not" do so. With
regard to the engineering manager making decisions concern-
ing the technical work of subordinates (Item 1-12), the
immediate superiors exhibited a slightly more positive
attitude (40 percent) than did the direct subordinates

(25 percent). Both the immediate superiors and the direct

subordinates expressed a positive attitude with regard to

Item (1-29). Forty-three (43) percent of the superiors
felt that the engineering manager "preferably should" fa-
miliarize himself in detail with the job of his immediate
superior compared to 33 percent of the subordinates.
Finally, with regard to the engineering manager being

available for consultation with his engineers as much as

;possible (Item 1-30), the modal response of both groups

vwas that he "preferably should." Fifty-two (52) percent

(If the superiors and 58 percent of the subordinates re-
Sponded as such; however, 41 percent of the superiors were
Of the opinion that he "absolutely must" be available as

compared to 26 percent of the subordinates.

Table 14 categorizes the disagreement between the
immediate superiors and the direct subordinates, and classi-
fies the items according to consensus within each of the

two Sé‘slrt'tples. Five of the twelve items showing that

123

significant differences exist between the immediate superi-
ors and the direct subordinates indicate low intraposition
consensus for both samples. High intraposition consensus
is revealed for four items which show significant differ-
ences. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for four
items when comparing the responses of the immediate superi-
ors and the direct subordinates, namely:

(l-ll) Motivate employees to achieve objectives;

(1-20) Assess problems and progress;

(1-21) Ask penetrating questions to provide insight;
and

(1-30) Be available for consultation with his engi-
neers as much as possible.

Analysis of Role Differences

An examination of those items for which there is
high intraposition consensus within the samples but sig-
.nificant disagreement between the samples will aid in deter-
ruining some areas of possible role differences. On some
cxf the items the differences revealed may be considered to
be due to varying degrees of intensity with which the re-

sporuients express their expectations, that is, the dis-

agreement may be on whether the expectation is mandatory

or Pre ferred.

The engineering managers and their immediate superi-
_ Ors disagreed on only one item on which there was substan-

tial lilmtraposition consensus. In response to Item 1'18.

124

57 percent of the engineering managers felt that the engi-
neering manager "absolutely must" represent engineering in
management decisions as compared to 68 percent of the im-
mediate superiors.

The engineering managers disagreed with their di-
rect subordinates on Items l-ll and 1-20. The managers
expressed a stronger opinion than the subordinates that
the engineering manager "absolutely must" motivate employ-
ees to achieve Objectives (Item 1-11). The managers also
expressed a stronger opinion than the subordinates that
the engineering manager "absolutely must" assess problems
and progress (Item l-20). In both instances, over 70 per—
cent of the engineering managers indicated that these
functions were mandatory, as compared to 54 percent of
the direct subordinates.

Significant differences in expectations were noted
.between the engineering managers and the engineering faculty
for'two items. The managers indicated a stronger prefer-
ence than the faculty that the engineering manager keep
abreast of the current state of the art of management
(Itenn 1—25), and that he evaluate work done by his engi-
neerws (Item 1-32). These conclusions are supported by the
findiJag that over 60 percent of the engineering managers
felt that these functions were mandatory as compared to

44 Percent of the engineering faculty.

125

The immediate superiors and the direct subordinates

disagreed on four items, namely, 11, 20, 21, and 30.

Eighty percent (80) of the superiors believed that the
engineering manager "absolutely must" motivate employees
to achieve objectives (Item l-ll), as compared to 54 per—
cent of the direct subordinates. A similar pattern of re-
sponse was expressed on Item 1-20 when 78 percent of the
superiors and 54 percent of the subordinates felt that the
engineering manager "absolutely must" assess problems and

progress. Further comparisons revealed the modal response

(52 percent) of the immediate superiors to Item 1-21 indi-
cating that the manager "absolutely must" ask penetrating
questions to provide insight; whereas, only 32 percent of
the direct subordinates held this strong an Opinion. In
response to Item 1-30, 41 percent of the superiors believed
that it was mandatory that the engineering manager should

be available for consultation with his engineers as much

as possible, compared to 26 percent of the direct subordi-

nates.

Analysis of Role Ambiguity

Role ambiguity refers to the degree of uncertainty
among’role expectations for an incumbent of a particular
positidan. Criteria of role ambiguity include: low consen-
sus auncang the responses; the tendency for the modal re-

Sponge to fall in the neutral category; and the occurrence

126

of a bimodal distribution. Analysis of the data reveals
seven items which satisfy one or more of these criteria
for all four groups and indicate areas of role ambiguity:

(1-12) Make decisions concerning the technical work
of subordinates;

(1-23) Recruit and select engineers;

(1-26) Promote, organize, implement and support edu-
cational develOpment programs for employees;

(1-29) Familiarize himself in detail with the job of
his immediate superior;

(1-31) Train engineers on the job;

(1-33) Advise and counsel his engineers concerning
technical aspects of their work; and

(1-34) Counsel his engineers in personal problems
affecting their work.

These seven items encompass various aspects of
the role of the engineering manager. Items l-l2, 1-23,
1-31, 1-33, and 1-34 all pertain to the engineering mana-
ger's direct relationship with his subordinates. Three
of these items deal with the technical orientation and
involvement of the engineering manager with his subordi-
nates and reveal that the role-definers are not in agree-
ment as to the amount of initiative he should take with
respect to making decisions concerning the technical work
of subordinates, training engineers on the job, and ad-
vising and counseling his engineers concerning technical
aspects of their work. The other two items are concerned

with the engineering manager recruiting and selecting

127

engineers, and counseling them in personal problems af-
fecting their work. Item 1-29 discloses ambiguity with
respect to the orientation of the engineering manager
toward the job of his immediate superior. Finally, there
are mixed feelings among the role-definers as to whether
the engineering manager should promote, organize, imple-

ment and support educational development programs for em-

ployees (Item 1-26).

Analysis of Role Consensus

To complete the macroscopic consensus analysis,
emphasis will be placed on those role-expectation items
which most of the members of a given sample agree "abso-
lutely must" be a job function of the engineering manager.
Examination of these items in terms of intraposition con-
sensus for all four role-definer groups will give a posi-
‘tive expression of the job expectations which the majority
cxf the members of a group hold for the engineering manager.

Focusing first on the sample of engineering mana-
98:13, the following eleven items are listed according to
modal frequencies ranging from 74.4 percent for Item l-9
to 56.6 percent for Item 1-19:

(ls-9) Delegate authority;
(CL-11) Motivate employees to achieve objectives;
(IL-10) Coordinate the efforts of subordinates; and

(ls-20) Assess problems and progress-

128

(1-27) Familiarize himself in general with the work
of those engineers reporting to him;

(l-7) Determine departmental or unit objectives;

(1-25) Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of management;

(l-lS) Facilitate communication on all levels;

(1-32) Evaluate work being done by his engineers;

(1-18) Represent engineering in management decisions;

(1-19) Justify and "sell" projects, ideas, and plans

to higher management.

In view of the fact that the majority of the engi-

neering managers are in agreement that these are aspects

of the role which the engineering manager must fulfill,

the items will assist in develOping a profile of that role.
For the immediate superiors, most of the members

_of the sample were in consensus that the engineering mana-

ger "absolutely must" meet the following thirteen role

expectations which ranged from 80 percent for Item l-ll

to 51.7 percent for Item 1-21:

(1-11) Motivate employees to achieve objectives;

(1-20) Assess problems and progress;

(l-lO) Coordinate the efforts of subordinates;

(1-6) Plan departmental or unit Operations;

(1-9) Delegate authority;

(1-27) Familiarize himself in general with the work
of those engineers reporting to him;

(1-18) Represent engineering in management decisions;

(l-7) Determine departmental or unit objectives:

129

(1—32) Evaluate work being done by his engineers;
(1-15) Facilitate communication on all levels;

(l-l9) Justify and "sell" projects, ideas, and plans
to higher management;

(l-25) Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of management; and

(1-21) Ask penetrating questions to provide insight.

Eleven of these thirteen items are common to those
resulting from the responses of the engineering managers.
Items 6 and 21 were not among the responses of the mana-
gers because there was less consensus among the engineering
managers concerning the degree to which the engineering
manager should plan departmental or unit operations and
ask penetrating questions to provide insight. Otherwise,
the engineering managers and their immediate superiors
appear to be in consensus on the role of the engineering
manager.

The responses of the direct subordinates showed
sjreater dispersion; therefore, fewer items (eight) with
:hrtraposition consensus resulted. The modal frequencies
ranged from 70.8 percent for Item 1-9 to 52.4 percent for
Itenl.l-32:

61-9) Delegate authority;

(la-27) Familiarize himself in general with the work
of those engineers reporting to him;

(ls—18) Represent engineering in management decisions;

(ls—15) Facilitate communication on all levels;

(1-25)

(1-11)
(1-20)

(1-32)

130
Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of management;
Motivate employees to achieve objectives;
Assess problems and progress; and

Evaluate work being done by his engineers.

All of these items coincide with the expectations

of the engineering managers and the immediate superiors,

indicating that there is some basic agreement on the role

of the engineering manager among persons occupying differ-

ent positions in the organizational hierarchy.

The majority of the engineering faculty members

agreed that the following eleven items must be expected

from the engineering manager, with percentages ranging

from 70.8 for Item 1-11 to 43.8 for Item 1-25:

(1-11)
(1-9)

(1-10)
(1-18)

(1-27)

(1-20)
(1-8)
(1-19)

(IL-24)

(IL-32)
(IL-25)

Motivate employees to achieve Objectives;
Delegate authority;

Coordinate the efforts of subordinates;
Represent engineering in management decisions;

Familiarize himself in general with the work
of those engineers reporting to him;

Assess problems and progress;
Organize resources for carrying out plans;

Justify and "sell" projects, ideas, and plans
to higher management;

Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of engineering;

Evaluate work being done by his engineers; and

Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of management.

131

Seven of these eleven items also were included
among those items common to the other three role-definer
groups, lending additional support to the established area
of consensus among the role-definers and to the develop-
ment of a job standard for the engineering manager. Items
l-lO and 1-19 were common to the group of engineering mana-
gers and the group of immediate superiors, but were not
common to the group of direct subordinates. Two items
were unique to the engineering faculty. These items per-
tained to the expectations that the engineering manager
must organize resources for carrying out plans (Item l-8),
and must keep abreast of the current state of the art of
engineering (Item l-24).

Those items, not in the above category, which
showed intraposition consensus, involving the four indi-
vidual groups, are now enumerated.

The four individual groups indicated a feeling of
"preferably should" for the following item:

(l-30) Be available for consultation with his engi-
neers as much as possible.

The engineering managers, immediate superiors, and
direct subordinates, as individual groups, eXpressed a
feeling of "preferably should" for two items:

(1-22) Encourage his engineers to justify and "sell"
products, ideas, and plans to him; and

(1-24) Keep abreast of the current state of the art
of engineering.

132

The direct subordinates and the engineering faculty
as individual groups, indicated a feeling of "preferably
should" for the following item:

(l-21) Ask penetrating questions to provide insight.

The engineering faculty expressed a feeling of
"preferably should" for the following item:

(1-14) Rely on specialists for technical decisions.

The engineering managers, immediate superiors, and
direct subordinates expressed a negative feeling for the
following item:

(1—28) Familiarize himself in detail with the work of
of those engineers reporting to him.

Hypothesis 2.--There is no significant difference
in the perceptions engineering managers have of their con-
tinuing education activities and in the expectations held
for them by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates,
and by engineering faculty.

The group mean and variance responses, as well as
the level of significance of difference between the com-
pared groups for each of the 34 items concerning the con-
tinuing education activities of the engineering manager,

are summarized in Table 15.
Engineering Managers-~Immediate Superiors

An examination of the items in Section II revealed
that consensus (no significant difference in expectations)

existed between the engineering managers and their immediate

11313

 

 

 

 

Table 15. Group frequency, mean, and variance responses, and significance of difference between
grOUpS on thirty-four items concerning continuing education activities of the engineer-
ing manager.

. . . . Responses _. Chi-
LontLDUng.EOUCathD Sample N Xi PS MMN PSN AMN Mean Var. Compared Square
Act1v1ties Samples Test
Section II
(1-35) Be active in a profes- IS 122 17 68 37 - - 2.16 .42 EMpIS N.S.
sional engineering EM 199 19 105 73 2 - 2.29 .42 EM—EP .001
society. DS 168 14 90 63 1 — 2.30 .40: EMpDS N.S.
EF 50 14 32 4 - - 1.80 .32 IS-DS N.S.
(1-36) 8e active in a profes- IS 122 3 44 74 1 - 2.60 .31: EM—IS N.S.
sional business or manage-EM 199 5 78 114 2 - 2.57 .31 BMpEP N.S.
ment society. D8 168 8 67 92 1 - 2.51 .36* EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 2 25 '21 2 - 2.46 .42 IS—DS N.S.
(1—37) Pursue an advanced *
degree in engineering. IS 122 - 20 97 5 - 2.88 .19 EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 4 37 147 9 2 2.83 .29* sM-sr N.S.
08 168 2 25 128 13 - 2.90 .27* EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 2 10 33 5 - 2.82 .44 IS—DS N.S.
(1-38) Pursue an advanced degree IS 122 — 4 103 14 1 3.09 .15* EM-IS N.S.
in mathematics or the EM 199 2 9 150 35 3 3.13 .26* EM—EF N.S.
basic sciences. us 168 - 6 129 29 4 3.16 .21* EM-DS N.S.
EF so 1 1 34 13 1 3.22 .34* IS-DS N.S.
(1-39) Pursue an advanced degree IS 122 1 24 94 3 - 2.81 .22* EM—IS .05
in business management. EM 199 5 68 124 2 - 2.62 .30* EM—EP .001
as 168 2 59 101 6 — 2.66 .32* EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 — 5 42 3 — 2.96 .16’ IS-DS .05
(1-40) Take graduate credit IS 122 5 30 84 3 - 2.70 .35* EM-IS .05
work in engineering not EM 199 9 78 105 5 2 2.55 .41 EM—BF N.S.
necessarily for degree. 05 168 3 46 113 s 1 2.73 .30‘ EM-DS .05
HF 50 1 13 31 5 - 2.80 .41 IS-DS N.S.
(1-41) Take graduate credit IS 122 2 20 92 8 - 2.87 .28* EM—IS N.S.
work in mathematics or EM 199 3 43 13s 15 3 2.84 .35* an-sr N.S.
basic sciences, not neces—DS 168 1 24 127 13 3 2.94 .26' EM—DS N.S.
sarily for degree. EF 50 1 4 37 8 — 3.04 .32* IS-DS N.S.
(1-42) Take graduate credit IS 122 4 46 72 - - 2.56 .31. EM-IS .05
work in business manage- EM 199 11 101 85 2 - 2.39 .37* EM—EP .001
ment, not necessarily D5 168 10 72 84 2 - 2.46 .40* EM-DS N.S.
for degree. BF so - 13 34 3 — 2.80 .28* IS-DS N.S.
(1-43) Become familiar with the IS 122 26 79 16 1 - 1.93 .37* EM—IS N.S.
modern engineering cur- EM 199 41 123 35 - - 1.97 .38* EM-EP N.S.
ricula being offered in DS 168 31 107 28 2 — 2.01 .40* EM-DS N.S.
the leading colleges & EF 50 12 30 7 l - 1.94 .46 IS-DS N.S.
universities.
(1-44) Become familiar with the IS 122 17 7s 29 1 - 2.11 .40* EM-IS N.S.
modern trends in business EM 199 35 108 55 - l 2.11 .46 EM-EP N.S.
and management curricula D5 168 20 97 48 3 - 2.20 .44 EM-DS N.S.
in the leading colleges EF 50 5 27 17 1 - 2.28 .45 IS-DS N.S.
and universities.
(1-45) Acquire certification IS 122 15 33 73 l - 2.49 .52 EM-IS N.S.
as Professsonal Engineer. EM 199 29 45 119 5 1 2.51 .61 EM-EP N.S.
BS 168 20 49 94 S - 2.50 .55 EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 9 15 23 3 - 2.40 .74 IS-DS N.S.
(1-46) Write and present tech- IS 122 6 49 62 5 - 2.54 .44 BM—IS N.S.
nical and professional EM 199 4 88 98 9 - 2.56 .38' super .05
papers. 08 168 7 41 103 16 l 2.77 .46 BM-DS .001
EF 50 4 28 16 2 - 2.32 .46 IS-DS .05
(1-47) Attend local and nation- IS 122 23 78 20 1 - 1.99 .38* BM-IS N.S.
al technical meetings EM 199 23 131 45 - - 2.11 .34. EM-BF .005
on engineering. 05 168 15 107 44 2 - 2.20 .36: EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 15 30 5 - - 1.80 .37 IS-DS .05

'Vuriunce below median cutting point of .405, indicating high intraposition consensus.

.1334

Table 15. Continued.

 

 

Responses Chi-
Sample N AM PS MMN PSN AMN Mean Var. Compared Square
Samples Test

 

Continuing Education
Activities

 

(1—48) Subscribe to engineering IS. 122 50 65 7 - - 1.65 .35 EM-IS N.S.
or scientific journals. EM 199 73 106 19 l - 1.74 .42* EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 44 107 17 — - 1.84 .34 EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 21 25 4 - - 1.66 .40* IS-DS .05
(1-49) Subscribe to business IS 122 27 67 28 - - 2.01 .45 EM-IS N.S.
and management journals. EM 199 42 120 36 l - 1.98 .41 EM—EF N.S.
D8 168 28 102 38 - — 2.06 .40* EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 10 29 10 1 - 2.04 .49 IS-DS N.S.
(1-50) Take time off during IS 122 3 21 7O 28 - 3.01 .50 EM-IS .05
regular working hours EM 199 8 54 111 25 1 2.78 .52 EM-EF N.S.
to pursue continuing D5 168 3 33 90 36 6 3.02 .52 EM-DS .05
education programs. EF 50 4 18 19 9 - 2.66 .76 IS-DS N.S.
(1—51) Take time off for sabba- IS 122 - 5 77 38 2 3.29 .29* EM—IS N.S.
tical 1cave to pursue EM 199 1 13 118 61 6 3.26 .36' EM-EF .001
advanced degree work. 08 168 - 6 105 51 6 3.30 .28* EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 2 12 29 6 1 2.82 .52 Is-Ds N.S.
(1—52) Pursue advanced degree IS 120 - 22 74 23 1 3.02 .38* EM-IS N.S.
work simultaneously with EM 199 4 51 115 27 2 2.85 .46 EM-EF .05
job responsibilities. 05 168 - 38 98 22 10 2.96 .42 EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 1 2 37 10 — 3.12 .31* 1s-os N.S.
(1-53) Take advanced non-credit IS 122 3 41 73 5 - 2.66 .36* EM-IS N.S.
engineering courses. EM 199 9 69 110 10 l 2.62 .44 EM—EF .05
us 168 3 38 110 14 3 2.84 .37* EM-DS .05
EF 50 2 11 29 6 2 2.86 .53 IS-DS N.S.
(1-54) Take advanced non-credit IS 122 3 46 73 - - 2.55 .29* EM—IS .005
business and management EM 199 6 106 81 6 - 2.44 .37* EM-EP .001
courses. D3 168 4 58 99 6 1 2.65 .36* EM—DS .005
EF 50 1 11 32 5 1 2.86 .41 IS-DS N.S.
(1—55) Take advanced non- IS 122 _ 24 90 7 1 2.87 .25* EM-IS N.S.
credit courses in basic EM 199 6 50 125 17 l 2.78 .41 EM-EF N.S.
sciences. D8 168 2 31 111 21 3 2.93 .37* EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 1 6 33 8 2 3.04 .41 IS-DS N.S.
(1-56) Become acquainted with IS 122 65 53 4 - - 1.50 .31* EM-IS N.S.
the new technological EM 198 112 81 5 — — 1.46 .30‘ EM—EF .001
ideas and associated D8 168 74 81 12 l - 1.64 .41 EM-DS .05
terminology used in EF 50 29 13 7 1 - 1.40 .66 IS-DS N.S.
engineering.
Keep updated by attending such
activities as:
(1—57) Engineering lectures and IS 122 45 71 6 - - 1.68 .31, EM-IS N.S.
seminars. EM 199 73 111 15 — - 1.71 .36’ EM—EF N.S.
BS 168 45 96 27 — — 1.89 .42 EM-DS .05
EF 50 18 26 6 — - 1.76 .44 IS-DS .05
(1-58) Lectures and seminars IS 122 27 78 17 — — 1.92 .36’ EM—IS N.S.
on business management. EM 199 46 123 30 - - 1.92 .37* EM-EF N.S.
D8 168 30 108 30 — — 2.00 .36* sm-os N.S.
EF 50 9 28 12 1 — 2.10 .50 IS-DS N.S.
(1-59) Short technical refresher IS 122 15 66 4O 1 - 2.22 .44 EM—IS .05
courses. EM 199 36 124 36 2 l 2.03 .42 EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 18 96 52 2 — 2.23 .41 EM-DS 05
BE 50 8 27 15 - - 2.14 .45 IS—DS N.S.
(1-60) Lectures in the liberal IS 122 6 26 82 8 — 2.75 .42 EM-IS .05
arts and humanities. EM 199 3 70 112 12 2 2.69 .38* EM—EF .05
us 168 9 36 108 14 1 2.77 .46 EM-DS .01
nr 50 4 11 34 1

— 2.64 .44 IS-DS N.S.

Table 15. Continued.

135

 

 

 

 

C . . Ed Responses Chi-
ontinuing‘ _ucat1on Sample N AM PS MMN PSN AMN Mean Var. Compared Square
Act1v1t1es Samples Test
Keep updated by utilizing such
sources of information as:
(1-61) Technical and trade IS 122 66 r2 4 e — 1.49 .31* EM-IS N.S.
journals. EM 199 100 5 14 - - 1.57 .38: EM-EF N.S.
D8 168 56 96 15 1 - 1.77 .40 EM-DS .01
EF 50 23 23 — - 1.62 .41 IS-DS .005
(1-62) Technical abstracts and IS 122 34 60 28 - - 1.95 .50 EM-IS N.S.
indexes. EM 199 43 89 64 2 1 2.14 .58 EM—EF N.S.
US 168 29 78 56 5 — 2.22 .58 EM~DS N.S.
EF 50 15 25 9 1 - 1.92 .56 IS-Db .05
(1-63) Technical books and IS 122 3 67 22 - — 1.91 .48 EM—IS N.S.
reports. EM 199 42 107 45 4 1 2.07 .53 EM—EF N.S.
BS 167 21 99 46 1 — 2.16 .40* EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 14 27 9 - - 1.90 .46 IS—DS .01
(1-64) Business reports (mar- IS 122 24 58 37 3 - 2.16 .58 EM—IS N.S.
keting, sales, etc). EM 199 24 114 60 1 - 2.19 .41 EM—EF N.S.
US 168 15 87 64 2 — 2.32 .42 EM—DS N.S.
8F 50 7 25 18 - - 2.22 .46 IS—DS .05
(1-65) Manufacturer's liter- IS 122 14 66 39 3 — 2.25 .48 EM—IS N.S.
ature. EM 199 20 84 89 6 — 2.41 .50 EM-EF N.S.
D8 168 12 59 85 11 1 2.58 .53 EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 9 16 24 1 - 2.34 .64 IS-DS .005
(1-66) Business and management IS 122 21 60 41 — — 2. 6 .49 EM-IS N.S.
Journals. EM 199 27 116 56 - - 2.15 .40* 88-8? N.S.
05 168 15 97 54 2 — 2.26 .40* EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 7 24 19 - 2.24 .48 IS~DS N.S.
(1-67) Engineering Consultants 18 122 9 31 76 5 1 2.65 .48 EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 18 68 105 7 1 2.52 .52* EM—EF N.S.
D8 168 6 58 97 6 1 2.63 .40 EM—DS N.S.
EF 50 7 21 22 - - 2.30 .50 IS-DS N.S.
(1—68) Management consultants IS 122 4 27 81 8 2 2.80 .40* EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 11 58 118 11 1 2.66 .46 EM-EF N.S.
D8 168 4 56 100 6 2 2.67 .37* EM-DS N.S.
EF 50 6 17 26 1 - 2.44 .53 IS-DS N.S.

 

136

superiors on twenty-seven of the thirty-four items. On
eight of the items on which the chi-square between the
two distributions is insignificant, there is low consen-
sus within both groups. Further examination revealed
eleven items (41 percent) which exhibited high intra-
position consensus as shown in Table 16. This occurred
for items 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 47, 51, 56, 57, 58, and 61.
Consensus between the engineering managers and their im-
mediate superiors was in the positive direction for the
following six items: become familiar with the modern
engineering curricula being offered in the leading col-
leges and universities; attend local and national tech-
nical meetings on engineering; become acquainted with the
new technological ideas and associated terminology used
in engineering; keep updated by attending such activities
as engineering lectures and seminars, and lectures and
seminars on business management; and, keep updated by
utilizing such sources of information as technical and
trade journals. Consensus in a more neutral vein was
noted for the following five items: be active in a pro-
fessional business or management society; pursue an ad-
vanced degree in engineering; pursue an advanced degree
in mathematics or the basic sciences; take graduate credit
work in mathematics or basic sciences, not necessarily for
a degree; and, take time off for sabbatical leave to pur-

sue advanced degree work.

137

 

 

 

em ca 5 m ea mamuoa
e m H H m osmonaomHm
mm m m N AH MGMOHMHcmHmGOz
mHA Swan mHm EMA MHA 2mm mHm 2mm mmamfimm O39
mamuoa may cmm3umm

mHaEmm some ochHz mancmncoo Add sod no and cmHm

ucmfimmummmfla

 

 

A.muownmmdm

mUMflOmEEHIImHmmmcmz mcflummcamcmv .mmamsmm O3u cmmzumn ucmEmmHmmmHO mo

mmummp ucmowMHcmflm ou mcflcuooom 6cm mmHmEmm may no comm cflcuw3 mdmcmmcoo Op
mcflpuooom mamufl wufl>wuom GOHpMOSUm mcwdcaucoo snowimunflcu mo QOHHMOHMflmmmHU .mH manna

138

Significant differences in expectations occurred
between the engineering managers and their immediate superi-
ors on seven (21 percent) of the thirty-four items. For
all seven items the engineering managers expressed a more
positive attitude than their immediate superiors. Thirty-
four (34) percent of the engineering managers felt that
the manager "preferably should" pursue an advanced degree
in business management, as compared to 20 percent of their
immediate superiors (Item 1-39). (In both instances, the
modal response was "may or may not.") On the other hand,
the engineering managers noted a stronger preference for
the engineering manager to take graduate credit work in
businesss management, not necessarily for a degree (Item
1-42). Fifty-one (51) percent of the managers responded
that the engineering manager "preferably should" do this,
while 38 percent of the superiors indicated such. (The
modal response for the superiors was "may or may not.")
With regard to taking graduate credit work in engineering,
not necessarily for a degree, 39 percent of the engineer-
ing managers replied "preferably should," compared to 25
percent of their immediate superiors (Item 1-40). (The
modal response for both groups was "may or may not.")
Another item revealing a difference in response was Item
1—50. Twenty-seven (27) percent of the managers believed
that the engineering manager "preferably should" take time

off during regular working hours to pursue continuing

139

education programs. Only 17 percent of the immediate
superiors shared this same feeling. (The modal response
in both instances was "may or may not.") Fifty-three (53)
percent of the engineering managers were of the opinion
that the engineering manager "preferably should" take ad-
vanced non-credit business and management courses, while
this same feeling was shared by only 38 percent of their
immediate superiors (Item 1-54). (The modal response for
the superiors was "may or may not.") Two final items for
which significant differences in response occurred were
Items 1-59 and l-60. Both items referred to ways by which
the engineering manager can keep updated. Sixty-two (62)
percent of the managers felt that the engineering manager
"preferably should" attend short technical refresher
courses, as compared to 54 percent of the superiors. As
for attending lectures in the liberal arts and humanities,
35 percent of the managers and 21 percent of their superi-
ors believed that the engineering manager "preferably
should" do this. (In both instances, the modal response
was "may or may not.")

Table 16 categorizes the 34 items according to
disagreement between the engineering managers and their
immediate superiors and according to consensus within each
of the samples. Low intraposition consensus exists for
both samples on two of the seven items showing significant

differences between the managers and their superiors.

140

High intraposition consensus within both samples, combined
with significant differences between samples, exists for
three of the items. Thus, when comparing the responses

of the engineering managers and their immediate superiors,
the null hypothesis is rejected for three items, namely:

(1—39) Pursue an advanced degree in business manage-
ment;

(l-42) Take graduate credit work in business manage-
ment, not necessarily for degree; and

(1-54) Take advanced non-credit business and manage-
ment courses.

Engineering Managers--Direct Subordinates

In comparing the responses of the engineering
managers and their direct subordinates to the items related
to the continuing education activities of the engineering
manager, interposition consensus existed on twenty-four of
the thirty-four items. Examination of these twenty-four
items revealed high intraposition consensus for both
samples on eleven items as shown in Table 17. Interposi-
tion and intraposition consensus occurred on items 36, 37,
38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 58, and 66. Eight of these
items were among those eleven items revealing interposition
and intraposition consensus for the engineering managers
and their immediate superiors. Consensus on these items
was positive for the following five items: take graduate

credit work in business management, not necessarily for a

141

 

 

 

em m m H. mH mHmuoe
0H m m a m HomoHMHcon
em 6 m 0 Ha ucmOHMHcmHmcoz
moH zmH mom 28H moH sum mom 2mm noHQEmm ozs
mHmuOB may cmm3umm

oHoEmm comm ochHz nonconcoo HHV sou no Ame emHm

ucmammummmfla

 

 

A.mmumcflpnondm

pomuflailmummmcmz mcwummcfimcmv .mmHmEMm o3u cmmBumn ucmEmmHmmmHU mo

mmumme ucmOHmacmHm Op mcflpuooom 6cm mmHmEmm map mo comm GHQuHB mdmcmmcoo Op
mcflcnooom mEmuH >ua>fluom coaumoscm mcfldcflucoo Hsowlmuuflcu mo COHuMOAMHmmmHU .hH meme

142

degree; become familiar with the modern engineering cur-
ricula being offered in leading colleges and universities;
attend local and national technical meetings on engineer-
ing; keep updated by attending such activities as lectures
and seminars on business management; and, keep updated by
utilizing such sources of information as business and man-
agement journals. Consensus of a more neutral type was
disclosed for five items: be active in a professional
business or management society; pursue an advanced degree
in engineering; pursue an advanced degree in mathematics
or the basic sciences; pursue an advanced degree in business
management; and, take graduate credit work in mathematics
or basic sciences, not necessarily for a degree. Finally,
a more negative consensus was expressed on Item 1-51 for
the engineering managers and the direct subordinates.
Thirty-four (34) percent of the members of both samples
responded that the engineering manager "preferably should
not" take time off for sabbatical leave to pursue advanced
degree work.

In comparing the responses of the engineering mana-
gers and the direct subordinates, significant differences
in expectations were revealed for ten of the thirty-four
items. For all ten items, the engineering managers ex-
pressed a more positive attitude than the direct subordi-
nates. Thirty-nine (39) percent of the engineering managers

believed that the engineering manager "preferably should"

143

take graduate credit work in engineering, not necessarily
for a degree, while 27 percent of the direct subordinates
indicated such (Item l-40). (The modal response for both
groups was "may or may not.") Forty-four (44) percent of
the managers were of the opinion that the engineering
manager "preferably should" write and present technical
and professional papers, as compared to only 24 percent
of the subordinates (Item 1-46). (In both instances, the
modal response was "may or may not.") With regard to
taking time off during regular working hours to pursue
continuing education programs, 27 percent of the engineer-
ing managers responded "preferably should," compared to
20 percent of the direct subordinates (Item l-SO). (The
modal response was "may or may not" for both groups.)
Another activity of the engineering manager, in
which the managers and their direct subordinates differed
in intensity of response, involved taking advanced non-
credit engineering courses (Item 1-53). Thirty-five (35)
percent of the managers believed that they "preferably
should" take non-credit engineering courses, while this
same feeling was expressed by only 23 percent of their
subordinates. (In both instances, the modal response was
"may or may not.") Given a preference as an activity of
the engineering manager and still showing a significant
difference in the responses was Item l-54, take advanced

non-credit business and management courses. Fifty-three

144

(53) percent of the engineering managers indicated "prefer-
ably should" to this item compared to 35 percent of the
direct subordinates. (The modal response for the subor-
dinates was "may or may not.") More engineering managers
than direct subordinates strongly preferred that the engi-
neering manager become acquainted with the new technological
ideas and associated terminology used in engineering (Item
l-56). Fifty-seven (57) percent of the managers believed
that he "absolutely must" do this compared to 44 percent

of the subordinates. (The modal reSponse for the subor-
dinates was "preferably should.") In terms of the engi-
neering manager keeping updated, thirty-seven (37) percent
of the engineering managers felt that he "absolutely must"
attend engineering lectures and seminars, while 27 per-
cent of the direct subordinates were of this Opinion

(Item l-57). (The modal response for both groups was
"preferably should.") In addition, 18 percent of the mana-
gers responded that the engineering manager "absolutely
must" attend short technical refresher courses, as compared
to only 11 percent of the subordinates (Item 1-59). (For
both groups, the modal response was "preferably should.")
As for the engineering manager attending lectures in the
liberal arts and humanities, 35 percent of the managers
indicated that he "preferably should" as compared to 21
percent of the direct subordinates (Item 1-60). (In both

instances, the modal response was "may or may not.") On

145

the final item for which a significant difference in re-
sponses occurred, 50 percent of the engineering managers
were of the Opinion that the manager "absolutely must"
utilize technical and trade journals to keep updated
(Item 1-61). Thirty-three (33) percent of the direct
subordinates shared this same Opinion. (The modal re-
sponse for the subordinates was "preferably should.")
Table 17 shows the disagreement between the engi-
neering managers and their direct subordinates, and clas-
sifies the 34 items according to consensus within each of
the samples. Two of the ten items indicating significant
differences between the samples reveal low intraposition
consensus for both samples. On two of the items there is
a combination of high intraposition consensus within both
samples and a significant difference representing diver-
gence of Opinion between samples. Therefore, when compar-
ing the responses of the engineering managers and their
direct subordinates, the null hypothesis is rejected for

two items, namely:

(1-54) Take advanced non-credit business and manage-
ment courses; and

(1-61) Keep updated by utilizing such sources of in-
formation as technical and trade journals.

Engineering Managers--Engineering Faculty

The responses of the engineering managers concern—
ing the continuing education activities of the engineering

manager were also compared with those of the engineering

146

faculty. The data showed interposition consensus on twenty-
three of the thirty-four items as seen in Table 18. Further
analysis disclosed high intraposition consensus for both
samples on two items: pursue an advanced degree in mathe-
matics or the basic sciences (Item 1-38); and, take gradu—
ate credit work in mathematics or basic sciences, not
necessarily for a degree (Item 1-41). Consensus between
the engineering managers and the engineering faculty on
both of these items was neutral. Items 38 and 41 revealed
high intraposition consensus for all three samples.
Significant differences in expectations between
the engineering managers and the engineering faculty
existed on eleven (32 percent) of the thirty-four items.
There was a significant difference in expectations regard-
ing the engineering managers being active in a professional
engineering society (Item 1-35). Sixty-two (62) percent
of the engineering managers were of the Opinion that the
engineering manager should do this, as compared to 92 per-
cent of the engineering faculty. Another item in which the
engineering managers expressed a less positive attitude
than the faculty was Item l-46. Forty-four (44) percent
of the engineering managers felt that the engineering
manager "preferably should" write and present technical
and professional papers, as compared to 56 percent of the

engineering faculty. Both the managers and the faculty

147

 

 

 

 

 

em «H m NH m mamuoe
HH H m m m ucmonHcon
mm mH H e m ocmonHcoanoz
mmH 28H mum smH mmH 2mm mum and moHasmm ore
mamuoe mcu cmm3pmm
mHmEmm comm cwcuflz memcmmcoo Adv 30q HO Amy cmfim ucmEmmummmHo
A.>8Hdocm

mcflnmmcflmcmilmummmcmz mcflummcflmcmv .mmHmEmm 03p cmmSumc ucmEmmHmmmHU mo
mmumme ucmOHMHcmflm Op mcflOuOoom 6cm mmamfimm mcp mo comm cflcpflk msmcmmcoo on
mcflpuooom mamufl >HH>Huom coflumOSUm mcflscflucoo HSOMIwuHch mo cOflHmOflMfimmmao .ma macme

148

preferred that the engineering manager attend local and
national technical meetings on engineering (Item 1-47).
However, only 12 percent of the managers responded that

he "absolutely must" do this compared to 30 percent of

the engineering faculty. (The modal response was "prefer—
ably shouldfl for both groups.) The engineering managers
were more positive, however, in terms of the manager pur-
suing an advanced degree in business management (Item 1—39).
Thirty-four (34) percent of the managers believed that the
engineering manager "preferably should" do this, while only
10 percent of the faculty shared this preference. (The
modal response was "may or may not" in both instances.)
Fifty-one (51) percent of the engineering managers were

of the opinion that the engineering manager "preferably
should" take graduate credit work in business management
not necessarily for a degree, as compared to 26 percent

of the faculty (Item 1-42). With regard to the engineering
manager taking time off for sabbatical leave to pursue ad-
vanced degree work (Item l-Sl), only 7 percent of the
managers felt he should do this as compared to 28 percent
of the engineering faculty. (The modal response to this
item was "may or may not" for both samples.) The engineer-
ing managers, on the other hand, were of the opinion that
the engineering manager should pursue advanced degree work
simultaneously with job responsibilities (Item 1-52).

Twenty-eight (28) percent of the managers responded thus

149

as compared to 6 percent of the engineering faculty. (The
modal response in both instances was "may or may not.")
Another item in which the engineering managers and
the engineering faculty differed significantly in their
responses was Item 1—53. Thirty-five (35) percent of the
managers believed that the engineering manager "preferably
should" take advanced non-credit engineering courses com-
pared to 22 percent of the faculty. (The modal response
for both groups was "may or may not.") The engineering
managers indicated a stronger preference for the engineer-
ing manager to take advanced non-credit business and man-
agement courses (Item 1-54). Fifty-three (53) percent of
the managers responded that the engineering manager "prefer-
ably should" do this, whereas only 22 percent of the faculty
felt this way. (The modal response of the engineering
faculty to this item was "may or may not.") More engineer-
ing managers than engineering faculty preferred that the
engineering manager become acquainted with the new techno—
logical ideas and associated terminology used in engineering
(Item 1-56). Ninety-eight (98) percent of the managers ex-
pressed this preference compared to 84 percent of the engi-
neering faculty. Finally, with regard to the engineering
manager, keeping updated by attending lectures in the
liberal arts and humanities (Item 1-60), 35 percent of

the engineering managers felt that he "preferably should,"
as compared to 22 percent of the engineering faculty. (The

modal response in both instances was "may or may not.")

150

Table 18 categorizes the disagreement between the
engineering managers and the engineering faculty, and
classifies the items according to consensus within each
of the two samples. One of the eleven items showing that
significant differences exist between engineering managers
and the engineering faculty indicates low intraposition
consensus for both samples. High intraposition consensus
is revealed for three items which show significant dif-
ferences. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for
three items when comparing the responses of the engineer-
ing managers and the engineering faculty, namely on items:

(1-39) Pursue an advanced degree in business manage-
ment;

(1-42) Take graduate credit work in business manage—
ment not necessarily for a degree; and

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings
on engineering.

Hypothesis 2a.--There is no significant difference

 

in the expectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold for the continuing education activities
of the engineering manager.

The group mean and variance responses, as well as
the level of significance of difference between the two
groups for each of the thirty-four items concerning the
continuing education activities of the engineering manager,

are summarized in Table 15.

151

Immediate Superiors--Direct Subordinates

The data revealed interposition consensus on twenty-
four of the thirty-four items, as shown in Table 19. Addi-
tional analysis revealed high intraposition consensus for
both groups on thirteen items, namely, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41,
42, 43, 51, 53, 54, 55, 58, and 68. Consensus on these
items was positive for the following three items: take
graduate credit work in business management, not necessarily
for a degree; become familiar with the modern engineering
curricula being offered in the leading colleges and uni-
versities; and, keep updated by attending lectures and
seminars on business management. Neutral consensus between
the immediate superiors and the direct subordinates was
revealed for the following ten items: be active in a pro-
fessional business or management society; pursue an advanced
degree in engineering; pursue an advanced degree in mathe-
matics or the basic sciences; take graduate credit work in
engineering not necessarily for a degree; take graduate
credit work in mathematics or basic sciences not necessarily
for a degree; take time off for sabbatical leave to pursue
advanced degree work; take advanced non-credit engineering
courses; take advanced non-credit business and management
courses; take advanced non-credit courses in basic sciences;
and, keep updated by utilizing such sources of information

as management consultants.

152

 

 

 

em m m e mH mHmuOB
OH 6 H H a HomoHMHoon
am a a m MH ocmonHcmHnooz
mod mHH mom mHH moH mHm mom mHm anesmm oze

mamuoe mcu cmmzpmm

oHoEmm comm ochHz nonsensoo Hue sou no any con

pcmEmmummmflo

 

 

H.mmumcecnocdm

uomuflellmnoflummdm mumHOmEEHV .mmHmEmm OBu cmm3pmc ucmEmmHmmmHO mo

mmummp pcmOHMflcmHm Ou mcwcuooom 6cm mmamemm mcu mo comm cacufls msmcmmcoo ou
mcecuooom mamufl >ufl>fluom coflmeDOm mcHscHucoo HSOMIwuuch mo coflumoewammmao .mH macme

153

Significant differences in expectations between
the immediate superiors and the direct subordinates existed
on ten (29 percent) of the thirty-four items. The immedi-
ate superiors expressed a more positive attitude than the
direct subordinates for all but one of the ten items. With
regard to the engineering manager pursuing an advanced
degree in business management (Item 1-39), only 20 percent
of the immediate superiors responded that the engineering
manager "preferably should" do this, as compared to 35
percent of the direct subordinates. (The modal response
to this item for both samples was "may or may not.") Forty
(40) percent of the immediate superiors, however, felt that
the engineering manager "preferably should" write and pre-
sent technical and professional papers (Item l-46), while
only 24 percent of the direct subordinates shared this
preference. (The modal response for this item for both
samples was also "may or may not.") The immediate superiors
also noted a stronger preference for engineering managers
to attend local and national technical meetings on engi-
neering (Item l—47). Although the modal response of both
groups to this item was "preferably should," 19 percent of
the superiors believed that this was a mandatory activity
of the engineering manager, compared to 9 percent of the
direct subordinates. More immediate superiors than direct
subordinates strongly preferred that the engineering mana-

ger subscribe to engineering or scientific journals

154

(Item 1—48). Forty—one (41) percent of the superiors were
of the Opinion that he "absolutely must" do this, compared
to 26 percent of the subordinates. (In both instances,
the modal response was "preferably should.")

In addition, a significant difference existed in
expectations regarding the engineering manager attending
engineering lectures and seminars (Item l-57). Thirty-
seven (37) percent of the immediate superiors shared the
feeling that the engineering manager "absolutely must" do
this, while 27 percent of the direct subordinates felt this
way. (The modal response for both groups was "preferably
should.") As for the engineering manager keeping updated
by utilizing technical and trade journals (Item 1-61), the
immediate superiors noted a much stronger preference than
the direct subordinates. Fifty-four (54) percent of the
superiors believed that the engineering manager "absolutely
must" do this, compared to 33 percent of the subordinates.
(The modal response for the subordinates was "preferably
should.") Even though both the immediate superiors and
the direct subordinates were of the opinion that the engi-
neering manager should utilize technical abstracts and in-
dexes (Item 1-62), 28 percent of the superiors felt that
this was mandatory as compared to 17 percent of the sub-
ordinates. (The modal response in both instances was
"preferably should.") Similar patterns occurred in the

responses of the superiors and the subordinates for

155

Items (1-63) and (1-64). Twenty-seven (27) percent of the
immediate superiors believed that the engineering manager
"absolutely must" read technical books and reports, while
13 percent of the direct subordinates felt that this was
mandatory. Likewise, 20 percent of the superiors were of
the Opinion that the engineering manager "absolutely must"
read business reports, compared to 9 percent of the direct
subordinates. (The modal response was "preferably should"
for both groups.) Finally, a much stronger preference was
noted by the immediate superiors for the engineering mana-
ger to keep updated by utilizing manufacturer's literature
(Item 1-65). Fifty-four (54) percent of the superiors re-
sponded that the manager "preferably should" use this
source of information, as compared to 35 percent of the
subordinates. (The modal response of the subordinates

was "may or may not.")

Table 19 categorizes the disagreement between the
immediate superiors and the direct subordinates according
to consensus within each of the two samples. Four of the
ten items showing that significant differences exist be-
tween the immediate superiors and the direct subordinates
indicate low intraposition consensus for both samples.
High intraposition consensus is revealed for four items
which show significant differences. The null hypothesis
can thus be rejected for four items when comparing the
responses of the immediate superiors and the direct sub-

ordinates, namely:

156
(1-39) Pursue an advanced degree in business manage-
ment;

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings
on engineering;

(l-48) Subscribe to engineering or scientific journals;
and

(1-61) Keep updated by utilizing technical and trade
journals.

Areas of Differences

Analysis of the items on which there is significant
agreement within the samples but significant disagreement
between the samples will identify some possible areas of
differences.

The engineering managers and their immediate super-
iors disagreed on three items for which there was substan-
tial intraposition consensus. In response to Item 1-39,

34 percent of the engineering managers believed that the
manager "preferably should" pursue an advanced degree in
business management, while only 20 percent of their im—
mediate superiors indicated such. (The modal response for
both groups was "may or may not.") The engineering mana-
gers noted a much stronger preference for the engineering
Inanager to take graduate credit work in business management,
not necessarily for a degree (Item l-42). Fifty-one (51)
percent of the managers were of the Opinion that the engi-
neering manager "preferably should" do this, as compared

to 38 percent of the superiors. Likewise, 53 percent of

157

the engineering managers felt that the manager "preferably
should" take advanced non-credit business and management
courses, whereas this same preference was shared by only
38 percent of the immediate superiors (Item l-54). The
modal responses of the immediate superiors to Items 1—12
and l-54 were "may or may not."

Significant differences in expectations were noted
between the engineering managers and their direct subordi-
nates on two items, 1-54 and 1—61. The managers (53 per-
cent) expressed a stronger opinion than the subordinates
(35 percent) that the engineering manager "preferably
should" take advanced non-credit business and management
courses (Item l-54). The modal response of the subordi-
nates to this item was "may or may not." The engineering
managers exhibited a more positive attitude than the sub-
ordinates that the engineering manager "absolutely must"
utilize technical and trade journals to keep updated
(Item l—61). Fifty (50) percent of the engineering mana-
gers indicated that this activity was mandatory, as com-
pared to 33 percent of the direct subordinates. The modal
feeling of the subordinates was "preferably should."

The engineering managers disagreed with the engi-
neering faculty on three items. On Item 1-39, thirty-four
(34) percent of the managers were of the opinion that the
engineering manager "preferably should" pursue an advanced

degree in business management, whereas only 10 percent of

158

the faculty felt this way. (The modal response was "may

or may not" for both groups.) Fifty-one (51) percent of
the engineering managers also believed that the engineer-
ing manager "preferably should" take graduate credit work,
not necessarily for a degree, as compared to 26 percent of
the engineering faculty (Item l-42). (The modal response
for the engineering faculty was "may or may not.") The
managers, however, were less positive than the faculty re-
garding the engineering manager attending local and national
technical meetings on engineering (Item l-47). Even though
both samples preferred that the engineering manager do this,
only 12 percent of the engineering managers felt that this
activity was mandatory, while 30 percent of the engineering
faculty believed that it was. (For both groups, the modal
response was "preferably should.")

The immediate superiors and the direct subordinates
disagreed on four items, namely, 39, 47, 48, and 61. With
regard to the engineering manager pursuing an advanced
degree in business management (Item 1-39), 20 percent of
the immediate superiors felt that he "preferably should,"
as compared to 35 percent of the direct subordinates. (In
both instances, the modal response was "may or may not.")

A stronger preference was expressed by the immediate superi-
ors for the engineering manager to attend local and national
technical meetings on engineering (Item l—47). Nineteen

(19) percent of the superiors responded that he "absolutely

159

must" do this, whereas only 9 percent of the subordinates
thought so. (The modal response for both groups was
"preferably should.") More immediate superiors than di-
rect subordinates preferred that the engineering manager
subscribe to engineering or scientific journals (Item 1-48).
Forty-one (41) percent of the superiors thought that this
was mandatory, compared to 26 percent of the subordinates.
(The modal response was "preferably should" for both groups.")
Finally, fifty-four (54) percent of the superiors believed
that the engineering manager "absolutely must" utilize
technical and trade journals to keep updated (Item 1-61),
while only 33 percent of the subordinates shared this
strong an Opinion. The modal response of the direct sub-

ordinates was that he "preferably should."

Areas of Ambiguity

 

Further analysis of the data discloses eighteen
items which satisfy one or more of the criteria of ambi-
guity of response for all four samples. These criteria
include: the tendency for all modal responses to fall in
the neutral category; low consensus among the responses;
and the occurrence of a bimodal distribution.

The modal responses fell in the "may or may not"
category for the following fourteen items:

(1-37) Pursue an advanced degree in engineeering;

(1-38) Pursue an advanced degree in mathematics or
the basic sciences;

(1-39)

(1—40)

(1-41)

(1-45)

(1-50)

(1-51)

(1-52)

(1-53)

(1-55)

(1-60)

(1-67)

(1-68)

160

Pursue an advanced degree in business manage-
ment;

Take graduate credit work in engineering, not
necessarily for a degree;

Take graduate credit work in mathematics or
basic sciences, not necessarily for a degree;

Acquire certification as Professional Engineer;

Take time off during regular working hours to
pursue continuing education programs;

Take time off for sabbatical leave to pursue
advanced degree work;

Pursue advanced degree work simultaneously with
job responsibilities;

Take advanced non-credit engineering courses;

Take advanced non-credit courses in basic
sciences;

Keep updated by attending lectures in the
liberal arts and humanities;

Keep updated by utilizing engineering consult-
ants; and

Keep updated by utilizing management consult-
ants.

The following four items revealed low intraposition

(1-59)

(1-62)

(1-64)

(1-65)

consensus for all four samples:

Keep updated by attending short technical re-
fresher courses;

Keep updated by utilizing technical abstracts
and indexes;

Keep updated by utilizing business reports;
and

Keep updated by utilizing manufacturer's litera-
ture.

161

Areas of Consensus

 

To conclude the macrOSCOpic consensus analysis,
attention will center around those items which most of
the members of a given sample agree should be a continuing
education activity of the engineering manager. Examination
of these items in terms of intraposition consensus for all
samples will provide a positive expression of the expec-
tations which the majority of the members of a group hold
for the engineering manager.

Looking first at the responses of the engineering
managers, there are two activities which most of the mem-
bers of the sample agree are mandatory for the engineering
manager. Fifty-seven (57) percent of the managers responded
that the engineering manager "absolutely must" become ac—
quainted with the new technological ideas and associated
terminology used in engineering (Item 1—56), and 50 percent
of the engineering managers felt that he "absolutely must"
keep updated by utilizing technical and trade journals
(Item l-6l). In addition, positive consensus was noted
for the following seven items listed according to modal
frequencies ranging from 65.8 percent for Item l—47 to
50.8 percent for Item 1—42:

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings
on engineering;

(1-58) Keep updated by attending lectures and seminars
on business and management;

162

(1-43) Become familiar with the modern engineering
curricula being offered in the leading colleges
and universities;

(1—66) Keep updated by utilizing business and manage—
ment journals;

(l-57) Keep updated by attending engineering lectures
and seminars;

(1—54) Take advanced non-credit business and manage-
ment courses; and

(1-42) Take graduate credit work in business manage-
ment, not necessarily for a degree

For the immediate superiors, the majority were
also in strong positive consensus on two items, 1-56 and
1-61. Fifty-three (53) percent of the superiors indicated
that is was mandatory that the engineering manager become
acquainted with the new technological ideas and associated
terminology used in engineering (Item 1-56), and 54 percent
responded that he "absolutely must" keep updated by uti-
lizing technical and trade journals (Item l-6l). The data
also revealed positive consensus for the following six
items which ranged from 64.8 percent for Item 1-43 to 53.3
percent for Item l-48:
(1—43) Become familiar with the modern engineering
curricula being offered in the leading colleges

and universities;

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings
on engineering;

(l-58) Keep updated by attending lectures and seminars
on business management;

(1-44) Become familiar with the modern trends in
business and management curricula in the lead-
ing colleges and universities;

163
(1-57) Keep updated by attending engineering lectures
and seminars; and
(l-48) Subscribe to engineering or scientific journals.

The engineering managers and the immediate superi-
ors are in positive consensus on six items (56, 61, 43, 47,
57, 58) representing continuing education activities of
the engineering manager.

The responses of the direct subordinates disclosed
nine items for which positive consensus resulted. The
modal frequencies ranged from 64.3 percent for Item l—58
to 53.6 percent for Item 1-35:

(1-58) Keep updated by attending lectures and seminars
on business management;

(1—43) Become familiar with the modern engineering
curricula being offered in the leading colleges
and universities;

(1-48) Subscribe to engineering or scientific journals;

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings on
engineering;

(1-49) Subscribe to business and management journals;

(1-63) Keep updated by utilizing technical books and
reports;

(1-66) Keep updated by utilizing business and manage-
ment journals;

(1-61) Keep updated by utilizing technical and trade
journals; and

(1-35) Be active in a professional engineering society.
Four of these items (43, 47, 58, 61) coincide with
the expectations of the engineering managers and the immedi-

ate superiors, indicating “that there is some basic agreement

164

on the continuing education activities of the engineering
manager among all three samples.

The majority of the members of the engineering
faculty agreed that the following three items should be
expected from the engineering manager, with percentages
ranging from 64.0 for Item l-35 to 50.0 for Item 1-48:

(l-35) Be active in a professional engineering society;

(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings
on engineering; and

(l-48) Subscribe to engineering or scientific journals.
Only Item l—47 was common to the other three samples;
however, Item 1-48 was common to the sample of immediate
superiors and the sample of direct subordinates, but not

to the sample of engineering managers.

Hypothesis 3.--There is no significant difference

 

in the perceptions engineering managers have of their needs
in certain subject areas and in the expectations held for
them by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates,

and engineering faculty; and

Hypothesis 3a.--There is no significant difference

 

in the expectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold concerning the needs of engineering mana-
gers in certain subject areas.

Seven major subject areas, with items as indicated,

were investigated, namely:

165

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry 11 items
Engineering 14
General Management 11
Personnel Management 9
Financial Management 5
Marketing and Sales Management 6
Communication Skills 10

66

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry

The mathematics, Physics, Chemistry area included
the following eleven Special subjects: calculus; differen-
tial equations; linear algebra; matrix theory; numerical
analysis; partial differential equations; probability and
statistics; vector calculus; nuclear physics; polymer
chemistry; and solid state physics.

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling that an "over-view only" was needed in seven of
the subjects. In two subjects, calculus and probability
and statistics, they were approximately equally divided
between "working knowledge" and "over-view only"; and in
two subjects, nuclear physics and polymer chemistry, they
were equally divided between "over-view only" and doesn't

really need."

166

The immediate superiors indicated a pronounced
feeling that an "over—view only" was needed for seven of
the subjects. They were approximately equally divided
between "working knowledge" and "over-view only" on one
subject, probability and statistics. They indicated a
pronounced feeling for "doesn't really need" for three
subjects-—vector calculus, nuclear physics, and polymer
chemistry.

The direct subordinates indicated a pronounced
feeling for "over-view only" for five subjects: calculus;
differential equations; linear algebra; numerical analysis;
and probability and statistics. They were approximately
equally divided between "over-view only" and "doesn't
really need" on three subjects-~matrix theory, partial
differential equations, and solid state physics. They
indicated a pronounced feeling for "doesn't really need"
for the three remaining subjects--vector calculus, nuclear
physics, and polymer chemistry.

The engineering faculty indicated a pronounced
feeling for "working knowledge" for two subjects, calculus
and differential equations. They indicated a pronounced
feeling for "over-view only" for the remaining nine subjects:
linear algebra; matrix theory; numerical analysis; partial
differential equations; probability and statistics; vector
calculus; nuclear physics; polymer chemistry, and solid

state physics.

167

The responses of the engineering managers, immediate
superiors, direct subordinates, and engineering faculty are
summarized in Table 20.

High intraposition consensus items for which no
significant differences occurred, are enumerated for the
respective groupings.

The engineering managers and immediate superiors
showed such consensus for two items, 76 and 79. A positive—
neutral* trend was revealed for one subject, probability
and statistics, whereas a more neutral-negative trend was

shown for polymer chemistry.
The engineering managers and direct subordinates
did not show high intraposition consensus for any items.

The engineering managers and engineering faculty
showed such consensus for two items, 76 and 80. A positive-
neutral trend was revealed for probability and statistics,

whereas the trend was neutral for solid state physics.

The immediate superiors and direct subordinates
showed high intraposition consensus for two items, 78 and
79. The trend was negative for both nuclear physics and
polymer chemistry.

Significant difference items are now enumerated

for the respective groupings.

In comparing engineering managers and immediate
superiors, significant differences were revealed for three

items, 77, 78, and 80. In Item 77, vector calculus, 58

 

*For convenience, the term neutral is used to re-
fer to "over—view only."

Table 20.

subject areas.

1.6i3

Group frequency, mean, and variance responses, and significance of difference between
groups on sixty-six items concerning the needs of engineering managers in certain

 

 

Subject Areas

Section III

MATHEMATICS ,

(1-70) Calculus

(1—71) Differential Equations

(1-72) Linear Algebra

(1-73) Matrix theory

(1-74) Numerical Analysis

(1-75) Partial differential

equations

(1-76) Probability and statistics

(1-77) Vector calculus

(1-78) Nuclear physics

(1-79) Polymer chemistry

(1-80) Solid state physics
ENGINEERING

(2-6) Computer application

‘Variancc below median cutting point of

Sample

PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY

IS
BM
DS
BF

IS
BM
DS
BF

IS
BM
05
BF

IS
BM
05
BF

IS
BM
05
BF

IS
BM
03
BF

IS
BM
DS
BF

IS
BM
DS
BF

IS
BM

BF

15
BM
05
BF

15
BM
05
BF

IS
BM
05
BF

N

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

121
199
168

l'

30

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

59

122
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

121
199
168

50

122
199
168

50

.325,

 

Percentage
Responses
AWK AOV DRx
l 2 3
36 52 12
46 44 10
39 48 13
64 34 2
26 56 18
32 54 14
30 47 23
58 4O 2
29 55 16
31 48 21
26 52 22
34 56 10
14 53 33
9 65 26
9 50 41
2C ’2 10
19 61 20
16 67 17
13 58 29
32 58 10
13 56 31
9 62 29
11 46 43
18 68 14
47 49 4
47 50 3
35 55 10
3O 66 4
lO 39 51
5 58 37
4 42 54
10 72 18
l 34 65
2 53 45
l 30 69
2 74 24
2 39 59
2 51 47
3 3O 67
2 7O 28
5 53 42
4 67 29
3 46 51
6 78 16
53 46 l
51 47 2
40 56 4
48 52 -

Mean

1.76
1.64
1.73
1.38

1.92
1.83
1.93
1.44

1.87
1.91
1.96
1.76

2.19
2.17
2.32
1.82

2.00
2.02
2.15
1.78

2.08

2.63
2.43
2.68
2.22

2.57
2.44
2.64
2.26

2.37
2.26
2.47
2.10

1.48
1.51
1.63
1.52

Var.

.38

.36

Compared
Samples

BM-IS
BM-EF
EM-DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
EM-EP
EM-DS
IS-DS

BM-IS
EM-BF
BM-DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
BM-BF
BM-DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
EM-EF
EM—DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
BM—BF
BM—DS
IS-DS

EM—IS
BM-EF
BM-DS
IS-DS

BM-IS
BM-BF
BM-DS
IS—DS

EM-IS
BM-EF
BM-DS
IS-DS

BM-IS
EM-BF
EM-DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
EM-EF
BM-DS
IS-DS

EM-IS
EM-EF
EM-DS
IS-DS

indicating high intraposition consensus.

Chi-
Square
Test

.N.S.

.005

N.S.

.005

.005
N.S.

Table 20. Continued.

1.659

 

 

 

 

Percentage Chi-
. Sam'le N Res onses Wean Var. Com ared S uare
sumed Areas 9 AWK Pon 0:453 Sal‘Tlples gest
1 2 3

(2-7) Computer programming IS 122 14 67 19 2.05 .32: EM—IS N.S.
EM 199 9 71 20 2.11 .28 EM-EF N.S.

D5 168 7 61 32 2.26 .32* EM-DS .05

BF 5o 10 72 18 2.08 .28* 1s_os .05

(2-8) fimterials science IS 122 '7 63 10 1.83 .34 EM—IS N.S.
EM 199 21 73 6 1.86 .25* EM—EF N.S.

D8 168 12 73 15 2.03 .27* EM-DS .01

BF 5o 16 7o 14 1.98 .30* IS—DS .005

(2—9) Quality control IS 122 30 59 11 1.80 .37 BM—IS .05
EM 199 21 72 5 1.83 .25* EM—EF N.S.

as 168 14 71 15 2.01 .29* EM-DS .005

EF 50 26 66 8 1.82 .31* 15-05 .005

(2-10) Reliability IS 122 46 31 3 1.57 .31 EM-IS N.S.
RM 198 33 n4 3 1.70 .27* EM—EF N.S.

US 168 33 ‘8 9 1.75 .36 EM—DS .05

hr 50 18 73 6 1.88 .23* 15-05 .05

(2-11) Systems theory 15 122 33 6 4 1.71 .29* EM-IS N.S.
88 199 30 51 9 1.79 .35 BM—EF N.S.

05 168 21 63 16 1.94 .37* EM-DS N.S.

HF 49 20 68 12 1.92 .32 IS-DS .005

(2-12) Energy conversion 18 122 16 61 23 2.07 .40 BM-IS N.S.
EM 199 13 67 20 2.06 .32* EM—EF N.S.

05 168 16 57 27 2.11 .42 EM—DS N.S.

EF 50 20 o 10 1.90 .29* IS—DS N.S.

(2_13) Fluid dynamics is 122 19 57 24 2.06 .44 BM-IS N.S.
EM 199 14 63 23 2.10 .36 BM—EF N.S.

85 168 13 58 29 2.16 .40 EM—DS N.S.

EF 50 18 66 16 1.98 .35 15-05 N.S.

(2—14) Lubrication IS 122 20 SH 22 2.02 .42 EM-IS .01
an 199 7 68 25 2.18 .30* BM-BF N.S.

05 168 10 52 38 2.27 .41 EM—DS .01

RF 50 8 64 28 2.20 .32* IS—DS .01

(2—15) Mechanics of continua 15 lJu 6 52 42 2.35 .36 BM-IS .05
um 198 1 53 46 2.44 .28 EM—BF .005

D8 123 2 39 59 2.57 .28 EM—DS .05

EF 50 12 68 20 2.08 .32 15-05 .01

(2—16) Metallurgy IS 122 18 64 18 2.00 .36* BM-IS N.S.
an 199 12 69 19 2.07 .30 EM-EF N.S.

us 168 10 64 26 2.15 .35 EM—DS N.S.

EF 50 14 68 18 2.04 .32* IS—DS N.S.

(2-17) Plasticity IS 122 9 61 30 2.20 .36 EM—IS N.S.
BM [98 4 65 31 2.28 .27* EM—EF N.S.

DS I»? 4 60 36 2.32 .30* EM-DS N.S.

EV 59 lO 66 24 2.14 .32* IS—DS N.S.

(2-18) Stress analySls IS IJJ 3O 56 14 1.85 .42 EM-IS N.S.
84 199 18 65 17 1.98 .35 BM-BF N.S.

on 137 18 6O 22 2.04 .40 EM-DS N.S.

BF 30 20 no 14 1.94 .35 IS-DS .05

(2-19) Vibration 18 12.2 26 '38 16 1.90 .42 EM-IS .05
EM 199 15 71 14 1.99 . 29* EM-EF N.S.

us 158 12 68 20 2.07 .31* BM-DS N.S.

up an 16 56 18 2.02 .59 15-05 05

Table 20. Continued.

l'7()

 

 

 

 

Percentage Chi-
. Sample N Responses Mean Var. Compared Square
SUbJeCt Areas wa on DRN Samples Test
1 2 3
GENERAL MANAGEMENT
i
(2-20) Organization theory IS 121 56 41 3 1.47 .31* EM-IS N.S.
EM 198 56 42 2 1.46 .29 BM-EF .005
D5 166 65 32 3 1.38 .30: EM-Ds N.S.
EE 48 29 65 6 1.77 .31 13-05 N.S.
(2-21) Business law IS 120 9 58 33 2.23 .36 BM-IS N.S.
EM 198 11 68 21 2.10 .31* EM-EP N.S.
05 168 11 64 25 2.14 .34 EM-Ds N.S.
EF 49 22 57 21 1.98 .44 IS-DS N.S.
(2-22) Decision theory IS 120 49 45 6 1.57 .36 BM-IS N.S.
EM 197 52 44 4 1.53 .35 EM-EF .05
ES 168 48 46 6 1.58 .36 EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 33 54 13 1.79 .42 IS-DS N.S.
(2-23) Research and development IS 121 47 48 5 1.58 .35 EM-IS N.S.
EM 197 39 59 2 1.63 .27: EM-EF N.S.
DS 168 48 49 3 1.56 .32 EM—os N.S.
EF 48 4o 54 6 1.67 .36 15-05 N.S.
(2-24) Simulation methods IS 120 31 66 3 1.73 .27* EM-IS N.S.
EM 196 27 65 8 1.82 .32: EM-EF N.S.
D5 168 17 69 14 1.98 .31 EM—DS .05
SF 47 21 7o 9 1.87 .29* IS-DS .001
(2-25) Data processing IS 120 18 76 6 1.89 .23: EM-IS N.S.
EM 197 15 73 12 1.97 .27 EM_EE .01
us 168 8 71 21 2.13 .28* EM-DS .05
EF 48 31 67 2 1.71 .25* IS-DS .001
(2-26) Business ethics IS 120 47 45 8 1.62 .41* EM-IS N.S.
EM 198 48 49 3 1.54 .30 EM-EF N.S.
08 168 50 42 8 1.59 .41 EM-Ds .05
SF 48 52 42 6 1.54 .38 13-05 N.S.
(2-27) Principles and functions IS 120 68 29 3 1.34 .28. EM—IS N.S.
of management EM 198 76 22 2 1.25 .22: EM—EF .os
05 168 73 26 l 1.29 .23* EM-DS N.S.
EF 47 55 43 2 1.47 .30 15-05 N.S.
(2-28) Understanding individual IS 121 69 29 2 1.34 .28* EM-IS N.S.
and group behavior in EM 198 70 28 2 1.31 .25* EM-EF .05
work situations 05 168 72 26 2 1.30 .25* EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 50 48 2 1.52 .30* IS-DS N.S.
(2-29) Business policy IS 120 51 39 10 1.59 .45 EM-IS N.S.
EM 198 49 46 5 1.55 .34 EM-EF N.S.
us 168 52 43 5 1.54 .36 EM-DS N.S.
EF 48 33 56 11 1.77 .40 IS-DS N.S.
(2-30) Production control IS 120 15 65 20 2.05 .35* EM-IS N.S.
EM 198 11 72 17 2.06 .28 EM—EF .005
05 167 11 67 22 2.10 .32: EM-DS N.s
EF 48 31 63 6 1.75 .31 IS-DS N.S.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
(2-31) Personnel administration 15 121 58 39 3 1.45 .31: BM-IS N.S.
EM 199 55 42 3 1.49 .32* EM—EF N.S.
08 168 58 38 4 1.46 .32* EM_0s N.S.
EF 48 65 31 4 1.40 .32 15-05 N.S.
(2-32) Human relations skills IS 121 75 24 l 1.26 .21’ EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 70 29 1 1.31 .24: EM—EF N.S.
D8 168 64 33 3 1.38 .28 EM—DS N.S.
EF 48 63 35 2 1.40 .29* IS—DS N.S.

Table

20. Continued.

 

 

 

 

Percentage Chi-
. Sample N Responses Mean Var. Compared Square
subJeCt Areas wa on 08M Samples Test
1 2 3

(2-33) Job evaluation IS 121 65 32 3 1.38 .30* EM—Is N.S.
EM 199 71 26 3 1.31 .27* EM-EF N.S.

08 168 75 24 1 1.26 .22* EM-ns N.S.

EF 47 55 38 7 1.51 .38 IS—DS N.S.

(2-34) Industrial relations IS 121 25 59 16 1.92 .41 EM-IS .05
EM 198 26 67 7 1.82 .30* EM—EF N.S.

BS 168 21 66 13 1.91 .34 EM—Ds N.S.

EF 47 34 64 2 1.68 .27* IS-DS N.S.

i

(2—35) Performance review and IS 121 85 15 - 1.15 .13 EM-IS N.S.
appraisal EM 199 91 8 1 1.10 .09* EM—EF .005

us 168 87 12 1 1.13 .13* EM.ns N.S.

EF 47 66 32 2 1.36 .28* IS-DS N.S.

1*

(2-36) Personnel selection and IS 121 82 17 l 1.19 .17 EM—IS N.S.
assessment EM 199 84 14 2 1.17 .18: EM—EE .005

D8 168 85 14 1 1.16 .16* EM-DS N.S.

EF 48 63 37 — 1.38 .24 IS-DS N.S.

(2-37) Supervisory training IS 121 61 34 5 1.44 .35 EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 63 34 3 1.39 .29 EM-EF .05

EF 47 43 55 2 1.60 .29 IS-DS N.S.

(2-38) Techniques of guidance IS 121 61 34 5 1.44 .35 EM-IS N.S.
and counseling EM 199 52 44 4 1.52 .34 EM-EF .005

05 168 49 47 4 1.56 .35 EM-DS N.S.

EF 47 26 60 14 1.89 .40 IS-DS N.S.

(2-39) Training methods and IS 121 35 58 7 1.73 .35 EM-IS N.S.
techniques EM 199 36 58 6 1.70 .34 EM-EF N.S.

D8 168 35 55 10 1.75 .40 EM-Ds N.S.

EF 47 36 53 11 1.74 .41 15-05 N.S.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

(2-40) Capital budgeting IS 120 43 49 8 1.64 .38 EM—Is N.S.
EM 198 47 46 7 1.60 .38 EM-EF N.S.

BS 168 45 48 7 1.61 .37 EM—DS N.S.

88 47 36 55 9 1.72 .38 IS-DS N.S.

(2-41) Cost accounting IS 120 23 65 12 1.90 .35 EM-IS N.S.
procedures EM 198 23 67 lo 1.87 .31: EM-EF N.S.

D5 168 20 67 13 1.93 .32 EM—Ds N.S.

EF 47 23 66 11 1.87 .34 IS-DS N.S.

(2-42) Financial planning and IS 120 46 43 11 1.65 .45 EM-IS N.S.
forecasting EM 198 43 52 5 1.63 .35 EM-EF N.S.

D5 168 39 51 lo 1.71 .41 EM-DS N.S.

EF 47 28 68 4 1.77 .27* IS-DS N.S.

(2-43) Fundamentals of financial IS 120 28 6O 12 1.83 .37 EM-IS N.S.
management EM 198 33 63 4 1.72 .29* EM-EF N.S.

BS 168 29 6o 11 1.83 .38 EM—Ds .05

EF 47 38 55 7 1.68 .35 IS-DS N.S.

(2—44) Economics IS 120 33 55 12 1.80 .41 EM-IS .05
EM 198 28 67 5 1.78 .28 EM-EF N.S.

D8 168 27 61 12 1.85 .37 EM-Ds N.S.

EF 47 41 53 6 1.66 .36 IS—DS N.S.

(2-45) Advertising and sales IS 120 4 51 45 2.41 .32* EM-IS N.S.
promotion EM 198 3 61 36 2.32 .29* EM-Er N.S.

EF 47 10 6o 30 2.19 .37 IS-DS N.S.

(2-46) Consumer surveys IS 120 ll 56 33 2.22 .40 BM-IS N.S.
EM 198 12 57 31 2.20 .40 EM-EF N.S.

08 168 6 55 39 2.33 .34. Er-bs N.S.

EP 47 9 68 23 2.15 .30 IS—bs N.S.

Table 20. Continued.

1I7IZ

 

 

 

 

Percentage Chi-
. Sample N Responses Mean Var. Compared Square
SUbJeCt Areas AWK AOV DRN Samples Test
1 2 3

(2-47) Fundamentals of marketing IS 120 12 56 32 2.19 .41 EM-IS N.S.
EM 198 11 65 24 2.12 .34 EM-EF N.S.

05 168 10 55 35 2.24 .40 EM-DS N.S.

EE 47 13 66 21 2.09 .34 IS-DS N.S.

(2—48) Market forecasting IS 121 12 50 38 2.26 .44. EM—IS .01
EM 197 8 68 24 2.16 .30 BM-EF N.S.

D8 168 8 54 38 2.29 .37* EM-DS .05

HF 47 6 68 26 2.19 .29 IS-DS N.S.

(2-49) Market research IS 121 7 55 38 2.31 .35* EM-IS .05
EM 197 7 70 23 2.15 .28 EM-EF N.S.
DS 168 6 54 40 2.34 .35 EM-DS .005

HP 47 8 66 26 2.17 .31* IS—DS N.S.

(2-50) Public relations 15 121 9 55 36 2.26 .40* EM-IS .005
EM 197 13 71 16 2.02 .29 EM—EF N.S.

DS 168 11 63 26 2.15 .36 EM-DS .05

EE 47 19 68 13 1.94 .32* IS-DS N.S.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS

(2-51) Business letter writing 18 120 83 15 2 1.20 .21* EM_IS N.S.
EM 198 86 13 1 1.15 .14* EM-EF N.S.

05 168 84 15 1 1.16 .14* EM-DS N.S.

EF 50 84 12 4 1.20 .24* 15-05 N.S.

(2-52) English composition IS 120 77 22 1 1.24 .20: EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 79 20 1 1.23 .20 BM—EF N.S.

BS 168 75 24 1 1.26 .22: EM-DS N.S.

EE so 72 24 4 1.32 .30 15-05 N.S.

(2-53) Conference leadership IS 121 83 16 l 1.18 .17* EM_Is N.S.
EM 199 87 12 1 1.14 .14* EM-EF .005

DS 168 85 14 l 1.17 .16* EM-DS N.S.

EF 49 67 31 2 1.35 .27* IS—DS N.S.

(2-54) Effective communication IS 121 90 10 - 1.10 .09' EM—IS N.S.
in organizations EM 199 90 9 1 1.10 .10* BM-EF N.S.

05 168 89 10 l 1.12 .13: EM-DS N.S.

88 49 80 18 2 1.22 .22 15-05 N.S.

(2—55) Engineering graphics IS 120 48 50 2 1.53 .28 EM—IS N.S.
EM 198 43 52 5 1.62 .34 EM—EF .005

05 168 39 54 7 1.68 .36 EM-DS N.S.

EF 49 16 57 27 2.10 .42 IS-DS .05

(2-56) Interviewing skills Is 120 65 34 1 1.36 .25* EM—IS N.S.
EM 199 66 31 3 1.36 .28* EM—EF .005

ES 168 59 38 3 1.45 .32: EM-DS N.S.

EF 49 33 61 6 1.73 .32 15-05 N.S.

(2-57) Listening skills is 120 81 19 - 1.19 .16* EM—Is N.S.
EM 199 78 21 1 1.24 .21* EM—EF N.S.

08 168 75 23 2 1.28 .25: EM-05 N.S.

EF 49 67 33 - 1.33 .22 IS-DS N.S.

(2-58) Public speaking IS 120 68 31 1 1.33 .24* EM—IS N.S.
EM 199 77 22 1 1.24 .20: EM-EF .01

05 168 68 32 - 1.32 .22 EM-Ds .05

EE 50 60 34 6 1.46 .37 IS-DS N.S.

(2-59) Rapid reading IS 120 66 30 4 1.38 .32* EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 65 27 8 1.42 .40 EM-EF N.S.

DS 168 52 38 10 1.59 .46 EM—DS .05

HF 49 55 39 6 1.51 .38 IS-DS .05

(2-60) Technical report wril.ag IS 120 71 28 1 1.30 .23* EM-IS N.S.
EM 199 69 28 3 1.34 .28* EM-EF N.S.

Us 168 55 41 4 1.49 .34* EM_Ds .05

EE 50 74 24 2 1.28 .25 IS-DS .05

173

percent of the engineering managers indicated a need for
"over-view only" as compared to 39 percent of the immediate
superiors. (The modal response for immediate superiors

was "doesn't really need.") In Item 78, nuclear physics,
53 percent of the engineering managers indicated a need for
"over-view only" as compared to 34 percent of the immediate
superiors. (The modal response for immediate superiors was
"doesn't really need.") In Item 80, solid state physics,
67 percent of the engineering managers indicated a need

for "over-view only" as compared to 53 percent of the im-
mediate superiors.

Table 21 categorizes the eleven items according to
disagreement between the engineering managers and their
immediate superiors, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed for
one of the three items which showed a significant differ-
ence. In comparing engineering managers and immediate
superiors, the null hypothesis can be rejected for this
one item:

(1—78) nuclear physics.

In comparing engineering managers and direct subor-
dinates, significant differences were revealed for eight
items, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80.

In Item 73, matrix theory, 65 percent of the engi-
neering managers indicated a need for "over-view only" as

compared to 50 percent of the direct subordinates. In

174

 

 

HA 4 1 a m mamuoa

m H i a m ucmosmseoem

m m I l I unmoflmacmflmcoz
mod Ema mom Ema mad 2mm mom 2mm mmHmEmm O38

mamuoa

 

oedema comm ensues womanhooo and 306 so are cone

0:» cmmzumm
ucwEmmHmMMHo

 

 

A.mwumcflouondm uomnflolumummmcmz mcfluomcwmcmv

.memEmM 03¢ cmmzumn ucmemHmmmHU

mo omummo ucmofimwcmwm on mcflpnooom can mmHQEMM on» no comm canuwz mdmcmmcoo
on mcwcuooom mamufl whammfimco .moflmwnm .mOflumamcumE co>mam mo coflumoHMflmmmau .mm magma

 

 

Ha v I a m mamuoe
m I 1 m a ucmoHMflcmHm
m w I m m uCMOHMHcmHmCOZ
qu 2mg mHm Ema mHA 2mm mHm 2mm mmHmEmm O38
mamuoe on“ cmmzumm

 

uHoEMm comm canoes monoonooo Age 30a so and comm

ucmEmmHmMMflo

 

 

A.MHOHHmm3m oHMHUmEEHIImHmmmcmE mcflummcfimcmv

.mmHmEMm 03¢ ammzpmn unmEmmHmMMHo

mo moummp unmowwflcmflm ou mascuooom can mmHmEmw may mo comm cflnufi3 momcmmcoo
on mcflpuooom mfimuw whammamco .moflmwcm .moflumEmnumE qm>oam mo cowumowMHmmmao .HN manna

175

Item 74, numerical analysis, 67 percent of the engineer-
ing managers expressed a need for "over-view only" as com-
pared to 58 percent of the direct subordinates. In Item
75, partial differential equations, 62 percent of the engi-
neering managers indicated a need for "over-view only" as
compared to 46 percent of the direct subordinates. In
Item 76, probability and statistics, 50 percent of the
engineering managers expressed a need for "over-view only"
as compared to 55 percent of the direct subordinates. In
Item 77, vector calculus, 58 percent of the managers indi-
cated a need for "over-view only" as compared to 42 percent
of the subordinates. (The modal response for the subordi-
nates was "doesn't really need.") In Item 78, nuclear
physics, 53 percent of the managers expressed a need for
"over-view only" as compared to 30 percent of the subordi-
nates. (The modal response for the subordinates was "doesn't
really need.") In Item 79, polymer chemistry, 51 percent
of the managers indicated a need for "over-view only" as
compared to 30 percent of the subordinates. (The modal
response for the subordinates was "doesn't really need.")
In Item 80, solid state physics, 67 percent of the managers
expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared to 46
percent of the subordinates. (The modal response for the
subordinates was "doesn't really need.")

Table 22 classifies the eleven items according to
disagreement between the engineering managers and the direct

subordinates, and according to consensus within each sample.

176

High intraposition consensus is revealed for three of the
eight items which showed a significant difference. In
comparing engineering managers with direct subordinates,
the null hypothesis can be rejected for the three items:

(1-78) nuclear physics;

(l-79) polymer chemistry; and

(1-80) solid state physics.

In comparing engineering managers and engineering
faculty, significant differences were revealed for eight
items, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, and 79.

In Item 70, calculus, 46 percent of the engineer-
ing managers expressed a need for a "working knowledge"
as compared to 64 percent of the engineering faculty. In
Item 71, differential equations, 54 percent of the mana-
gers indicated a need for "over-view only" as compared to
40 percent of the faculty. (The modal response for the
faculty was "working knowledge.") In Item 73, matrix
theory, 65 percent of the managers expressed a need for
"over-view only" as compared to 62 percent of the faculty,
but 26 percent of the managers indicated "doesn't really
need" whereas 28 percent of the faculty indicated "working
knowledge." In Item 74, numerical analysis, 67 percent
of the managers indicated a need for "over-view only" as
compared to 58 percent of the faculty. In Item 75, par-
tial differential equations, 62 percent of the managers

expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared to 68

177

percent of the faculty, but 29 percent of the managers in—
dicated "doesn't really need" whereas the balance of the
faculty was approximately equally divided between "working
knowledge" and "doesn't really need." In Item 77, vector
calculus, 58 percent of the managers indicated a need for
"over-view only" as compared to 72 percent of the faculty.
In Item 78, nuclear physics, 53 percent of the managers
expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared to 74
percent of the faculty. In Item 79, polymer chemistry,

51 percent of the managers indicated a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 70 percent of the faculty.

Table 23 classifies the eleven items according to
disagreement between the engineering managers and the engi-
neering faculty, and according to consensus within each
sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed for three
of the eight items which Showed a significant difference.
In comparing engineering managers and engineering faculty,
the null hypothesis can thus be rejected for the three
items:

(1-77) vector calculus;
(1—78) nuclear physics; and
(1-79) polymer chemistry.

In comparing immediate superiors and direct subor-
dinates, there were no items which revealed a significant
difference between these two groups. The eleven items are

classified in Table 24.

178

 

 

HH 5 H H N onooe
i i i i i osmonHcon
HH 6 H H m osmonHconcoz

mo mH mm mm mm mH mo mH
H H m H H m m m monsmm 039
mamuoa

 

oHoemm comm chon noncomcoo AHV 36H so Ame con

on» cowsumm
ucofimmummmflo

 

 

A.mommcflcmonsm uommmollmuoflmmmom mHMHUoEEHV

.mmamsmw ozu cmmBumc ucmEmonMMHU

mo mmnmmp ucmoflmmcmflm on mcflpmooom cam mmHmEMM ocu mo comm segues msmcmmcoo
on mcmcmooom mEmUH mHHMHEmco .mommwcm .moHumEmcumE co>mam mo compmoHMHmmmao .vm magma

 

 

HH H m m m mamuoe
m i m m m osmonHcon
m H 1 I m unmoHMHcmwmcoz
mmq 2mg mmm 2mg mmq 2mm mmm 2mm mmamfimm O39
mamooe map cow3uom

 

onsmm comm chqu noncomcoo HHS 36H uo Ame con

ucofimmnmmmfla

 

 

A.%uadomm mammomcmmcmllmummmcmz mcmnmmcwmcmv

.mmHmEMM 03p cmm3mmn ucmEmmHmmme

mo mommoc ucmonmcmHm ou mcflcmooom cam mmamsmm may mo some cflcufl3 mdmcomcoo

ou mcficuooom mEmuw MHuMHEmno .moamhnm .moflumEmsumE cm>maw mo coflumoHMHmmmHU

.mm magma

179
Engineering

The engineering area included the following fourteen
special subjects: computer application; computer program-
ming; materials science; quality control; reliability;
systems theory; energy conversion; fluid dynamics; lubri-
cation; mechanics of continua; metallurgy; plasticity;
stress analysis; and vibration.

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling that an "over-view only" was needed in twelve of
the subjects. In one subject, computer application, they
were approximately equally divided between "working know-
ledge" and "over-view only," and in one subject, mechanics
of continua, they were somewhat equally divided between
"over-view only" and "doesn't really need."

The immediate superiors indicated a pronounced
feeling that an "over-view only" was needed for eleven of
the subjects. They were approximately equally divided be-
tween "working knowledge" and "over-view only" on two sub-
jects, computer application and reliability; whereas they
were approximately equally divided between "over-view only"
and doesn't really need" on one subject, mechanics of con-
tinua.

The direct subordinates indicated a pronounced
feeling for "over-view only" for thirteen subjects. In
‘the remaining subject, mechanics of continua, they indicated

(a pronounced feeling for "doesn't really need."

180

The engineering faculty indicated a pronounced
feeling that an "over-view only" was needed for thirteen
of the subjects: computer programming; materials science;
quality control; reliability; systems theory; energy con-
version; fluid dynamics; lubrication; mechanics of continua;
metallurgy; plasticity; stress analysis; and vibration.
For the remaining subject, computer application, they were
approximately equally divided between "working knowledge"
and "over-view only."

The responses of the engineering managers, immedi-
ate superiors, direct subordinates, and engineering faculty
are summarized in Table 20.

High intraposition consensus items for which no
significant differences occurred, are presented for the
respective groupings.

The engineering managers and immediate superiors
showed such consensus for three items, 6, 7, and 10. A
positive—neutral trend was revealed for one subject, com-
puter application and reliability; whereas a neutral trend
was shown for computer programming.

The engineering managers and direct subordinates
showed high intraposition consensus for three items, 6,
l7, and 19. A positive-neutral trend was revealed for
one subject, computer application. A neutral feeling was

shown for two subjects, plasticity and vibration.

181

The engineering managers and the engineering
faculty showed such consensus for nine items, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 12, l4, l6, and 17. A positive-neutral trend was re-
vealed for one subject, computer application. A neutral
response was shown for eight subjects, computer program-
ming,materials science, quality control, reliability,
energy conversion, lubrication, metallurgy, and plasticity.
The positive-neutral trend expressed for computer appli-
cation was common to all three groupings.

The immediate superiors and the direct subordinates
did not show high intraposition consensus for any items.

Significant difference items are now enumerated
for the respective groupings.

In comparing engineering managers and immediate
superiors, significant differences were revealed for four
items, 9, 14, 15, and 19. In Item 9, quality control,

72 percent of the engineering managers indicated a need

for "over—view only" as compared to 59 percent of the im-
mediate superiors. In Item 14, lubrication, 68 percent

of the engineering managers indicated a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 58 percent of the superiors. In Item
15, mechanics of continua, the modal response of "over-view
only" was slightly higher for the engineering managers than
for the immediate superiors, and 46 percent of the managers
indicated "doesn't really need" as compared to 42 percent

of the superiors. In Item 19, vibration, 71 percent of

182

the engineering managers expressed a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 58 percent of the immediate superiors.

Table 25 categorizes the fourteen items according
to disagreement between the engineering managers and their
immediate superiors, and according to consensus within
each sample. However, none of the four items with a sig-
nificant difference showed high intraposition consensus.

In comparing engineering managers and direct sub-
ordinates, significant differences were revealed for six
items, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15.

In Item 7, computer programming, 71 percent of the
engineering managers indicated a need for "over-view only"
as compared to 61 percent of the direct subordinates. In
Item 8, materials science, the modal response of "over-view
only" was 73 percent for both groups, but 21 percent of
the managers expressed a need for "working knowledge"
whereas the balance of the direct subordinates was evenly
divided between "working knowledge" and "doesn't really
need." In Item 9, quality control, 72 percent of the en-
gineering managers indicated a need for "over-view only"
as compared to 71 percent of the direct subordinates, but
23 percent of the managers responded "working knowledge"
whereas the balance of the subordinates was equally divided
between "working knowledge" and "doesn't really need."

In Item 10, reliability, 64 percent of the engineering

managers expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared

183

 

 

 

6H m I s n mHmoom
o I i N e ocmonHcmHm
m m i m m osmonHcmHmcoz
mmH zmH mom smH moH 2mm mom 2mm monsmm 036
mamuoa mnu cmmsumm

mamsmm comm awcuflz msmcomcou .Hv 30H Ho Ame comm

ucmEmmumMMHo

 

 

A.mmumcmpuonsm nomHHoIImnmmmcmz mamuoocamcmv .mmHmEMM osu somzp
Ion ucmfimmuommwc mo mmummo unmoHMHcmmm ou mcflcuooom cam mmHmEMm may no some
cwcum3 msmcmmcou ou mcflcuooom mEmuH mcmuomcmmcm cmmuH50m mo coHumonwmmmao .om wanes

 

 

ca N H m m MHmuOB

v I I v I unmoHMflcmHm

0H m H e m ucmoHMHcmHmcoz
mHA 2mg me 2mg mun.H 2mm mHm 2mm mmHQEmm 03H.

mammoa

 

mamamm comm aficumz msmcmmcoo AHV 30H Ho Ame comm

on» cmmsuom
ucmfimoummwflo

 

 

A.muoHHmm5m gunmmeEHIImnommcmz mcmnmocmmcmv .mmamfimm 039 cows»
Ion ucmsmmummmac mo wmummc “cavemacmflm ou mcmpuooom can mmamEcm may no comm
cflnuw3 momcomcoo ou mcflcuooom mEmuH mammmmcwmcm cmouudom mo coflumoflmmmmmao .mm manna

184

to 58 percent of the direct subordinates. In Item 14,
lubrication, 68 percent of the managers indicated a need
for "over-view only" as compared to 52 percent of the sub-
ordinates. In Item 15, mechanics of continua, 53 percent
of the engineering managers expressed a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 39 percent of the direct subordinates.

(The modal response for the subordinates was "doesn't

¥ 003"“.1-256-463 4'
A ' ' a 4' ..!

really need.")

Table 26 classifies the fourteen items according
to disagreement between the engineering managers and the
direct subordinates, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed for
four of the six items which showed a significant difference.
In comparing engineering managers with direct subordinates,
the null hypothesis can be rejected for the four items:

(2-7) Computer programming;
(2—8) Materials science;
(2-9) Quality control; and
(2-15) Mechanics of continua.

In comparing engineering managers and engineering
faculty, a significant difference was revealed for one
item, 15. In Item 15, mechanics of continua, 53 percent
of the engineering managers eXpressed a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 68 percent of the engineering faculty.

Table 27 classifies the fourteen items according

to disagreement between the engineering managers and the

185

4“

 

 

sH m m N N mHmuoa
oH N a N N osmonHcon
e m H I I HGMOHMHcmHmcoz
mmH mHH mom mHH moH mHm mom mHm monsmm 636
MHmuoa onu coozuom

 

onSmm comm chcHz monsoocoo HHS 30H no Ame con

ucofioonmmmHo

 

 

“.moumcHoHonom uooHHQIImuonomsm oHMHooEEHV

.monEom 03» coo3p

Ion pcoEoonomHo mo oommoo ucmoHMHcmHm on mchuooom can monEom onu mo coco
cHnuH3 momcomcoo on mGHoHooom mEouH mcHHoochco coouusom mo coHpooHMHmmMHo .mm oHnme

 

 

 

6H m H H OH MHMHOB
H I I I H unmoHMHcmHm
MH N H H m ocmonHconcoz
mma EMA mmm Ema mmH 2mm mmm 2mm monEom O38
MHmuoa onu coo3uom

onemm comm chon noncomcoo AHV 30H so Ame con

usofioommomHQ

 

 

A.>uHsoom mcHHoochGMIImHomocoz mcHHooGHmcmv

.monEmm 03H coo3u

Ion ucoEoonmmHo mo ooumoo HGMOHMHcmHm ou mcHouoooo was monEom onu mo coco
cwsqu momcomcoo ou mchHoooo mEouH mcHHoosHmco coouusom mo coHuooHMHommHo .mm oHnma

186

engineering faculty, and according to consensus within

each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed

for Item 15 which showed a significant difference. There-

fore, in comparing engineering managers and engineering

faculty, the null hypothesis can be rejected for one item:
(2-15) Mechanics of continua.

In comparing immediate superiors and direct sub-
ordinates, significant differences were revealed for ten
items, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 14, 15, 18, and 19.

In Item 6, computer application, 53 percent of the
immediate superiors expressed a need for "working know-
ledge" as compared to 40 percent of the direct subordinates.
(The modal response of the subordinates was "over-view
only.") In Item 7, computer programming, 67 percent of
the superiors indicated a need for "over-view only" as
compared to 61 percent of the subordinates, but the balance
of the superiors was approximately equally divided be-
tween "working knowledge" and "doesn't really need" whereas
32 percent of the subordinates indicated "doesn't really
need." In Item 8, materials science, 63 percent of the
immediate superiors expressed a need for "over-view only"
as compared to 73 percent of the direct subordinates. In
Item 9, quality control, 59 percent of the superiors indi-
cated "over-view only" as compared to 71 percent of the
subordinates. In Item 10, reliability, 51 percent of the

immediate superiors responded "over-view only" as compared

187

to 58 percent of the direct subordinates. In Item 11,
systems theory, the modal response of "over-view only"

was 63 percent for both groups, but 33 percent of the
superiors expressed a need for "working knowledge" whereas
the balance of the direct subordinates was somewhat evenly
divided between "working knowledge" and "doesn't really
need." In Item 14, lubrication, 58 percent of the immedi-
ate superiors indicated "over-view only" as compared to

52 percent of the direct subordinates, but the balance of
the superiors vnus almost equally divided between "working
knowledge" and "doesn't really need" whereas 38 percent of
the subordinates indicated "doesn't really need." In Item
15, mechanics of continua, 52 percent of the immediate
superiors expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared
to 39 percent of the direct subordinates. (The modal re—
sponse of the subordinates was "doesn't really need.")

In Item 18, stress analysis, 56 percent of the superiors
indicated "over-view only" as compared to 60 percent of
the subordinates, but 30 percent of the subordinates re-
sponded "working knowledge" whereas the balance of the
subordinates was almost equally divided between "working
knowledge" and "doesn't really need." On Item 19, vibra-
tion, 58 percent of the immediate superiors indicated "over-

'view only" as compared to 68 percent of the direct subordi-

nates.

188

Table 28 categorizes the fourteen items according
to disagreement between the immediate superiors and the
direct subordinates, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed
for two of the ten items which showed a significant dif-
ference. In comparing immediate superiors with direct
subordinates, the null hypothesis can be rejected for the
two items:

(2-6) Computer application; and

(2-7) Computer programming.

Management

The four management areas have been combined to
include the following thirty-one special subjects: organi-
zation theory; business law; decision theory; research and
development; simulation methods; data processing; business
ethics; principles and functions of management; understand-
ing individual and group behavior in work situations;
business policy; production control; personnel administra-
tion; human relations skills; job evaluation; industrial
relations; performance review and appraisal; personnel
selection and assessment; supervisory training; techniques
of guidance and counseling; training methods and techni-
ques; capital budgeting; cost accounting procedures; fi-
nancial planning and forecasting; fundamentals of financial

management; economics; advertising and sales promotion;

189

consumer surveys; fundamentals of marketing; market fore-
casting; market research; and public relations.

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed in nine of
the subjects. In six subjects they were approximately
equally divided between "working knowledge" and "over-view
only"; and in sixteen of the subjects the engineering
managers expressed a pronounced feeling that an "over-view
only" was needed.

The immediate superiors indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed for eleven
of the subjects. In five subjects they were approximately
equally divided between "working knowledge" and "over-view
only"; and in fourteen of the subjects they expressed a
pronounced feeling that an "over-view only" was needed.

In one subject, advertising and sales promotion, the im-
mediate superiors were almost equally divided between "over-
view only" and "doesn't really need."

The direct subordinates indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed for nine of
the subjects. In six subjects they were almost evenly
divided between "working knowledge" and "over-view only";
and in sixteen of the subjects the direct subordinates ex-
pressed a pronounced feeling that an "over-view only" was

needed.

190

The engineering faculty indicated a pronounced
feeling for "working knowledge" for six subjects: prin-
ciples and functions of management; personnel administra-
tion; human relations skills; job evaluation; performance
review and appraisal; and personnel selection and assess-
ment. They were approximately equally divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" on two subjects:
business ethics; and understanding individual and group
behavior in work situations. On twenty-three of the sub-
jects, the engineering faculty responded "over-view only."
These items were: organization theory; business law;
decision theory; research and develOpment, simulation
methods; data processing; business policy; production con—
trol; industrial relations; supervisory training; techni-
ques of quidance and counseling; training methods and
techniques; capital budgeting; cost accounting procedures;
financial planning and forecasting; fundamentals of finan-
cial management; economics; advertising and sales promotion;
consumer surveys; fundamentals of marketing; market fore-
casting; market research; and public relations.

The responsescnfthe engineering managers, immedi-
ate superiors, direct subordinates, and engineering faculty
are summarized in Table 20.

High intraposition consensus items for which no
significant differences occurred, are enumerated for the

respective groupings.

191

The engineering managers and immediate superiors
showed such consensus for eleven items, 20, 24, 25, 27,
28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, and 45. A positive trend was re-
vealed for six subjects: principles and functions of
management; understanding individual and group behavior
in work situations; human relations skills; job evaluation;
performance review and appraisal; and personnel selection
and assessment. A positive-neutral trend was revealed for
two subjects, organization theory and personnel adminis-
tration; whereas a neutral trend was indicated for two
subjects, simulation methods and data processing. A
neutral—negative trend was revealed for advertising and
sales promotion.

The engineering managers and direct subordinates
revealed high intraposition consensus for twelve items,
20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, and 41. A
positive trend was shown for seven subjects: principles
and functions of management; understanding individual and
group behavior in work situations; human relations skills;
job evaluation; 4performance review and appraisal; person—
nel selection and assessment; and supervisory training.

A positive-neutral trend was indicated for three subjects,

organization theory, research and develOpment, and personnel

 

administration, whereas a neutral trend was indicated for

 

two items, production control and cost accounting procedures.
The feeling expressed for the eight subjects underlined was

common to the previous grouping as well.

192

The engineering managers and the engineering
faculty showed such concensus for six items, 24, 31, 32,
48, 49, and 50. A positive trend was revealed for human

relations skills and a positive-neutral trend was revealed

 

for personnel administration. A neutral trend was indi-

 

cated for four subjects: simulation methods; market fore-
casting; market research; and public relations. The feel-
ing expressed for the two subjects underlined was common
to all three groupings.

The immediate superiors and direct subordinates
showed high intraposition consensus for eight items, 20,
27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 36. A positive trend was
revealed for six subjects: principles and functions of
management; understanding individual and group behavior
in work situations; human relations skills; job evaluation;
performance review and appraisal; and personnel selection
and assessment. A positive-neutral trend was indicated
for two subjects, organization theory and personnel adminis-
tration.

Significant difference items are now enumerated
for the respective groupings.

In comparing engineering managers and immediate
superiors, significant differences were revealed for five
items, 34, 44, 48, 49, and 50. In Item 34, industrial
relations, 67 percent of the engineering managers indicated

a need for "over-view only" as compared to 59 percent of

193

the immediate superiors. In Item 44, economics, 67 per-
cent of the managers responded "over-view only" as compared
to 55 percent of the superiors. In Item 48, market fore-
casting, 68 percent of the engineering managers expressed

a need for "over-view only" as compared to 50 percent of
the immediate superiors. In Items 49 and 50, market re—
search and public relations, approximately 70 percent of
the engineering managers indicated a need for "over-view
only" on each item as compared to 55 percent of the im-
mediate superiors.

Table 29 categorizes the thirty-one items accord-
ing to disagreement between the engineering managers and
their immediate superiors, and according to consensus
within each sample. However, none of the five items with
a significant difference showed high intraposition consen-
sus.

In comparing engineering managers and direct sub-
ordinates, significant differences were revealed for seven
items, 24, 25, 26, 43, 48, 49, and 50.

In Item 24, simulation methods, 65 percent of the
engineering managers indicated "over-view only" as compared
to 69 percent of the direct subordinates, but 27 percent
of the managers expressed a need for "working knowledge"
whereas the balance of the subordinates *was approximately
equally divided between "working knowledge" and "doesn't

really need." In Item 25, data processing, 73 percent

194

 

 

Hm m I m vH MHmuoe
A I I m N ocmonHcmHm
«N m I e NH unmoHMHcmHmcoz
mDH Ema mam Ema man 2mm mam 2mm moHQEom O39
MHmuoa ocu coo3uom

 

onsmm comm chon noncomcoo HHS 30H so Ame cmHm

ucoEooHOMMHQ

 

 

A.mouochHonsm pooHHQIImnomocmz OGHHoochcmv

.monEom o3» coozu

Ion ucofioonMMHc mo ooumoc HGMOHMHcmHm ou mchuooom cam monEom ocp mo coco

 

 

 

cHnuH3 mcmcoocoo on mchHoooo mEouH ucoaomocma o:0I>uuch mo coHumoHMHMMMHU .om oHQoB
Hm m I NH HH MHMHOB

m I I m I ucooHMHcmHm

6N m I 6 HH osmonHcmHmcoz

mHH zmH mHm EmH mHH 2mm mHm 2mm moHdsmm 039

MHmuoe onu cooBuom

onsmm comm chuH3 nonconcoo AHV 36H so Ame con

pcoEoonMMHo

 

 

A.muoHHomdm oHMHcoEEHIImHommcoz mcHHooCHmcmv

.oonEom 03H coo3p

Ion ucoEoonMMHc mo oonmoc HGMOHMHcmHm on UGHcHoooo cam monEom on» no coco

chuH3 oomcomcoo on mchHoooo mEouH ucoEomocoE oGOIwuuch mo GOHHMUHMHmmoHU

.mm oHQMB

195

of the engineering managers responded "over-view only" as
compared to 71 percent of the direct subordinates, but the
balance of the managers was approximately equally divided
between "working knowledge" and "doesn't really need."

In Item 25, data processing, 73 percent of the engineering
managers reSponded "over-view only" as compared to 71 per-
cent of the direct subordinates, but the balance of the
managers was approximately evenly divided between "working
knowledge" and "doesn't really need" whereas 21 percent of
the subordinates indicated "doesn't really need." In Item
26, business ethics, 49 percent of the engineering managers
expressed a need for "over-view only" as compared to 42
percent of the direct subordinates. (The modal response
of the subordinates was "working knowledge.") In Item 43,
fundamentals of financial management, the modal response
of "over-view only" was slightly higher for the engineer-
ing managers than for the direct subordinates, and 33 per-
cent of the managers indicated "working knowledge" as
compared to 29 percent of the subordinates. In Items 48
and 49, market forecasting and market research, approxi-
mately 70 percent of the engineering managers expressed a
need for "over-view only" on each item as compared to 54
‘percent of the direct subordinates. In Item 50, public
relations, 71 percent of the engineering managers responded
"over-view only" as compared to 63 percent of the direct

subordinates, but the balance of the managers was

196

approximately evenly divided between "working knowledge"
and "doesn't really need" whereas 26 percent of the sub-
ordinates indicated "doesn't really need."

Table 30 classifies the thirty-one items according
to disagreement between the engineering managers and the
direct subordinates, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed
for two of the seven items which showed a significant dif-
ference. In comparing engineering managers with direct
subordinates, the null hypothesis can be rejected for the
two items:

(2-24) simulation methods; and
(2-25) data processing.

In comparing engineering managers and engineering
faculty, significant differences were revealed for ten
items, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, and 38.

In Item 20, organization theory, 56 percent of the
engineering managers indicated a need for "working know-
ledge" as compared to 29 percent of the engineering faculty.
(The modal response of the faculty was "over-view only.")
In Item 22, decision theory, 52 percent of the managers
expressed a need for "working knowledge" as compared to
33 percent of the faculty. (The modal response of the
engineering faculty was "over-view only.") In Item 25,
<iata processing, 73 percent of the engineering managers

responded "over-view only" as compared to 67 percent of

197

the engineering faculty, but the balance of the managers

was almost equally divided between "working knowledge" and
"over-view only" whereas 31 percent of the faculty indicated
"working knowledge." In Item 27, principles and functions
of management, 76 percent of the engineering managers indi-

cated a need for "working knowledge" as compared to 55 per-

3'.” ".
‘l

cent of the engineering faculty. In Item 28, understanding

individual and group behavior in work situations, 70 percent

?“'

of the managers expressed a need for "working knowledge" as
compared to 50 percent of the faculty. In Item 30, pro—
duction control, 72 percent of the engineering managers
indicated a need for "over-view only" as compared to 63
percent of the engineering faculty, but the balance of the
managers were more or less evenly divided between "working
knowledge" and "over-view only" whereas 31 percent of the
faculty responded "working knowledge." In Item 35, per-
formance review and appraisal, 91 percent of the engineer—
ing managers indicated a need for "working knowledge" as
compared to 66 percent of the engineering faculty. In
Item 36, personnel selection and assessment, 84 percent

of the managers responded "working knowledge" as compared
to 63 percent of the faculty. In Item 37, supervisory
training, 63 percent of the engineering managers expressed
a need for "working knowledge" as compared to 43 percent
of the engineering faculty. (The modal response of the

faculty was "over-view only.") Finally, in Item 38,

198

techniques of guidance and counseling, 52 percent of the
engineering managers indicated a need for "working know-
ledge" as compared to only 26 percent of the engineering
faculty. (The modal response of the faculty was "over-
view only.")

Table 31 classifies the thirty-one items according
to disagreement between the engineering managers and the
engineering faculty, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed for
eight of the ten items which showed a significant differ-
ence. In comparing the engineering managers and engineer-
ing faculty, the null hypothesis can thus be rejected for
the eight items:

(2-20) organization theory;
(2-25) data processing;
(2-27) principles and functionscflfmanagement;

(2—28) understanding individual and group behavior in
work situations;

(2-30) production control;

(2-35) performance review and appraisal;

(2-36) personnel selection and assessment; and
(2-37) supervisory training.

In comparing the immediate superiors and direct
subordinates, significant differences were revealed for
two items, 24 and 25. In Item 24, simulation methods,
66 percent of the immediate superiors indicated a need

.for "over-view only" as compared to 69 percent of the

199

 

 

 

Hm 6H s H OH mHmoo9
N I I I N ucmoHMHcmHm
mN 6H s H m ocmonHcmHmcoz
mmH mHH mom mHH moH mHm mom mHm moHasmm 039
MHmu09 ocu coo3uom

oHasmm comm chon noncomcoo HHS 30H so Ame con

usofioonmomHo

 

 

H.moumchHonsm pooHHQIImHOHHomsm ouoHcoEEHv

.monEmm 03» coo3u

Ion ucofiooumoch mo ooumoc HGMOHMHcmHm ou mchHooom coo oonEmm ocu mo coco

 

 

chuH3 momcomcoo ou mCHcHooom mEouH ucosommcms oc0Iwuuch mo coHuooHMHmmoHU .Nm oHQm9
Hm m N m «H oHouoe

OH H H I m HGMOHMHcmHm

HN m H m m ucooHMHcmHmcoz

.mmrH Ema mmm ZmH nHmHH 2mm mmm 2mm monEmm 038

MHmu09 on» coo3uom

 

onsmm comm chon noncomcoo HHS 30H so cmv con

ucoEoonooHo

 

 

A.>uHsomm mchoocHGCMIImuomocoz mchoochcmv

.monEom 03» Coos»

Ion ucoEoonmMHc mo ooumoc pcmonHcmHm on mchHooom cam monEMm ocu mo coco

chuHs mcmcomcoo on mchHooom mEopH ucoEommcmE oGOIwuuch mo coHumoHMHmmoHu

.Hm oHQoB

200

direct subordinates, but 31 percent of the superiors in—
dicated "working knowledge“ whereas the balance of the
subordinates ‘was almost evenly divided between "working
knowledge" and "doesn't really need." In Item 25, data
processing, 76 percent of the immediate superiors responded
"over-view only" as compared to 71 percent of the subor-
dinates, but 18 percent of the superiors indicated "work-
ing knowledge" whereas 21 percent of the subordinates
responded "doesn't really need."

Table 32 categorizes the thirty-one items accor-
ding to disagreement between the immediate superiors and
the direct subordinates, and according to consensus within
each sample. High intraposition consensus is revealed for
both items which showed a significant difference. In com-
paring immediate superiors and direct subordinates, the
null hypothesis can thus be rejected for the two items:

(2-24) simulation methods; and

(2-25) data processing.

Communication Skills

The Communication Skills area included the follow-
ing ten subjects: business letter writing; English com-
position; conference leadership; effective communication
in organizations; engineering graphics; interviewing skills;
listening skills; public Speaking; rapid reading; and tech-

nical report writing.

201

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed in nine of
the ten subjects. In the other subject, engineering
graphics, they were approximately evenly divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only."

The immediate superiors also indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed in nine of
the ten subjects. In the other subject,engineering graphics,
they were evenly divided between "working knowledge" and
"over-view only."

The direct subordinates likewise indicated a pro-
nounced feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed in
nine of the ten subjects. In engineering graphics, they
indicated that an "over-view only" was needed.

The engineering faculty indicated a pronounced
feeling that a "working knowledge" was needed in eight of
the ten subjects. They indicated a pronounced feeling
that an "over-view only" was needed in the other two sub-
jects, engineering graphics, and interviewing skills.

The responses of the engineering managers, immedi-
ate superiors, direct subordinates, and engineering faculty
are summarized in Table 20.

High intraposition consensus items for which no
significant difference occurred are enumerated for the

respective groupings .

202

The engineering managers and immediate superiors
showed such consensus for eight of the ten items, 51, 52,
53, 54, 56, 57, 58, and 60. A positive trend was revealed
for all eight items, namely: business letter writing;
English composition; conference leadership; effective com—
munication in organizations; interviewing skills; listening
skills; public speaking; and technical report writing.

The engineering managers and direct subordinates
showed high intraposition consensus for six items, 51, 52,
53, 54, 56, and 57. A positive trend was revealed for all
Six items, namely: business letter writing; English com-
position; conference leadership; effective communication
in organizations; interviewing skills; and listening skills.
These six subjects were common to the previous grouping as
well.

The engineering managers and the engineering faculty
showed high intraposition consensus for five of the ten
items, 51, 52, 54, 57, and 60. The trend was positive for
all five items, namely: business letter writing; English
composition; effective communication in organizations;
listening skills; and technical report writing. Four sub-
jects, business letter writing; English composition; effec-
tive communication in organizations; and listening skills,
were common to all three groupings.

The immediate superiors and direct subordinates

showed high intraposition consensus for seven items, 51,

203

52, 53, 54, 56, 57, and 58. The trend was positive for

all seven items, namely: business letter writing; English
composition; conference leadership; effective communication
in organizations; interviewing skills; listening skills;
and public speaking.

Significant difference items are now enumerated
for the respective groupings.

In comparing engineering managers and immediate
superiors, there were no items which revealed a significant
difference between these two groups. The ten items are
classified in Table 33.

In comparing engineering managers and direct sub-
ordinates, significant differences were revealed for three
items, 58, 59, and 60. In Item 58, public speaking, 77
percent of the engineering managers indicated a need for
"working knowledge" as compared to 68 percent of the direct
subordinates. In Item 59, rapid reading, 65 percent of the
managers expressed a need for "working knowledge" as com-
pared to 52 percent of the subordinates. In Item 60, tech-
nical report writing, 69 percent of the managers indicated
a need for "working knowledge" as compared to 55 percent
of the subordinates. 4

Table 34 classifies the ten items according to dis-
agreement between engineering managers and direct subordi-
ruates, and according to consensus within each sample. High

intraposition consensus is revealed for one of the three

204

 

 

 

OH N I H m MHMHOB
m H I H H osmonHcon
m H I I O unmonHcmHmcoz
mQH EMA mom EmH mQH 2mm mom 2mm monEmm O39
MHmHOB ocu coo3uom

oHoSmm comm chon nonconcoo 1H3 3oH so Ame cmHm

ucoEoonMMHo

 

 

A.moumchmocom uoomHoIImmomocoz ocHHoochcmv .monEom o3u coozuon ucofi
IooHOMMHc mo ooumoc unmonHcmHm ou mCHcHoooo cam oonEom ocu mo coco chpH3
momcomcoo om mchHooom mEouH MHHme coHuooHGSEEoo con 90 coHumoHMHmmmHU .vm oHQmB

 

 

 

OH I N I m MHMHOB
I I I I I ucmonHcon
OH I N I m pcMOHchmHmcoz
mHH ZMH mHm qu mHH 2mm mHm 2mm monEom O39
MHmuO9 on» coozuom

oHoEmm comm chon noncomcoo AHO 30H so Ame con

ucoEoonmmHo

 

 

A.muoHHomsm ouoHcoEEHIImmommcoz mcHHoochcmv .oonEMm o3» coo3uon #coE
IoommmoHc mo oommoc ucmoHMHcmHm ou mchHooom cam monEom ocu mo como choH3
momcomcoo ou mchHooom mEouH MHHme coHumoHcofifioo con 90 coHumoHMHmmoHo .mm oHQMB

205

items which showed a significant difference. Thus, in

comparing engineering managers with direct subordinates,

the null hypothesis can be rejected for this one item:
(2-58) public speaking.

In comparing engineering managers and engineering
faculty, significant differences were revealed for four
items, 53, 55, 56, and 58. In Item 53, conference leader-
ship, 87 percent of the engineering managers indicated a
need for "working knowledge" as compared to 67 percent of
engineering faculty. In Item 55, engineering graphics,

52 percent of the managers expressed a need for "over-view
only" as compared to 57 percent of the engineering faculty,
but 43 percent of the managers indicated a need for "working
knowledge" whereas 27 percent of the faculty indicated
"doesn't really need." In Item 56, interviewing skills,

66 percent of the engineering managers indicated a need

for "working knowledge" as compared to 33 percent of the
engineering faculty. (The modal response for the engineer-
ing faculty was "over-view only.") In Item 58, public
speaking, 77 percent of the managers expressed a need for
"working knowledge" as compared to 60 percent of the faculty.

Table 35 classifies the ten items according to dis-
agreement between engineering managers and engineering
faculty, and according to consensus within each sample.
High intraposition consensus is revealed for two of the

four items which showed a significant difference. Thus,

206

 

 

 

OH I I m n oHmuoa
m I I m I ucmoHMHcmHm
n I I I 9 ocmonHcoHocoz
moH mHH mom mHH moH mHm mom mHm monEom 039
MHmuo9 ocu coo3uom

oHasmm comm choH3 noncomcoo AHO 36H so Ame con

ucoEoonooHQ

 

 

A.mouochHonom uooHHQIImHoHHomsm ouoHcoEEHv .monEom o3u coo3uon ucoE
IooHOMMHc mo ooumoc HGMOHMHcmHm on mchHoooo cam monEoo ocu mo coco GHnuH3
msmcomcoo ou mchHooom mEouH MHHme coHumoHcsEEoo con 90 coHuooHMHmooHU .Om oHnt

 

 

 

OH N I H m MHMHOB
v H I H N HCMOHMHcmHm
O H I I m HGMOHMHcmHmcoz
.mmHH EmH mmm EMA .mWH 2mm mum 2mm moHQEmm 039
onu09 ocu coo3uom

onEom comm chuHB oomcomcoo HHV 30H 90 Amy con

ucofioonmomHn

 

 

H.>uHoomm mcHHoocHOCMIImnomocoz mcHHooCHmcmv .oonEoo 03H coosuon ucoE
IooHUMMHc mo oonmoc unmoHMHcmHm on OCHcHoooo can monEom ocu mo coco chuH3
momcomcoo 0o mchuooom mEouH MHHon coHHMOHGSEEoo no» mo QOHHMUHMHmmMHU .mm oHQme

207

in comparing engineering managers and engineering faculty,
the null hypothesis can be rejected for the two items:
(2—53) conference leadership; and
(2-56) interviewing skills.

In comparing the immediate superiors and the direct
subordinates, significant differences were revealed for
three items, 55, 59, and 60. In Item 55, engineering
graphics, the modal response for "over-view only" was ap-
proximately equal for both groups, but 48 percent of the
immediate superiors expressed a need for "working know-
ledge" as compared to 39 percent of the direct subordinates.
In Item 59, rapid reading, 66 percent of the superiors in-
dicated a need for "working knowledge" as compared to 52
percent of the subordinates. In Item 60, technical report
writing, 71 percent of the superiors expressed a need for
"working knowledge" as compared to 55 percent of the sub-
ordinates.

Table 36 classifies the ten items according to
disagreement between the immediate superiors and the direct
subordinates, and according to consensus within each sample.
None of the three items, which revealed significant dif-

ferences, showed high intraposition consensus.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Purpose of the Study

 

The main purpose of this study is to investigate

the relationships among the perceptions engineering managers

have of their role and their continuing education require-

ments, and among the expectations held for them by their

immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by engineering

faculty outside of the organization.

More specifically the study will:
Examine the relationships among the perceptions engi-
neering managers have of their job functions and among
the eXpectations held for them by their immediate su-
periors, direct subordinates, and by engineering faculty
outside of the organization.
Examine the relationships among the perceptions engi-
neering managers have of their continuing education
activities, and among the eXpectations held for them by
their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by
engineering faculty outside of the organization.
Examine the relationships among the perceptions engi-

neering managers have of their subject area needs, and

208

209

among the expectations held for them by their immediate
superiors, direct subordinates, and by engineering

faculty outside of the organization.

Summary

Section I-Job Functions

Intraposition Consensus
for Individual Groups

Examination of the job function items in terms of
consensus within each of the four role-definer groups gives
an expression of the job eXpectations which the majority
of the members of a group hold for the Engineering Manager.
The engineering managers indicated a feeling of "absolutely
must" for 11 of the 29 job function items (7, 9, 10, ll, 15,
18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 32). The immediate superiors indicated
this same feeling for 13 items (6, 7, 9, 10, ll, 15, 18, 19,
20, 214 25, 27, 32), with 11 items common to both groups.
The direct subordinates indicated a feeling of "absolutely
must" for 8 items (9, ll, 15, 18, 20, 25, 27, 32) with all
8 items common to the two previous groups. The engineering
faculty eXpressed such a feeling for 11 items (8, 9, 10, ll,
18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 32). Seven of these items (9, ll,
18, 20, 25, 27, 32) were common to the three previous groups.
{The items were: delegate authority; motivate employees to

aushieve objectives; represent engineering in management

210

decisions; assess problems and progress; keep abreast of the
current state of the art of management; familiarize himself
in general with the work of those engineers reporting to
him; and evaluate work being done by his engineers.

The engineering managers indicated a feeling of
"preferably should" for 3 of the 29 job function items (22,
24, 30). The immediate superiors indicated the same feeling
for the same 3 items. The direct subordinates indicated a
feeling of "preferably should" for 4 items (21, 22, 24, 30).
The engineering faculty indicated such a feeling for 3
items (14, 21, 30). Item 30 was common to the four groups:
be available for consultation with his engineers as much
as possible.

The engineering managers, immediate superiors, and
direct subordinates expressed a negative feeling for 1
item (28): familiarize himself in detail with the work of
those engineers reporting to him.

Intraposition and Interposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

Hypothesis l.--There is no significant difference

 

in the perception engineering managers have of their job
functions and in the expectations held for them by their
immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and by engineering

faculty.

211

Hypothesis la.--There is no significant difference

 

in the eXpectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold for the job functions of the engineering
manager.

High intraposition consensus for items with no
significant difference (interposition consensus) was found
for:

14 items in comparing EM-IS;

10 items in comparing EM—DS;
9 items in comparing EM-EF; and
8 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array
with the prevailing trend indicated in each instance. The
following four items (9, 24, 27, 30) were common to the
three primary groupings, involving engineering managers:
delegate authority; keep abreast of the current state of
the art of engineering; familiarize himself in general
with the work of those engineers reporting to him; and be
available for consultation with his engineers as much as

possible.

 

 

Job Functions EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS
(1-7) Determine departmental

or unit objectives. pos.
(1-9) Delegate authority. pos. pos. pos. pos.

(1-10) Coordinate the efforts
of subordinates. pos. pos.

(1-11)

(1-15)

(1-18)

(1-19)

(1-20)

(1-22)

(1-24)

(1-25)

(1-27)

(1-28)

(1-30)

(1-32)

212

Job Functions

 

Motivate employees to
achieve objectives.

Facilitate communica-
tion on all levels.

Represent engineering
in management decisions.

Justify and "sell" pro-
jects, ideas and plans
to higher management.

Assess problems and
progress.

Encourage his engineers
to justify and "sell"
projects,
to him.

Keep abreast of the cur-
rent state of the art of
engineering.

Keep abreast of the cur-
rent state of the art of
management.

Familiarize himself in
general with the work of
those engineers report—
ing to him.

Familiarize himself in
detail with the work of
those engineers report-
ing to him.

Be available for consul-

ideas and plans

EM-IS EM-DS

pos.

pos.

pos.

pos.

pos.

pos.

pos.

pos.

neg.

tation with his engineers

as much as possible.

Evaluate the work being
done by his engineers.

pos.

pos.

 

 

EM-EF IS-DS
pos.
pos. pos.
pos. pos. pos.
pos.
pos.
pos. pos.
pos. pos. pos.
pos. pos.
pos. pos. pos.
neg. neg.
pos. pos.
pos.

213

High intraposition consensus for items with a signi-
ficant difference was found for:
1 item in comparing EM—IS;
2 items in comparing EM—DS;
2 items in comparing EM-EF; and
4 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array with
the level of significance indicated in each instance. There
were no items common to the three primary groupings in—

volving engineering managers.

Job Functions EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS

 

 

(l-ll) Motivate employees to
achieve objectives. .005 .001

(1-18) Represent engineering in
management decisions. .05

(l-20) Assess problems and pro-
gress. .01 .001

(1-21) Ask penetrating questions
to provide insight. .01

(1-25) Keep abreast of the cur-
rent state of the art of
management. .05

(1-30) Be available for consulta-
tion with his engineers as
much as possible. .05

(1-32) Evaluate work being done
by his engineers. .05

214

Section II-Continuing Education Activities

Intraposition ansensus
for Individual Groups

 

 

Examination of the continuing education activities
items in terms of consensus within each of the four role-
definer groups gives an eXpression of the continuing edu—
cation activities which the majority of the members of a
group hold for the engineering manager. The engineering
managers indicated a positive consensus for 8 of the 34
continuing education activities items (43, 47, 54, 56, 57,
58, 61, 66). The immediate superiors indicated this same
feeling for 9 items (42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 56, 57, 58, 61),
with 6 items (43, 47, 56, 57, 58, 61) common to both groups.
The direct subordinates indicated a positive consensus for
9 items (35, 43, 47, 48, 49, 58, 61, 63, 66), with 4 items
(43, 47, 58, 61) common to the two previous groups. The
engineering faculty expressed such a feeling for 3 items
(35, 47, 48). Item 47, attend local and national technical
meetings on engineering was common to the three previous
groups.

Intraposition and Interposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

Hyppthesis 2.--There is no significant difference

 

in the perceptions engineering managers have of their con-

tinuing education activities and in the exPectations held

215

for them by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates,
and by engineering faculty.
Hypothesis 2a.--There is no significant difference
in the expectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold for the continuing education activities —
of the engineering manager. I
High intraposition consensus for items with no sig- {
nificant difference was found for: i
11 items in comparing EM-IS; i
11 items in comparing EM-DS;
2 items in comparing EM-EF; and
13 items in comparing IS-DS.
The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array
with the prevailing trend indicated in each instance. The
following two items (38, 41) were common to the three pri-
mary groupings involving engineering managers: pursue an
advanced degree in mathematics or the basic sciences; and
take graduate credit work in mathematics or basic sciences,
not necessarily for degree.

Continuinngducation
Activities EM—IS EM—DS EM-EF IS-DS

 

 

 

(1-36) Be active in a profes-
sional business or
management society neut. neut. neut.

(1-37) Pursue an advanced
degree in engineering. neut. neut. neut.

(1-38)

(1-39)

(1-40)

(1-41)

(1-42)

(1-43)

(1-47)

(1-51)

(1-53)

(1-54)

(1-55)

216

Continuing Education

 

Activities

 

an advanced
in mathematics
basic sciences.

Pursue
degree
or the

Pursue an advanced
degree in business
management.

Take graduate credit
work in engineering,
not necessarily for

degree.

Take graduate credit
work in mathematics

or basic sciences, not
necessarily for degree.

Take graduate credit
work in business
management, not neces-
sarily for degree.

Become familiar with
the modern engineering
curricula being offered
in the leading colleges
and universities.

Attend local and nation-
al technical meetings on
engineering.

Take time off for sabba-
tical leave to purse ad-
vanced degree work.

Take advanced non-credit
engineering courses.

Take advanced non—credit
business and management
courses.

Take advanced non-credit

EM-IS

neut.

neut.

pos.

pos.

neut.

courses in basic sciences.

 

 

EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS

neut. neut. neut.
neut.

neut.

neut. neut. neut.

pos. neut.

pos. pos.
pos.

neut. neut.

neut.

neut.

neut.

 

217

Continuing Education
Activities EM-IS EM-DS EM—EF IS-DS

 

 

 

(1-56) Become acquainted with
the new technological
ideas and associated
terminology used in
engineering. pos.

(1-57) Attend engineering lec-
tures and seminars. pos.

(1-58) Attend lectures and
seminars on business
management. pos. pos. pos.

(1-61) Utilize technical and
trade journals. pos.

 

1“»

(1-66) Utilize business and
management journals. pos.

(1—68) Utilize management
consultants. neut.
High intraposition consensus for items with a sig-
nificant difference was found for:
3 items in comparing EM-IS;
2 items in comparing EM-DS;
3 items in comparing EM—EF; and
4 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array with
the level of significance indicated in each instance. There
were no items common to the three primary groupings in-

volving engineering managers.

218

Continuing Education
Activities EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS

 

 

 

(1-39) Pursue an advanced
degree in business
management. .05 .001 .05

(1-42) Take graduate credit
work in business man-
agement, not neces-
sarily for degree. .05 .001

(1-47) Attend local and nation-
al technical meetings
on engineering. .005 .05

(1-48) Subscribe to engi-

neering or scientific

journals. .05
(1-54) Take advanced non-credit

business and management

courses. .005 .005
(1-61) Utilize technical and

trade journals. .01 .005

Section III-Subject Areas

Hypothesis 3.--There is no significant difference

 

in the perceptions engineering managers have of their needs
in certain subject areas and in the expectations held for
them by their immediate superiors, direct subordinates, and
engineering faculty; and

Hypothesis 3a.--There is no significant difference

 

in the expectations that immediate superiors and direct
subordinates hold concerning the needs of engineering man-

agers in certain subject areas.

219

(Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry)

Intraposition Consensus for Individual Groups.--
Examination of the mathematics, physics, and chemistry items
in terms of consensus within each of the four role-definer
groups gives an expression of the subject area needs which
the majority of the members of a group hold for the Engi-
neering Manager.

The engineering managers were evenly distributed
between "working knowledge" and "over-view only" for one
item (76). They indicated a pronounced feeling for "over-
view only" for 4 items (73, 74, 77, 80). They were evenly
divided between "over-view only" and "doesn't really need"
for two items (78, 79).

The immediate superiors were evenly divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" on one item (76).
They eXpressed a pronounced feeling for "doesn't really
need" for two items (78, 79).

There were no items involving "working knowledge"
for the direct subordinates. However, the subordinates
were evenly divided between "over-view only" and "doesn't
really need" for one item (80). They expressed a pronounced
feeling for "doesn't really need" for two items (78, 79).

The engineering faculty indicated a pronounced

feeling for "working knowledge" on 2 items (70, 71), and a

220

pronounced feeling for "over-view only" on 6 items (75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80).
There were no items common to all four groups.

Intraposition and Interposition Consensus for Com-

 

pared Groups.--High intraposition consensus for items with

 

no significant difference was found for:

2 items in comparing EM—IS;

0 items in comparing EM—DS;

2 items in comparing EM—EF; and

2 items in comparing IS-DS.
The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these items.
The items are summarized in the following array with the
prevailing trend in each instance. There were no items
common to the three primary groupings involving engineering

managers.

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM-IS EM-DS EM—EF £§ZE§
(1-76) Probability and

statistics awk—ov awk-ov
(1-78) Nuclear physics drn
(1-79) Polymer chemistry ov-drn drn
(1-80) Solid state physics ov

High intraposition consensus for items with a signi-
ficant difference was found for:
1 item in comparing EM-IS;

3 items in comparing EM-DS

221

3 items in comparing EM-EF; and
0 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array
with the level of significance indicated in each instance.
Item 78, nuclear physics, was common to the three primary

groupings involving engineering managers.

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF l§22§
(1-77) Vector calculus .05
(1-78) Nuclear physics .01 .01 .05
(1-79) Polymer chemistry .005 .05
(1—80) Solid state physics .005
(Engineering)

Intraposition Consensus for Individual Groups.--
Examination of the engineering items in terms of consensus
within each of the four role-definer groups gives an ex-
pression of the engineering subject area needs which the
majority of the members of a group hold for the Engineering
Manager.

The engineering managers were evenly distributed
between "working knowledge" and "over-view only" for Item 6.
They indicated a pronounced feeling for "over-view only"
for 9 items (7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, l7, 19). They were
evenly divided between "over-view only" and "doesn't really

need" on one item (15).

222

The immediate superiors were evenly divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" on two items
(6, 10). They expressed a pronounced feeling for "over-
view only" for 2 items (7, 11).

The direct subordinates expressed a pronounced
feeling for "over-view only" for 6 items (6, 7; 8, 9, l7,
19). They expressed a pronounced feeling for "doesn't really
need" for one item (15).

The engineering faculty were evenly divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" on Item 6. They
indicated a pronounced feeling for "over-view only" for
10 items (7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17).

The feeling expressed for computer programming
(Item 7) was common to all four groups.

Intraposition and Interposition Consensus for Com-

pared Groups.--High intraposition consensus for items with

 

no significant difference was found for:
3 items in comparing EM-IS;
3 items in comparing EM-DS;
9 items in comparing EM-EF; and
0 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array with
the prevailing trend indicated in each instance. Item 6,
computer application, was common to the three primary

groupings involving engineering managers.

223

 

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS
(2-6) Computer application awk-ov ov awk-ov
(2-7) Computer programming ov ov
(2-8) Materials science ov
(2-9) Quality control ov
(2-10) Reliability awk-ov ov h
(2-12) Energy conversion ov V
(2-14) Lubrication ov HI
(2-16) Metallurgy ov ‘
(2-17) Plasticity ov ov
(2-19) Vibration ov

High intraposition consensus for items with a signi-
ficant difference was found for:
0 items in comparing EM-IS;
4 items in comparing EM-DS;
1 item in comparing EM-EF; and
2 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array
with the level of significance indicated in each instance.
There were no items common to the three primary groupings

involving engineering managers.

224

 

 

Subject Areas EM—IS EM—DS EM-EF IS-DS
(2-6) Computer application .05
(2-7) Computer programming .05 .05
(2-8) Materials science .01
(2-9) Quality control .005
(2-15) Mechanics of continua .05 .005 L]
I
1
(Management) i
Id
1

Intrappsition Consensus for Individual Groups.--

 

Examination of the management items in terms of consensus
within each of the four role-definer groups gives an expres-
sion of the management subject area needs which the majority
of the members of a group hold for the Engineering Manager.

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling for "working knowledge" for 9 items (20, 27, 28, 31,
32, 33, 35, 36, 37). They were evenly distributed between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" for one item (26),
and eXpressed a pronounced feeling for "over-view only" for
13 items (21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 34, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49,
50).

The immediate superiors indicated a pronounced feeling
for "working knowledge" for 8 items (20, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33,
35, 36). They expressed a pronounced feeling for "over-view
only" for 2 items (24, 25). They were evenly divided be-
tween "over-view only" and "doesn't really need" for one

item (45).

225

The direct subordinates indicated a pronounced feeling
for "working knowledge" for 9 items (20, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33,
35, 36, 37). They were equally divided between "working
knowledge" and "over-view only" for one item (23, and ex-
pressed a feeling of "over-view only" for 4 items (24, 25,
30, 41).

The engineering faculty expressed a pronounced feeling
for "working knowledge" for 5 items (27, 31, 32, 35, 36),
and were evenly distributed between "working knowledge" and
"over-view only" for one item (28). The faculty indicated
a pronounced feeling for "over-view only" for 10 items (20,
24, 25, 30, 37, 42, 46, 48, 49, 50).

The feeling exPressed for 7 items (24, 25, 27, 31,
32, 35, 36) was common to all four groups. These items
were: simulation methods; data processing; principles and
functions of management; personnel administration, human
relations skills; performance review and appraisal; and
personnel selection and assessment.

Intraposition and Interposition Consensus for Com-

pared Gropps.--High intraposition consensus for items with

 

no significant difference was found for:
11 items in comparing EM-IS;
12 items in comparing EM-DS;
6 items in comparing EM-EF; and

8 items in comparing IS-DS.

items.

with the prevailing trend indicated in each instance.

226

The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these

The items are summarized in the following array

The

following two items (31, 32) were common to the three pri-

mary groupings involving engineering managers:

administration and human relations skills.

(2-20)
(2-23)

(2-24)
(2-25)

(2-27)

(2-28)

(2-30)

(2-31)

(2-32)
(2-33)

(2-35)

(2-36)

(2-37)
(2-41)

Subject Areas

 

Organization theory

Research and develop-
ment

Simulation methods
Data processing

Principles and func-
tions of management

Understanding individual

and group behavior in
work situations.

Production control

Personnel administra-
tion

Human relations skills
Job evaluation

Performance review
and appraisal

Personnel selection
and assessment

Supervisory training

Cost accounting
procedures

personnel

EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS

 

awk

0V

OV

awk

awk

awk
awk

awk

awk

awk

 

awk

awk-ov

awk

awk

0V

awk
awk

awk

awk

awk

awk

0V

0V

awk

awk

awk

awk

awk

awk
awk

awk

awk

awk

 

I‘ll.

(2-45)

(2-48)
(2-49)

(2-50)

nificant difference was found for: I

items.

227

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM—IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS
Advertising and sales

promotion ov-drn

Market forecasting ov

Market research ov

Public relations ov 9

High intraposition consensus for items with a sig-

0 items in comparing EM-IS;

 

2 items in comparing EM-DS;

‘fi ..

8 items in comparing EM-EF;
2 items in comparing IS-DS.
The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these

The items are summarized in the following array with

the level of significance indicated in each instance. There

were no items common to the three primary groupings in-

volving engineering managers.

(2-20)
(2-24)
(2-25)
(2-27)

(2-28)

(2-30)

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM-IS EM—DS EM-EF IS-DS
Organization theory .005

Simulation methods .05 .001
Data processing .05 .01 .001

Principles and functions
of management .05

Understanding indivi-
dual and group behavior
in work situations .05

Production control .005

228

 

 

Subject Areas EM-IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS
(2-35) Performance review and

appraisal .005
(2-36) Personnel selection

and assessment .005
(2—37) Supervisory training .05

(Communication Skills)

Intraposition Consensus for Individual Groups.--
Examination of the communication skills items in terms of
consensus within each of the four role-definer groups gives
an expression of the communication skills subject area
needs which the majority of the members of a group hold for
the Engineering Manager.

The engineering managers indicated a pronounced
feeling for "working knowledge" for 8 items (51, 52, 53, 54,
56, 57, 58, 60).

The immediate superiors expressed a pronounced
feeling for "working knowledge" for 9 items (51, 52, 53, 54,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60), and were evenly divided between
"working knowledge" and "over-view only" on Item 55.

The direct subordinates expressed a feeling for
"working knowledge" for 7 items (51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58).

The engineering faculty indicated a feeling for
"working knowledge" for 6 items (51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60),

and eXpressed a feeling for "over-view only" for 1 item (56).

 

 

‘|.0'IIII‘ All 1‘ it! I'll" Ill-III llll {ll-III. III III ‘11.]{11 Ill!

. '11,.111 I." I,"

III". i1 i ll

 

229

The feeling expressed for 5 items (51, 52, 53, 54,
57) was common to all four groups. These items were:
business letter writing; English composition; conference
leadership; effective communication in organizations; and
listening skills.

Intraposition and Interposition Consensus for Com-
pared Groups.--High intraposition consensus for items with
no significant difference was found for:

8 items in comparing EM—IS; ‘

 

".6

6 items in comparing EM-DS;
5 items in comparing EM-EF; and
7 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be accepted for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array
with the prevailing trend indicated in each instance. The
following four items (51, 52, 54, 57) were common to the
three primary groupings involving engineering managers:
business letter writing; English composition; effective

communication in organizations; and listening skills.

 

 

Subject Areas EM—IS EM-DS EM-EF I§22§
(2-51) Business letter writing awk awk awk awk
(2-52) English composition awk awk awk awk
(2-53) Conference leadership awk awk awk

(2-54) Effective communications
in organizations awk awk awk awk

230

 

 

Subject Areas EM:I§ EMZQS EMZEE IS-DS
(2-56) Interviewing skills awk awk awk
(2-57) Listening skills awk awk awk awk
(2-58) Public speaking awk awk
(2-60) Technical report writing awk awk r1
High intraposition consensus for items with a sig- i
nificant difference was found for:
0 items in comparing EM-IS;
1 item 111 comparing EM-DS; .
p,

 

2 items in comparing EM-EF; and
0 items in comparing IS-DS.

The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for these
items. The items are summarized in the following array with
the level of significance indicated in each instance. There
were no items common to the three primary groupings in-

volving engineering managers.

 

 

 

Subject Areas EM—IS EM-DS EM-EF IS-DS
(2-53) Conference leadership .005
(2-56) Interviewing skills .005

(2-58) Public speaking .01

231

Conclusions

 

Section I - Job Functions

Intraposition Consensus
fOr Individual Groups

 

 

l. The immediate superiors indicated a strong
positive feeling on more job-function items than any of the
other groups.

2. The direct subordinates indicated a strong
positive feeling on fewer job-function items than any of
the other groups.

3. There was common agreement among all four
groups on seven of the twenty-nine items, namely:

(1-9) delegate authority;

(l-ll) motivate employees to achieve objectives;

(1-18) represent engineering in management
decisions;

(l-20) assess problems and progress;

(1-25) keep abreast of the current state of the
art of management;

(1-27) familiarize himself in general with the work
of those engineers reporting to him; and

(1-32) evaluate work being done by his engineers.

Intraposition and Integposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

l. A higher degree of agreement exists between the

engineering managers and their immediate superiors concerning

1" li-lllul.'il‘ I'll." ll I‘ll! fill"

 

 

232

the role of the engineering manager than between any other
groups.

2. A lesser degree of agreement exists between the
engineering managers and the engineering faculty concerning
the role of the engineering manager than between the engi-
neering manager and any other groups. However, four items
(9, 24, 27, 30) were common to the three primary groupings:
delegate authority; keep abreast of the current state of the
art of engineering; familiarize himself in general with the
work of those engineers reporting to him; and be available
for consultation with his engineers as much as possible.

3. There were relatively few items in which the
groups showed high intraposition consensus with a signifi-
cant difference, and there were no items common to the

three primary groupings.

Section II - Continuing Education Activities

Intraposition Consensus for
Individual Groups

 

 

l. The engineering managers, immediate superiors,
and direct subordinates, as individual groups, were essen—
tially in agreement on the continuing-education items.

2. The engineering faculty indicated agreement on
fewer continuing-education items than the other groups.

3. There was common agreement among all four groups

on one of the thirty-four items, namely:

233

(1-47) attend local and national technical
meetings on engineering.

Intraposition and Integposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

1. The engineering managers, immediate superiors,
and direct subordinates, when compared, were essentially in
agreement on the continuing-education activities of the en-
gineering manager.

2. There was very little agreement between the en-
gineering managers and the engineering faculty on the
continuing-education activities of the engineering manager.
However, two items (38, 41) were common to the three pri-
mary groupings: pursue an advanced degree in mathematics
or the basic sciences; and take graduate credit work in
mathematics or basic sciences, not necessarily for degree.

3. There were relatively few items in which the
groups showed high intraposition consensus with a signifi-
cant difference, and there were no items common to the

three primary groupings.
Section III - Subject Areas
(Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry)

Intraposition Consensus
for Individual Groups

 

 

l. The engineering faculty indicated a need for
more mathematics, physics, chemistry subjects for the en-

gineering manager than any of the other groups.

234

2. The direct subordinates did not indicate a need
for any of the eleven subjects for the engineering manager,
and the immediate superiors indicated a need for only one
subject.

Intraposition and Interposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

. \‘wa

 

V -

1. There was very little agreement among the com-
pared groups concerning the mathematics, physics, chemistry

subject needs of the engineering manager. In fact, there :

 

up.

was no agreement between the managers and subordinates.

2. There were relatively few items in which the
groups showed high intraposition consensus with a signifi-
cant difference. In fact, there were no such items in
comparing the superiors and subordinates. However, there
was one item, (1-78), nuclear physics, which was common to

the three primary groupings.

(Engineering)

Intraposition Consensus
for Individual Groups

 

 

1. There was high agreement by both the engineering
managers and the engineering faculty, as individual groups,
concerning the need of the engineering manager for the en-
gineering subjects.

2. There was relatively low agreement by both the

immediate superiors and the direct subordinates, as individual

235

groups, concerning the need of the engineering manager for
these subjects.
3. There was common agreement among all four groups
on one of the fourteen items, namely:
(2-7) computer programming.

Intraposition and Interposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

l. A much higher degree of agreement existed be-
tween engineering managers and engineering faculty concern-
ing engineering subjects than between engineering managers
and the other groups. In fact, there were no such items on
which the superiors and subordinates agreed. There were no
items common to the three primary groupings.

2. There were relatively few items on which the
compared groups showed high intraposition consensus with a
significant difference. In fact, there were no significant
differences in comparing the engineering managers and their

immediate superiors.

(Management)

Intraposition Consensus
for Individual Groups

 

 

1. There was high agreement among the engineering
managers and relatively low agreement among the immediate
superiors concerning the need of the engineering manager

for the management subjects.

236

2. There was moderate agreement by both the direct
subordinates and the engineering faculty, as individual
groups, concerning the need of the engineering manager for
the management subjects.

3. There was common agreement among all four groups
on seven of the thirty-one items, namely:

(2-24) simulation methods;

(2-25) data processing;

(2-27) principles and functions of management;

(2-31) personnel administration;

(2-32) human relations skills;

(2-35) performance review and appraisal; and

(2-36) personnel selection and assessment.

Intraposition and Integposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

 

 

l. A higher degree of agreement existed in compar-
ing engineering managers with both superiors and subordinates
than existed in comparing managers and faculty. There was
moderate agreement between the superiors and subordinates.
Two items, (2-31 and 2-32), were common to the three pri-
mary groupings: personnel administration, and human rela-
tions skills.

2. In comparing engineering managers and engineering
faculty, there were more items (8) with high intraposition
consensus and a Significant difference than for any of the
other groupings. There were no such items in comparing en-

gineering managers and superiors.

237

(Communication Skills)

Intraposition Consensus
for Individual Groups

1. There was uniform agreement among the four in-
dividual groups on the need of the engineering manager for
the communication skills subjects.

2. There was common agreement among the four groups
on five of the ten items, namely:

(2-51) business letter writing;

(2-52) English composition;

(2-53) conference leadership;

(2-54) effective communication in organizations;
and

(2-57) listening skills.

Intraposition and Interposition
Consensus for Compared Groups

1. A higher degree of agreement existed in com-
paring engineering managers with superiors than existed in
comparing any of the other groups. Four items, (2-51),
(2-52), (2-54), and (2-57) were common to the three primary
groupings: business letter writing; English composition;
effective communication in organizations; and listening
skills.

2. There were relatively few items (3) in which

the compared groups showed high intraposition consensus with

238

a significant difference. In fact, there were no signifi-
cant differences in comparing managers and superiors, or in

comparing superiors and subordinates.

General Conclusion

As a general conclusion of the entire study:

1. The engineering managers showed the highest
degree of consensus of the four individual groups;

2. The engineering managers and the immediate
superiors showed the highest degree of consensus of the
compared groups; and

3. The engineering managers and the immediate
superiors showed the lowest number of significant differences

of the compared groups.

Recommendations

 

l. The lack of a strong feeling on the part of the
direct subordinates concerning the job functions of the en-
gineering manager might be a cause for concern, inasmuch as
the direct subordinate is a potential candidate for move-
ment into the position of engineering manager.

2. The relatively low degree of consensus between
the engineering managers and the engineering faculty, con-
cerning the role of the engineering manager, indicates a
need for an interchange of managers and faculty in an effort

to promote a mutual understanding between these two groups.

239

3. The lack of positive feeling on the part of the
engineering faculty, concerning the continuing education
activities of the engineering manager, warrants additional
study.

4. The lack of consensus between the engineering
managers and the engineering faculty, concerning the con—
tinuing education activities of the engineering manager,
indicates a need for more dialogue between the two groups
in order to reconcile the differences in opinions as rec-
ognized by the study.

5. The absence of strong feeling on the part of
the immediate superiors and direct subordinates, as indi-
vidual groups, along with the relatively low agreement of
all of the compared groups concerning the mathematics,
physics, chemistry subjects needed by the engineering man-
ager, warrant further study.

6. The lack of strong feeling on the part of the
immediate superiors and the direct subordinates, as indi-
vidual groups, concerning the engineering subjects needed
by the engineering manager, along with the relatively low
consensus in comparing these groups with each other and
with the engineering managers should be investigated.

7. The strong feeling on the part of the engi-
neering managers, as a group, and the relatively high
agreement between both engineering managers and immediate

superiors and between engineering managers and direct

240

subordinates, concerning the management subjects needed by
the engineering manager should be taken into account by the
university, industry, and the professional societies in
terms of curriculum development and continuing education
program planning.

8. The strong feeling on the part of all four
groups, concerning the communication skills subjects needed

by the engineering manager, along with the high consensus

 

of all of the compared groups must also be considered by
the university, industry, and the professional societies
in terms of curriculum development and continuing education

program planning.

Implications

 

Certain implications, over and beyond the study,
warrant mentioning.

The lack of common agreement in the continuing
education area on the part of the four individual groups
in the study, as well as on the part of the compared
groups, implies that much greater interaction is urgently
needed. In particular, this was pointed up by the very
limited agreement on the part of the faculty, as a group,
concerning the continuing education activities of the en-
gineering manager, and the very low agreement between the
managers and the faculty on these items. An interchange,

in terms of positions, of managers and faculty would lead

241

to better understanding of the needs of the engineering
managers. The views of industry, in this regard, must be
respected in order to meet their needs effectively.

The attendance of engineering managers at continuing
education programs designed to meet their needs should be
encouraged. Such programs would also provide insight to
both superiors and subordinates if given an opportunity to
attend periodically. These programs, multi-discipline in
nature, should be designed to promote continuous learning
on the part of the participants.

The relatively low agreement concerning the subject
needs of the engineering manager in mathematics, physics,
chemistry, and engineering on the part of the immediate
superiors and the direct subordinates, as individual groups
and when compared with each other, indicates that these
subjects are more apprOpriate to the subordinate than to
the manager. It also raises the question as to the need
for these subjects in the managerial role.

The strong consensus of the engineering managers,
as a group, and the relatively high agreement between man-
agers and superiors and between managers and subordinates,
concerning the management subject needs of the engineering
manager, suggest that the management subject area is a
criterion for advancement. The lack of consensus along with
a high number of significant differences between the man-

agers and the faculty on the management subjects suggest a

 

242

natural emphasis on the part of the engineering faculty to-
ward the engineering discipline, or lack of sensitivity to
the management needs of the engineering manager. Additional
evidence is needed in order to arrive at a judgment.

The strong feeling on the part of all four groups
concerning the communication skills subjects needed by the
engineering managers, along with the high consensus of all
the compared groups, suggest that effective communication
skills can be enhanced through courses in the communication
skills area. However, one subject of particular interest
in the communication skills area is engineering graphics.
The managers and their superiors indicated a stronger need
for engineering graphics than was indicated by the sub-
ordinates and the faculty. This trend follows the current
thinking that the computer and other devices are having a
pronounced effect on the subject.

Finally, the faculties of the various colleges in
the university must make a concerted effort to better under-
stand the role of the engineering manager and his educational
requirements, not only in terms of formal graduate and
undergraduate programs within the university, but also with

respect to his life-long educational needs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.

 

Bakke, E. W. and Argyris, C. Organizational Structure and
D namics. New Haven: Labor and Management Center,
Yale University, 1955.

Bass, Bernard M. and Vaughn, James A. The Psychology of
Learning for Managers. American Foundation for
Management Research, Inc., 1965.

 

Bass, Leonard M. Leadership, Psychology and Organizational
Behavior. New York: Harper andiBrothers, 1960.

Biddle, Bruce J. and Thomas, Edwin J. Role Theory: Concepts
and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1966.

 

 

Brookover, Wilbur and Gottlieb, David. A Sociology of Edu-
cation. New York: American Book Co., 1964.

 

Cronstedt, V. Engineering Management and Administration.
New York? McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961.

 

Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962.

 

Davis, Kingsley. Human Society. New York: The Macmillan
Co., 1948.

 

Dooher, M. J. and Marquis, V. The DevelOpment of Executive
Talent. New York: American Management Association,
1952.

 

Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Managament. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1954.

 

Dubin, Samuel S. and Marlow, LeRoy H. Research Report of
Continuing Professional Education for Engineers in

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University,
1965.

 

243

 

244

Editors of Fortune, The Executive Life. New York: Double-
day and Company, 1956.

 

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organi-
zations. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press Inc.,
I961.

Gross, Neil, Mason, Ward 8. and McEachern, Alexander W.
Explorations in Role Analysis. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Heimer, Roger C. Management for Engineers. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1958.

 

Hicks, Tyler G. Professional Achievement for Engineers and
Scientists. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company,
1963.

: fl'... «I. v-i‘ T .—

 

Hulett, J. E. and Stagner, R. Problems in Social Psychology
An Interdisciplinary Inquiry. University of Illindis,
1952.

 

Jennings, Eugene E. The Executive in Crisis. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1965.

 

Jucius, Michael J. and Schlender, William E. Elements of
Managerial Action. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., 1965.

 

 

Kahn, Robert L., Wolfe, Donald M., Quinn, Robert P., Snoek,
J. D. and Rosenthal, Robert A. Organizational
Stress: Studies in Role ConflicEZand Ambiguipy.
New York: 36hn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964:

 

Karger, D. W. and Murdick, R. G. Mansging Engineering and
Research. New York: The Industrial Press, 1963.

LeBold, William K., et al. A Study of the Purdue University
Engineering Graduate. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University, January, 1960.

 

 

Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality:'
New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1945.

 

. The Study of Man. New York: D Appleton—Century
Co., 1936.

 

McFarland, Dalton E. Management Principles and Practices.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962.

245

McGehee, William and Thayer, Paul. Training in Business
and Industry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1964.

 

 

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory_and Social Structure.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957.

 

Moranian, Thomas. The Research and Development Engineer as
Manager. New York: Hdlt, Rinehart and Winston, I963.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York: The
Dryden Press, 1951.

 

I
Parten, Mildred. Survsys, Polls, and Samples: Practical !
Procedures. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. j

I

 

 

Raudsepp, Eugene V. Managing Creative Scientists and Engi-
neers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964.

 

. A National Survey on Engineer Attitudes. Deutsch
and Shea, Inc., July, l958.

 

Rubey, Harry and Logan, John. The Engineer and Professional
Management. Columbia, Missouri: Artcraft Press,
1963.

 

 

Sarbin, Theodore 8. "Role Theory," Handbook of Social

Ps cholo , Vol. I, Cambridge: Addison-Wesley
PuElishing Company, 1954.

 

Selltig, C.; Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. Research
Methods in Social Relations. New York: Ho t,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,.Inc.,

l956.

 

Silk, Leonard. The Education of Businessmen. New York:
Committee for Economic Development, December, 1960.

 

Warner, W. Lloyd and Martin, Norman H. Industrial Man.
New York: Harper and Brothers, I959.

 

246

 

Periodicals
Bailey, Robert E. and Jensen, Barry T. "The Troublesome
Transition from Scientist to Manager," Personnel,

 

Vol. 42 (September, October, 1965).

Baker, W. R. G. "Personnel Selection and Training for En-
gineering Management," IRE Transactions on Engi-
neerinnganagement, Vol. 4 (March, 1957).

 

 

Becker, H. S. and Carper J. "The Elements of Identification
With an Occupation," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 21 (June, 1956).

 

Best, Robert D. "The Conflict Between the Scientific Mind
and the Management Mind," The Public Opinion Index
for Industry, Vol. 17 (September, 1959).

 

 

"The Scientific Mind vs. the Managerial Mind,"
Industrial Research, Vol. 5 (October, 1963).

 

Boehm, George A. "Bringing Engineers Up to Date," Fortune,
Vol. 67 (May, 1963).

Brown, G. S. "Closing the Engineering Gap - One Approach,"
Electrical Engineering (July, 1963).

 

Burchard, W. W. "Role Conflicts in Military Chaplains,"
American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (1954).

 

Chamberlain, Clinton J. "Coming Era in Engineering Man-
agement," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39 (Sept-
ember-October, l96l).

 

Chamberlain, Neil W. "Retooling the Mind," The Atlantic,
(September, 1964).

 

Coleman, A. F. "The Responsibility of Engineering Manage-
ment," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 2 (November, 1954).

Combs, Cecil E. "Decision Theory and Engineering Manage-
ment," IRE Transactions on Engineerinnganagement,
Vol. 9 (December, 1962).

Davis, Keith. "Mutuality in Understanding of the Program
Manager's Management Role," IEEE Transactions on
Engineeripnganagement, Vol. 12 (December, 1965).

 

 

247

. "The Role of Project Management in Scientific
Manufacturing," IRE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 9 (September, I962).

 

Dawson, Samuel. "More Engineers in Management," The State
Journal, Lansing, Michigan, August 22, 1966, Section
C, p. 5.

Drucker, Peter F. "Management and the Professional Employee,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 30 (May-June, 1952).

 

Editors. "Does Management Training Pay Off?" Dun's Review
and Modern Industry, Vol. 74 (November, 1959).

 

"Education in Industry: SynOpsis of the Joint ECAC-RWI
Feedback Committee Report," Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 55 (May, 1965).

 

Elliot, Herbert M. "The Transition from Engineer to Super-
visor," IRE Transactions on Engineerinnganagement,
Vol. 5 (March, 1958).

Emrick, J. T. "Training and Development of Middle Managers,"
Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 30 (October, 1965).

 

Evans, William W.‘ "The Problem of Obsolescence of Knowledge,"
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 10
TMarch, 1963).

Everitt, W. L., et al. "A Symposium on Continuing Education,"
IEEE Spectrum, June, 1965.

 

Fite, H. H. "The Role of the Management Engineering Staff
at the Corporate Level," Advanced Management, Vol.
23 (October, 1958).

 

Gaddis, Paul O. "The Project Manager-His Role in Advanced
Technology Industry," Westinghouse Engineer, Vol.
19 (July, 1959).

Getzels, J. W. and Guba, E. G. "Role, Role Conflict and Ef-
fectiveness," American Sociological Review, Vol. 19

 

 

(1954).

Given, William B. Jr. "The Engineer Goes Into Management,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 (January-February,
1955).

Gray, C. E. "The Transition from Engineer to Manager,"
gournal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 14 (January-
February, 1963Y.

248

Greenleaf, Robert K. "A Forward Look at Management DevelOp-
ment," IRE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 6 (March, 1959).

Henry, William E. "The Business Executive: 'The Psycho-
dynamics of a Social Role," The American Journal of
Sociology, V01. 54 (January, 1949).

 

 

Jacobson, E., et al. "Human Relations Research in Large
Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 7
(1951) .

Jacobson, Eugene; Charters, W. W. Jr. and Lieberman, Seymour.
"The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Com-
plex Organizations." The Journal of Social Issues, ,
Vol. 7 (1951). “

 

Jacobus, G. C. and Stephens, J. C. "The Engineer Manager:
Training the Technician for Executive Responsib-
ilities," Personnel, Vol. 30 (March, 1954).

 

Jernstedt, George W. "Engineering Management Development,"
IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 5
(March, 1958).

Johnson, H. W. "Developing Engineers for Management Res-
ponsibility," Personnel, Vol. 35 (September-October,
1958).

 

Kilgore, L. and Baker, V. "Human Relations and Engineers,"
Westinghouse Engineer, Vol. 17 (July, 1957).

 

Krugman, Herbert E. and Edgerton, Harold A. "Profiles of a
Scientist-Manager," Personnel, Vol. 36 (September-
October, 1959).

 

Levy, Alan J. "New Developments in Management," Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 16 (May-June, 1965).

 

Mandell, M. "How to Make the TOp," Dun's Review and Modern
Industry, Vol. 78 (October, 1961).

Marcson, Simon. "Role Concept of Engineering Managers,"
IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 7
(March, 1960).

Maw, I. L. and Addison, A. "Attitudes of Research and De-
velopment Management Toward Management Training,"
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.
12 (December, 1965).

249

McCormick, Brooks. "Management and the Industrial Engineer,"
The Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8
lJanuary-February, 1957).

 

 

McCallum, W. W. "Educating Industrial Managers for Tomorrow,"
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 47 (January,
1957).

Medalia, Nahum Z. "Professional and Managerial Goals in

Engineering Education: A Sociologist's Comments,"
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 49 (December,
1958).

 

Oberg, Winston. "TOp Management Assessed University Execu-
tive Programs," Business Topics, Vol. 11 (1963).

 

Odiorne, George 8. "Making Managers Out of Engineers,"
Personnel, Vol. 33 (November, 1956).

 

01m, Kenneth W. "The Role of the Industrial Engineer in
the Emerging Profession of Management," Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 7 (May-June, 1960).

 

 

Orth, Charles D. "More Productivity from Engineers,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35 (March-April, 1957).

 

Pettit, Joseph. "The Changing Status of Graduate Engi-
neering Education," Journal of Engineering Educa-
tion, Vol. 57 (January, 1967).

 

Phelps, Ernest D. "Help your Engineers to Get Ahead,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40 (January, 1962).

 

Rae, John B. "Engineering Education as Preparation for
Management: A Study of M. I. T. Alumni," The
Business History Review, Vol. 29 (March, 1955).

 

. "The Engineer as Manager," Journal of Engi-
neerinngducation, Vol. 48 (October, 1957).

 

 

Raines, I. I. and Missar, J. C. "Engineering Obsolescence:
A Challenge to the Training Director," Trainin
Directors Journal, Vol. 19 (January, 1965).

 

Raudsepp, E. "Attitudes on Education," Machine Design,
Vol. 36 (July, 1964).

 

. "Who Pays for Technical Retooling?" Machine
Design, Vol. 36 (July, 1964).

250

Rice, R. A. "Education for Specific Needs-Company Sponsored
Courses," IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 6
(December, 1963).

 

Richardson, Howard L. "Management and Engineering -
Professions of Progress," IRE Transactions on En—
gineering Management, Vbl. 4 (March, 1957).

 

 

Rives, T. C. "Management and the Engineer," IRE Transac-
tions on Engineering_Management, Vol.4l’(February,
1954).

 

 

Rosen, Hjalmar. "Managerial Role Interaction: A Study of
Three Managerial Levels," Journal of Applied
Psychology (February, 1961).

In

 

7"“?

 

 

Rubey, Harry. "The Engineer Becomes a Professional Manager,"
Journal of Engineerinngducation, Vol. 43 (January,
1953).

Schneider, Eugene. "What Industry is doing for Continued
Education of Engineers," Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 51 (December, 1960).

 

 

Seeman, Melvin. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leader-
ship," American Sociological Review, Vol. 18 (1953).

 

Shepard, Herbert A. "Engineers as Marginal Men," Journal
of Engineering Education (March, 1957).

 

. "Social Change in Science and Engineering,"
IEEE Transactions on Engineerinnganagement, Vol.
8 (March, 1961).

 

Sloan, Alfred P. "The Engineer's Place in the Future,"
Dun's Review and Modern Industry, Vol. 64 (December,
1954).

 

Smith, Elliot D. "Can the Engineer Be Taught to Manage Men?"
Journal of Engineerinngducation, Vol. 21 (October,
1930).

 

Thomas, Edwin J. "Role Conceptions and Organizational Size,"
American Sociological Review, Vol. 18 (1953).

 

Uris, A. "What's Ahead for Middle Management," Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 70 (August 19, 1963).

 

251

Watson, Dale G. "Engineering Managers - Do You Understand
Their Role?" Advanced Management, vol. 26 (May, 1961).

 

Watson, Douglas, "Engineers Can Be Managers," IRE Trans—
actions on Engineerinnganagement, Vol. 2 (November,
1954).

 

Wickenden, W. E. and Smith, Elliot D. "Engineers, Managers
and Engineering Education," Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 54 (August, 1932).

 

Williamson, Merritt A. "Problems of Engineering Management,"
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 5
(March, 1958).

. "Professional Growth - A Continuing Obligation,"
Research and Development (October, 1960).

 

Reports

American Society of Engineering Education. Goals of Engi-
neering Education - The Preliminary Report.
Lafayette, Indiana, October, 1965.

 

Consumers Power Company. Advanced Management Programs.
General Personnel Planning and Development Report.
Jackson, Michigan, July, 1966.

 

Danielson, Lee E. Characteristics of Engineers and Scientists.
Report No. 11, Bureau of Industrial Relations, Ann
Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1960.

Engineer's Joint Council. The Engineering Profession in
Transition. A Report Prepared by the Engineers'
Joint Council, 1947.

 

 

Ford Motor Company. 1967 Education Programs. Personnel
Planning Engineering Staff Report. Dearborn,
Michigan, 1967.

 

Joint Advisory Committee, ECPD, EJC, ASEE, NSPE. Contin-
uing Engineering Studies Report, 1965.

 

.Marcson, Simon. The Scientist in American Industry. Re-
search Report No. 99, Industrial Relatibns Section
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1960.

 

 

252

National Academy of Sciences. Toward Better Utilization of
Scientific and Engineering Talent: A Program for
Action. Washington, D. C., 1964.

 

 

President's Advisory Committee. Meetinnganpower Needs in
Science and Technology: Graduate Training in Engi-
neering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences.
Washington, D. C., 1962.

 

 

 

President's Science Advisory Committee. Education for the
Age of Science, Washington, D. C., 1959.

 

 

Rubin, I. M.; Stedry, A. C. and Willits, R. D. Effort
Allocation by Research and Development Managers.
Research Report, Alfred P. Sloan School of Manage-
ment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1964.

 

The Professional Engineers Conference Board for Industry.
Career Satisfactions of Professional Engineers in
Industry. Washington, D. C., 1959.

 

University of California Engineering Advisory Council. An
Engineerinngaster Plan Study for the University of
California. Berkely, California, September 1, 1965.

 

 

University of California. A Study of the Engineering Alumni
of the University of California, Berkeley: and
UniVersity of California, Los Angeles. Department
of Engineering Report, 1965.

 

 

 

Western Electric Company. Graduate Engineerinngducation.
New York, 1966.

Western Electric Company. Mansgement Develppment Programs.
New York, 1963.

 

Unpublished Materials

 

Anderson, Robert C. "A Method and Instrument for Predicting
the Consequences of Intra—Organizational Action."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1963.

Charters, W. W. Jr. "A Study of the Role Conflict Among
Foreman in a Heavy Industry." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1952.

253

Crissy, William, J. E. Paper presented at the Summer School
for Executives Conference, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan. August, 1966.

Gillis, John. "The Attitudes of Purdue Engineering Alumni,
Faculty and Students Toward the Goals of General
Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Purdue University, 1958.

Gorr, N. L. et al. "A Comparison of Attitudes Regarding
the Value of the MBA Degree Towards Personal Advance-
ment." Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburg, 1964.

Huneryager, Sherwood. "An Evaluation of University Executive
Training." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, 1963.

Ingersoll, A. C. "A Sampling of Industrially Sponsored Pro-
grams in Continuing Education." Proceedings--
American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Meeting, Orono, Maine (June, 1964).

Lesgold, A. M.; Sim, F. M. and Widmayer, L. C. Analysis of
Contingency Tables Program. Computer Institute of
Social Science Research, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, January 27, 1966.

 

Murphy, Franklin D. Modern Engineering for Engineering

Executives. Los Angeles, California: University
of California, 1962. (Unpublished)

Ritti, Raymond R. "Engineers and Managers: A Study of En-
gineering Organization." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University, 1960.

Ryder, John D. "Education for Modern Engineering." Paper
presented at the 1965-66 Modern Engineering Seminars,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
October 22, 1965.

Strelzoff, Joseph A. 1966-67 Modern Engineering Seminars.
East Lansing, MiEhigan: Michigan State University,
1966.

254

Thoma, Edward. "A Study of the Purdue University Engineering
Graduate." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois, 1958.

Wheeler, Edward. "Industrial Sponsorship of Continuing Ed-
ucation for Anti—obsolescence of Engineers and
Scientists." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Lehigh University, 1965.

APPENDIX A

Open—ended Interview Schedule

256

Open-ended Interview Schedule

Questions

1. In your opinion, what are the job functions and respon-
sibilities of the Engineering Manager?

2. In your opinion, what are the continuing education
needs, activities, and professional responsibilities
of the Engineering Manager?

3. In your opinion, what are the subject area needs of
the Engineering Manager?

APPENDIX B

Engineering Manager Questionnaire

‘7‘»

d‘d'n's-S

.
fie~ —wr—v

Continuing Education Service/College of Engineering
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

 

 

To help the University provide more effective programs in advanced
engineering education, particularly for managers of engineering, we are
conducting a research study to determine the condoning education needs,
activities and responsibilities of the manager of engineering with respect
to his professional development. In this study a “Manager of Engineering”
refers to an engineer in a managerial or supervisory position at the first line
of engineering management, responsible for directing the work of engineers

or scientific personnel.

To insure confidential treatment of your reply, the questionnaire should
be returned directly to the university in the self-addressed envelope. No
names of individuals or firms will be identified in the text of the study.
The success of this research effort is totally dependent on your co-operation.
In appreciation of your participation, a summary of the reSults will be made

available. Thank you very much for your help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1L9

Section I

Instructions: The following items represent the views of a number of practicing
engineering managers who have tried to describe their jobs as managers of a
department or unit. Your answers to the following statements should provide a
more comprehensive understanding of the job of the ideal manager or supervisor
of engineering. We want to draw upon your knowledge and experience as a
manager of engineering to determine more specifically what the functions and
responsibilities of the manager are and what he needs to accomplish his job
with maximum effectiveness.

Directions: Using the following scale, lease indicate your feelings concerning
each item. Circle one of the five num ers in the left column which most ac-
curately describes the particular job activity of the Engineering Manager.

‘3 ‘é
.. '2 3 '3 ..
3 8 = 8 3
E '5 g i E
—:- I: E 3:4 —:-
:7: g i E :g The job of the ideal manager
5, 5; i“ E :3 of engineering is to:
1 2 3 4 5 (1- 6) Plan departmental or unit operations.
1 2 3 4 5 (1- 7) Determine departmental or unit objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 (1- 8) Organize resources for carrying out plans.
1 2 3 4 5 (1- 9) Delegate authority.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-10) Coordinate the efforts of subordinates.
l 2 3 4 5 (1-11) Motivate employees to achieve objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-12) Make decisions concerning the technical work of
subordinates.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-13) Direct employees toward established objectives.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-14) Rely on specialists for technical decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-15) Facilitate communication on all levels.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-16) Manage engineers, not work alongside them.
1 2 3 4 5 (1—17) Create and propose new ideas in engineering.
1 2 3 4 5 (1-18) Represent engineering in management decisions.

 

 

APPENDIX C

Sample Postcard

ing education
are intended
r1 profess-59M]
he adra: «ing

3 concerning
ic‘h most ac-
gineering to

f.

ment 5061.9 W

ment

neCf’SSarfly
Fc sciences
ment "0t
curricula

Tties.

1888 and
naive"

“3
2e
52b
3'2
3

~58
3‘8
<5:
.40)

3 May or may not

4 Preferably should not

5 Absolutely must not

258

The ideal manager of
engineering needs to:

(1-46) Write and present technical and professional papers.
(1-47) Attend local and national technical meetings on engineering.
(1-48) Subscribe to engineering or scientific journals.

(149) Subscribe to business and management journals.

(1-50) Take time off during regular working hours to pursue con-
tinuing education programs.

(1-51) Take time off for sabbatical leave to pursue advanced de-
gree work.

(1-52) Pursue advanced degree work simultaneously with job
responsibilities.

(1-53) Take advanced non-credit engineering courses.
(1-54) Take advanced non-credit business and management courses.
(1-55) Take advanced non-credit courses in basic sciences.
(1-56) Become acquainted with the new technological ideas and
associated terminology used in engineering.
Keep updated by attending such activities as:
(1-57) Engineering lectures and seminars.
(1-58) Lectures and seminars on business management.
(1-59) Short technical refresher courses.

(1-60) Lectures in the liberal arts and humanities.

 

 

 

 

 

1 Absolutely must

2 Preferably should

NNNNNNNNN

3 May or may not

00000309

00

4 Preferably should not
5 Absolutely must not

Keep
4 5

AAAikt-k
UlUlU'lUlUlOlCfl

 

updated by utilizing such sources of information as:

(1-61) Technical and trade journals.

(1—62) Technical abstracts and indexes.

(1-63) Technical books and reports.

(1-64) Business reports (marketing, sales, etc.).
(1-65) Manufacturer’s literature.

(1-66) Business and management journals.
(1-67) Engineering consultants.

(1-68) Management consultants.

( 1-69) Other

 

 

258

Section IH

Instructions: In this section are listed specific technical and non-technical sub-
jects. Please indicate the extent of knowledge that you feel the manager of
engineering should have concerning each subject.

Directions: Using the following scale, please indicate our feelings concerning
each item by circling one of the three numbers in the left column.

To what extent should the ideal
manager of engineering
know each subject?

1 Acquire a working knowledge of
2 Acquire an over-view only
3 Doesn’t really need

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY
1 2 3 (1-70) Calculus

1 2 3 (1-71) Differential equations

1 2 3 (1-72) Linear algebra

1 2 3 (1-73) Matrix theory

1 2 3 (1-74) Numerical analysis

1 2 3 (1-75) Partial differential equations

1 2 3 (1-76) Probability and statistics

1 2 3 (1-77) Vector calculus

l 2 3 (1-78) Nuclear physics

1 2 3 (1-79) Polymer chemistry

1 2 3 (1-80) Solid state physics
ENGINEERING

1 2 3 (2- 6) Computer application

1 2 3 (2— 7) Computer programming

1 2 3 (2- 8) Materials Science

1 2 3 (2— 9) Quality control

 

 

 

fi3§a

To what extent should the ideal
manager of engineering
know each subject?

1 Acquire a working knowledge of
2 Acquire an over-view only
3 Doesn’t really need

1
1
1

p—a

y.‘

2
2

2

[O N) N) [\9 N)

[O

N)

3

3

090303

030300

030303030000

(2-10) Reliability
(2-11) Systems theory
(2-12) Energy conversion
(213) Fluid dynamics
(2—14) Lubrication
(2-15) Mechanics of continua
(2-16) Metallurgy
(2-17) Plasticity
(2-18) Stress analysis
(2-19) Vibration
GENERAL MANAGEMENT
(2-20) Organization theory
(221) Business law
(2-22) Decision theory
(2-23) Research & Development
(2-24) Simulation methods
(2-25) Data processing
(2%) Business ethics
(227) Principles and functions of management
( 2-28) Understanding individual and group behavior in work situations

(2-29) Business policy

(2-30) Production control

 

 

ark situations

GONH

258

To what extent should the ideal
manager of engineering
know each subject?

Acquire a working knowledge of
Acquire an over-view only
Doesn’t really need

[ONION

NNN

0003030000

03000003

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
(2-31) Personnel administration
(2-32) Human relations skills
(233) Job evaluation
(2-34) Industrial relations
(2-35) Performance review and appraisal
(2-36) Personnel selection and assessment
(2—37) Supervisory training
(2-38) Techniques of guidance and counseling

(2-39) Training methods and techniques

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
(240) Capital Budgeting
(241) Cost accounting procedures
(242) Financial planning and forecasting
(2-43) Fundamentals of financial management

(244) Economics

MARKETING AND SALES MANAGEMENT
(2-45) Advertising and sales promotion
(2-46) Consumer surveys

(247) Fundamentals of marketing

 

 

 

 

To what extent should the ideal
manager of engineering
know each subject?

1 Acquire a working knowledge of
2 Acquire an over-view only
3 Doesn’t really need

H
NNNNNN

l—i
[ONION

00

“00030003030300“!

(248) Market forecasting
(2-49) Market research
(250) Public relations

COMMUNICATION SKILLS
(2-51) Business letter writing
(2-52) English composition
(2—53) Conference leadership
(2-54) Effective communication in organizations
(2-55) Engineering graphics
(2-56) Interviewing skills
( 2—57) Listening skills
(2-58) Public speaking
(2-59) Rapid reading

 

(2-60) Technical report writing

5 4+ ~____

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

<_‘f.‘_ h '
_»-a_ firm-«.3.»

R.
.,.\

L": -
f ' lSection IV
s - l .
‘ {Instructions Some statistical information would be of direct value in this research

fstudy. Please circle the number preceding the appropriate answer. This informa-
tion will be treated with the strictest confidence.

2.

a

(261) How old are you?

1 under 25 years 4 35-39 years 7 51-55 years
2 25-29 years 5 40-44 years 8 over 55 years
3 30-34 years 6 45-50 years

. . (2-62) What is the highest level of formal education you have attained?
I‘ J- 1 High school 3 Bachelor's degree 5 Doctoral degree

2 1-3 years of college 4 Master’s degree

-(2-63) How long has it been since you received your highest degree in engi-

' >31, ‘ I neering?
A l 5 years or less 3 11-15 years 5 21-25 years
2 6-10 years 4 16-20 years 6 over 25 years

(2-64) Please indicate the number of years you have been with your present

company.
“ 1 under 2 years 3 6-10 years 5 16-20 years
i 2 2—5 years 4 11-15 years 6 over 20 years

«Y,

(2-65) How long have you been in your present position (level) in the company?

1 under 2 years 3 640 years 5 16-20 years
2 2-5 years 4 11-15 years 6 over 20 years
(2-66) How many professional engineering personnel are employed by your
company?
1 1-10 3 51-100 5 501-1000
2 11-50 4 101-500 6 over 1000

p (2-67) How many professional engineering personnel are under your supervision?
1 none 3 6-10 5 51-99
2 1-5 4 11-50 6 100 or more

 

groups
1 Manufacturing 3 Service
2 Utility 4 Other (specify)

(2-69) Functionally, how would you classify your particular "Poperation :(‘depart

 

ment or unit) in relation to the rest of t e organization? _ x
1 Service 4 Design and Development {
2 Research 5 Marketing
3 Production 6 Other (specify)
(270) Are you currently enrolled for another degree?
1 yes 2 no ..
(2-71) If not enrolled, do you plan to enroll for another degree? p- . .l .
1 yes 2 no 1 ‘3‘ :
(272; If “yes”.for eithero (I the two preceding items, circle a numltr for thei L
(2-73 appropriate area an a number for the appropriate level. ‘ .4”
(area) (level) . i.” '
1 Engineering 5 Additional B. S. f
2 Business 6 Masters "
3 Sciences 7 Doctorate
4 Other (specify) 8 Post doctoral

(2-74) If you had your education to do over again, would you go on to graduate -
work? (circle one) .

j—i

No, would not go on to graduate work. -

Yes, would take graduate work in engineering.

2
3 Yes, would take graduate work in mathematics or physical sciences...
4 Yes, would take graduate work in business administration.

5

 

Yes, other (specify) L

(2-75) From which State did you receive your highest degree 1’?" engineering?

   
 

 

1 State of Michigan 2 Other (specify) .

OPTIONAL ITEMS:
Your name-
Your exact job title-

Your company’s name

 

 

 

258

 

0...! -hlvllo .

 

APPENDIX D

Sample Cover Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY aasr LANSING

 

CONTINUING EDUCATION SERVICE 0 OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

We are conducting a study to determine the continuing edu-
cation needs, activities and responsibilities of the manager
of engineering with respect to his professional develOpment.

It is hOped that the information from such a study will not
only be helpful to the University, but will also be of value
to those in industry and the professional societies involved
in the planning of effective programs in advanced engineering
education.

In order to carry out this study, we need your help. Please
complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in
the self-addressed, stamped envelOpe provided.

We appreciate your COOperation and help in this project.

Sincerely,

Dr. Floyd G. Parker

Assistant Director
Continuing Education Service

Charles A. McKee
Project Director

CAM:sjm

262

APPENDIX D

Sample Cover Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 13m LANSING

 

CONTINUING EDUCATION SERVICE 0 OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

We are conducting a study to determine the continuing edu-
cation needs, activities and responsibilities of the manager
of engineering with respect to his professional develOpment.

It is hOped that the information from such a study will not
only be helpful to the University, but will also be of value
to those in industry and the professional societies involved
in the planning of effective programs in advanced engineering
education.

In order to carry out this study, we need your help. Please
complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in
the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided.

We appreciate your COOperation and help in this project.

Sincerely,

Dr. Floyd G. Parker

Assistant Director
Continuing Education Service

Charles A. McKee
Project Director

CAM:sjm

262

 

MICHIGAN smIE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llIWNWMW”WWVI”IIIIIWIWIIIIHHI
31293100459001