10.6. GOALS OF ENGINEERS VERSUS SCIENTISTS

Most technology-based research and development organizations are staffed by engineers and scientists. In developing performance appraisal systems, differences in the goals and aspirations of engineers and scientists need to be recognized.

In general, influence in an engineering-oriented organization is largely a function of position on the management ladder, while in a science-oriented organization, it is based on the scientist's reputation in the external scientific community. Terms such as "local" and "cosmopolitan" have been used to differentiate between an engineer and a scientist. "Locals," or engineers, are more interested in working on technology that is applicable to the business aims of the company; they pattern their behavior and measure their success against internal company standards. "Cosmopolitans," or scientists, are more interested in new concepts and basic research (the focus here still can be on the business aims of the organization); they interact more freely with the wider scientific community and pattern their behavior and measure their success against its standards (Ritti, 1982, p. 372).

These differences are not so rigid as to exclude one behavior pattern from the other; rather, they are described as typical examples of relative emphases by the two groups. Both groups still desire career development and advancement in their organizations. It is important to note that some scientists in research laboratories have had extensive engineering practice experience and are able to span the boundaries between these two categories.

Scientists and engineers working in technology-based research organizations make contributions to science, which in turn is reflected in the progress science makes. Commenting on scientific progress, Brooks (1973, p. 125) states:

There are no simple objective measures of scientific progress external to the social processes of the scientific community which produces it. Thus, to evaluate scientific progress we are compelled to rely on a consensus of the scientific communities in each field ... the highly structured system of mutual criticism; refereed publications; peer group evaluation of research projects; and personal recognition through prizes, fellowships, and academic appointments constitutes a kind of intellectual marketplace in which scientific contributions are valued in a more or less impersonal way.

Thus, in assessing the performance of many scientists and engineers, their contribution to science as reflected by refereed publications, personal recognition through awards and prizes, and contribution to scientific and professional society activities is quite proper. Because these types of contributions are external to the firm, "locals" will not do as well as "cosmopolitans." In establishing performance standards, depending on the goals and objectives of the organization, appropriate emphasis can be given to these external contributions. And performance requirements can be established that accommodate the organizational goals and individual capabilities—whether "local" or "cosmopolitan."

Since most R&D organizations have both research and development activities, in addition to their scientific contributions (reflected by publications, etc.), the development of marketable products and technical assistance for product improvement should be used as important aspects of performance. In practice, there are conflicts. Researchers who work on successful development projects often feel that their contribution is not as well recognized as researchers conducting mostly basic research. Since most research projects require a team effort, one way to overcome this conflict is to have a team share in the development and research activities based on individual capabilities and interests. Rewards and recognition can then be provided to the whole team. This approach would, in turn, suggest that the best way to structure teams in an R&D organization is to have a mix of locals and cosmopolitans.