Hank Shakes The Technical Ladder

Abstract

following hypothetical human resources issue has, like so many of its ilk, no correct solution. To help your colleagues deal with such a situation, please tell us how you would resolve it. We'll print as many as space permits. Editor With the retirement of Tom Evers after 20 years as XYZ's R&D vice president, company management was forced to look outside for a replacement. eventually selected Henry (Hank) Sympson, a senior scientist from one of the company's suppliers. Hank boasted a long list of significant achievements, many of which had benefited XYZ, so it was not surprising that management looked to him to revitalize some of its R&D activities and improve the development of new or improved products, which had been lagging in the last few years. Hank set to work quickly to acquaint himself with the technical personnel makeup of R&D. Going over organization charts and personnel records with Pete Gettings, the director of R&D personnel, Hank commented, see a scattering of people-they seem to be fairly senior-with titles like 'Staff Scientist,' 'Staff Engineer' and 'Principal Scientist.' Who are they and what do they do? Pete explained that these were the top two levels of XYZ's technical ladder-its top technical talent. How do they get promoted to the top of the technical ladder and to whom do they report? Hank asked. Pete replied, Most of them were technically top notch and had run out of salary room in their present assignment-so we made two new grades at the 'staff and 'principal scientist' level to give them more salary room. But there is also one case of a senior researcher who was made manager of a department but didn't do well in that role. Because he had been an excellent researcher, we didn't punish him for his inept management, we simply relieved him as a manager and promoted him to a top spot on the technical ladder, which kept him at the same salary level he'd had as a manager (see RTM, Jan-Feb, 1988, pp. 52-53). The technical ladder as we use it is largely recognition for outstanding technical performance-sort of a long-term bonus, Pete explained. Technical ladder personnel continue to report to the same department they were in before their promotion to these top spots. These people are not a cohesive unit as I see it, Hank observed. They just keep doing the same research work and report in the same structure they previously did. That's correct, Pete replied. The technical ladder, as I said, is largely a reward for previous work. We expect them to continue to be good researchers and also to spend some time watching out for new technologies and also for any technologies that might threaten our business. However, mostly they have just continued in their normal research assignment. Misusing the Talent? Hank retorted that he didn't think XYZ was using its top technical talent properly at all. You are emphasizing recognition when I think the emphasis should be on utilization. You've just rewarded people for past efforts. I see the top levels of the technical ladder as a separate unit made up of folks who have demonstrated the following characteristics: * A source of sustained value creation for the company through their technological contributions. * A recognized innovator in their technical field. * A go-to person in their technical area for help on hard challenges and problems. * A mentor for young scientists and engineers. * A strategic business thinker who is adept at linking new technology programs to significant business results. * An idea leader with the skills to work an issue within the organization. also think it's wrong to leave top-level members of the technical ladder scattered throughout the organization, Hank continued. They need a definite amount of autonomy, access to resources, and interaction with top management. As soon as we can accomplish it practically, I want these folks organized into a separate unit and I want them to report to me. …