4.6. KEEPING THE RESEARCHER AT THE INNOVATION STAGE

An individual goes through a number of stages in a given position. One first goes through a socialization stage, then an innovation stage, and, finally, the stabilization stage. In the stabilization stage the individual is less creative, less risk-taking, and less productive. While individual differences exist, the stabilization stage is normally reached by an individual after being in a given position six to eight years. How a person is socialized into an organization makes a lasting impression.

Thompson and Dalton (1976) have presented a suggestion that might be helpful in keeping a researcher at the innovation stage and minimizing the stabilization process. The idea is to limit the tenure of supervisory personnel to approximately five years. In such a case, after the five-year period the individual will have to return to a technical function. The individual will thus have a strong incentive to remain current on the technical side of activities. In addition, there will be an opening so that another person can move into that particular managerial activity. There should be a budget that allows the retraining of personnel, so that senior people who are not aware of the new technologies can have sabbaticals that allow them to catch up with new developments in their fields.

Lateral transfers can also be used to motivate technical personnel. The idea of working on a new project every now and then can be quite refreshing. It provides an opportunity for the person to become motivated and avoid becoming stale. Many managers are against such transfers because they do not want to lose good people, but if these transfers become the norm for the laboratory, then managers should be able to get their share of good people in the course of the total change occurring in the laboratory.

Some organizations use a matrix structure in which the employee has two bosses: one who is responsible for a particular project and another who is responsible for a particular function. For example, there might be a project manager to whom the individual reports, plus another person in the same technical field (functional manager) as the individual, who looks after the development of his or her career and makes sure that high standards of professional activity are maintained. In such a case, the functional manager may undertake to transfer a person from one project to another in order to increase his skill. It is important to note that Peters and Waterman (1988) state that "virtually none of the excellent companies spoke of itself as having formal matrix structures, except for the project management companies like Boeing." They further point out that even at Boeing, where many of the matrix management ideas originated, what is meant by "matrix management" is not what is generally thought of. In an organization like Boeing, people operate in a binary fashion. Individuals are either (a) part of the project team and responsible to that team for getting tasks accomplished, or (b) part of a technical discipline almost all of the time. There is no day-in and day-out confusion as to which team they belong to. One responsibility has clear primacy. A matrix organization where a person reports to different bosses complicates the organization and should be avoided.

Another approach has been to institute manpower reviews designed to improve the skills of the employee. The idea is that every six months the employee discusses with second- and third-level supervisors his or her activities and reviews career progress. Decisions are then made concerning transfers and current assignments so as to maximize the development of skills.

Another idea is "career monitoring." This system assigns an engineer or scientist to a new project not less than every four years. Anyone in the same job for more than four years has his or her name sent to the chief engineer or the technical director of the laboratory, who checks to see what is happening and then makes a judgment concerning whether the particular individual should continue to remain in that job. The general idea is to make sure that assignments are such that repetitiousness and overspecialization do not occur.

Bailyn (1984) suggests that research and development organizations should develop career programs based on relevant information about the employees working in these organizations. This information would take into account the orientation of each scientist. If, for example, his or her orientation is quite academic, there would be more opportunity for the scientist to undertake activities that maximize scientific growth. On the other hand, if the engineer or scientist is not that concerned with academic work, a career that emphasizes support of ongoing research might be more appropriate.

Company or college courses or exposure to professional journals can be used to promote the career of a scientist or engineer. However, Thompson and Dalton (1976) report that they do not find any correlation between high and low performance on research and development jobs and the level of education of the individual. This may be due to the fact that to begin with, most R&D personnel are highly trained and are high achievers. In a modern R&D organization, a doctoral-level education is the norm for R&D personnel. Undoubtedly, some unique individuals without this advanced training have made, and should be given opportunities to make, significant contributions. Thompson and Dalton found that complexity and the challenge of the job were much more strongly linked to job performance than the educational level of the researcher. Such findings would suggest that an individual's success is related to how the organization structures the job rather than the educational preparation of the individual.

Providing a sabbatical leave, though routinely practiced in many university environments, has not been widely used by R&D organizations. Those individuals who have the motivation and the ability to take advantage of such opportunities should be encouraged to do so. If the managers really believe and want to practice the dictum that "people are our most important resource," then the cost of providing sabbatical leaves should be worth the investment. There should be no confusion about the extensive resources and organizational flexibility needed to allow such leaves. Excellent research organizations can and have successfully implemented these sabbatical leave programs.